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.
Then I guess the USAs regulations and ordinances are disqualified as a source also...since they too have given laws that sanctioned slavery.
Exactly. While I have great respect for the Constitution, I think it has provided a fairly robust and flexible framework for governing a diverse nation, it is not and should not be afforded some status of eternal or unquestionable truth. It is a system of laws, checks and balances made by men, for men. Sometimes it needs to be changed, sometimes it is ignored, sometimes it is used to justify atrocities. But contained within it are some really good and interesting ideas, if imperfectly implemented, about how to govern a heterogeneous nation.
The same can be said for religious texts. When viewed as writings by men, for men, to explain or cope with what it means to be human, there is a wealth of knowledge. There are solid and useful principles like the Golden rule, there are interesting economic principles that appear to have never actually been tried, as they don't coincide with the interests of the wealthy (the year of Jubilee, etc..), there are examples of how humanity "otherizes" and justifies atrocities committed in self-interest. There is a lot to learn from every religion's texts. They are records of human thought, emotion, reaction, and behavior and as such are valuable. But just the the Constitution, elevating them to eternal immutable truth is a mistake.
I understand it. I don't believe in the ability of man to overcome his desire without belief in God. This is a generalized opinion.
And that is great if you want to believe it, but if you expect others to be convinced you should provide some supporting evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDXNative2Houston
To the other poster whom noted that "religious" people commit crimes, etc... Well yes, outwardly religious people do, but not the true people of faith. There's a stark difference between someone who pretends or puts on a facade of religiousity in order to gain worldly favors versus someone whom truly believes that their immoral conduct could land them in some not so great places.
And we are back to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy...
Your original assertion was that morality based on religious belief is superior to morality based on other criteria. Now you seem to be trying to qualify that statement to say that moral behavior that does not meet your specific standard cannot be based on religion, which is kind of assuming that which you were asserting.
I think you need to be a bit more clear, as I do not think you believe that any religious morality is superior to secular morality. I think what you really mean is that your religious morality is superior, but that isn't what you asserted originally...
I am having to assume that if someone claims their morality to be religiously derived that they are telling the truth, as I don't know any other way to evaluate that claim. Trying to determine if a morality is based on religion by the outcome is quite obviously circular reasoning.
I understand it. I don't believe in the ability of man to overcome his desire without belief in God. This is a generalized opinion.
It's nonsense - and a lot of wishful thinking. Many believers desperately want their religious beliefs to be the foundation of all goodness and morality in the world - because that keeps their beliefs relevant and necessary. I think you're scared half to death that people just might not need your god to be good.
You're like a perfectly healthy patient taking a placebo and swearing up and down - even to the prescribing doctor - that the placebo really is medicine because you feel really good. Never mind the fact that you would feel just as good without the placebo as with it, but you just can't wrap your mind around life without that pill. You're afraid that you'll relapse into sickness if that placebo is taken away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDXNative2Houston
To the other poster whom noted that "religious" people commit crimes, etc... Well yes, outwardly religious people do, but not the true people of faith. There's a stark difference between someone who pretends or puts on a facade of religiousity in order to gain worldly favors versus someone whom truly believes that their immoral conduct could land them in some not so great places.
Heh, I always get a kick out of this fallacious argument.
Because what you're essentially saying here is that "true people of faith" are without sin. I guess we really don't need Jesus after all considering how many sinless people are running around. Because anyone who sins obviously wasn't a "true person of faith" but rather someone who "pretended or put on a facade of religiosity."
The moment a Christian does something wrong, they're not Christian anymore. They have to sit in the Fake Christian Penalty Box for awhile. That way, they don't besmirch the pristine, lily-white and sinless reputation of the religion; people like you can claim bad Christians are in the penalty box and aren't true Christians, true people of faith, and all the blame can be conveniently placed upon the shoulders of atheism and godlessness.
I do have to hand it to religion - its adherents have every angle covered. Though, having almost 4,000 years to plug all the holes, I would be baffled if religion did NOT have all of the angles covered. Given 4,000 years, I could take any story, no matter how many plot holes and inconsistencies, and turn it into a rock-solid religious ideology that even Perry Mason couldn't unravel with logic.
Anyone who says that no "person of true faith" could ever commit a sin - even an egregiously big one - is merely falling back on the numerous escape hatches religion has for ducking blame and responsibility.
I do have to hand it to religion - its adherents have every angle covered. Though, having almost 4,000 years to plug all the holes, I would be baffled if religion did NOT have all of the angles covered. Given 4,000 years, I could take any story, no matter how many plot holes and inconsistencies, and turn it into a rock-solid religious ideology that even Perry Mason couldn't unravel with logic.
Rather like the Mafia. Just another organized crime family.
Last edited by willingsniper; 05-21-2015 at 09:38 AM..
Funny. I would *not* be scared to death if there was no God. In fact, that would be quite relieving.
The fact of the matter is though, I accept the notion that there is an infinite God outside of the map of finite creation and have accepted a religion that was based on that notion. I have a true belief that I will meet this God one day and will be held accountable for my actions, with possible severe consequences when my belief was not as strong...That is much-much less comforting than believing that I could do whatever I wanted in this life with my only moral guide being "What is in my rational self-interest", and never have to face anyone for it...as long as I could avoid breaking the law or getting caught for breaking the law.
Funny. I would *not* be scared to death if there was no God. In fact, that would be quite relieving.
The fact of the matter is though, I accept the notion that there is an infinite God outside of the map of finite creation and have accepted a religion that was based on that notion. I have a true belief that I will meet this God one day and will be held accountable for my actions, with possible severe consequences when my belief was not as strong...That is much-much less comforting than believing that I could do whatever I wanted in this life with my only moral guide being "What is in my rational self-interest", and never have to face anyone for it...as long as I could avoid breaking the law or getting caught for breaking the law.
But the question is not how do you feel about it, the question is, is your behavior inherently more moral because your view of right and wrong is based on religious belief. And I submit that with the exception of specific religious ritual behaviors, the answer is probably no. This was my experience deconverting. I actually believe that leaving my faith made me a more moral person, not a less moral one, becasue my religion demanded that I hold some stances that were fundamentally unjust when not examined through the lens of religious dogma.
Of course this is all predicated on how you measure morality. Which makes evaluating claims like these even more impractical...
These are cases where things sound great in theory but when put to the test I highly doubt and don't believe people without the structure of a belief in God will truly act in a way that is not out of their rational self-interest. Take for instance the case of a very rich man dropping a brief case with $1 Million USD in it... Assume that no police force would catch you and no one would know but *you* that you picked it up and used it for your own devices. Without the structure of belief in one's life, most people would *rationalize* their *own* moral reasoning to pick up the cash. The man is rich, what does he need it for? I could do so much good with it... I'll be happier with the $1 Million than he is... Whereas to the Muslim, Christian or Jew you are stealing and you will answer for the crime. I just can't see a normal human being not succumbing to such temptations without God.
Which might be beneficial, or might be problematic. A little fear of some watching power might help hold societies together. You'd better hope people don't begin relying mostly on that fear and rewards for their morality though. Maybe they forget that there are other reasons to do things. One might reach the conclusion that is the eventual end route of afterlife-fear-and-reward-based morality, if we listen to enough people like you who don't believe normal humans are capable of overcoming many temptations without believing in a higher power, who are religious.
We'd have a society of people with thought processes like rats, more nihilistic than any atheist: Food...where food...where mate? Must find mate. Want sex but must marry mate to avoid punishment. Who mate is, is irrelevant.
Quote:
Further many of you say something along the lines of, "I do what is morally correct given the context of our culture and society." Realize something...the culture will change and if hedonism takes sway the rules, laws, regulations, cultural and societal norms will move...and it will move in a way that I don't think has a positive ending.
Yeah...there might be a risk of more nihilism if society loses a belief in a higher power.
I don't know why that's a bigger risk than my rat/human scenario above though. I think I'd prefer the narcissists who have a solid understanding of the world around them over the rats who don't think about it though. The narcissists will at least strive to help themselves...which means they could be very peaceful, pleasant people so long as you don't let them see your bank account numbers. The rats might not even attempt to improve the world for their own sake though. Their interest is the afterlife, and the rewards in this life pale in comparison to that.
Which might be beneficial, or might be problematic. A little fear of some watching power might help hold societies together. You'd better hope people don't begin relying mostly on that fear and rewards for their morality though. Maybe they forget that there are other reasons to do things. One might reach the conclusion that is the eventual end route of afterlife-fear-and-reward-based morality, if we listen to enough people like you who don't believe normal humans are capable of overcoming many temptations without believing in a higher power, who are religious.
We'd have a society of people with thought processes like rats, more nihilistic than any atheist: Food...where food...where mate? Must find mate. Want sex but must marry mate to avoid punishment. Who mate is, is irrelevant. Those who believe or desire an afterlife are rats?
Yeah...there might be a risk of more nihilism if society loses a belief in a higher power.
I don't know why that's a bigger risk than my rat/human scenario above though. I think I'd prefer the narcissists who have a solid understanding of the world around them over the rats who don't think about it though. The narcissists will at least strive to help themselves...which means they could be very peaceful, pleasant people so long as you don't let them see your bank account numbers. The rats might not even attempt to improve the world for their own sake though. Their interest is the afterlife, and the rewards in this life pale in comparison to that.
"Those people" who believe or desire an afterlife are rats?
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.
http://www.booktryst.com/2011/03/when-heavens-converted-to-christianity.html