Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100
That is not the least bit true. Of course morality exists.
|
I think I would be more in line with Granpa's option 3. I think "morality" is just a fancy buzz word we give to something human's do all the time. Which is formalise rules governing their relationships.
If you and I come together in a business agreement or a friendship - there will be certain ground rules in that relationship. Maybe something like "never lie to each other" or "never try to copulate with the romantic partner of the other" and so on.
When enough people come together that same practice is called "morality". It for me is just the same thing on a larger and less time dependant scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Would you trust any religion that said it wasn't the "true" one?
|
I would be more inclined to if I was religious - yes.
I would be much more inclined to go with a religion claiming -
"We have not got this stuff right - we think we are very much on the right track - but this is a journey and a search and a learning and we have nto got it quite right yet so come along with us on that journey and help us get there!"
- than I would with one saying "Yep - we got this 100% - and we are so right!".
YMMV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
It is entirely possible that no religion (and no Christian individual denomination) is 100% true, but it is mathematically impossible for more than one to be
|
Well if we are speaking of mathematical probabilities then there is a second way to look at it. Some religious are objectively less likely to be true than others. Why? Because often religion X is just religion Y+. That is to say it is religion Y with some other similarly evidence devoid ideas added.
Take Mormonism for example - in many ways it is just Christianity with some other additions. Objectively therefore it is less likely to be true than some others. People worshipping just the old testament also exist - while others the old and the new. The latter is objectively less likely to be true because it is making all the same claims as the original _plus_ some more.
One of the main differences between Protestant and Catholic religions for example is the consecration of the host. This is an "extra" in one religion that the other does not have. Therefore in relation to that claim the latter religion is more likely to be false than the former.
Basically if one religion makes claims X and Y - and another religion makes claims X Y and Z - then the latter is objectively less likely to be the correct one.
In fact - I forget what they are called - but I think there is a group of people who study all religions and try to factor out the common denominators between them all to form a single "truth" that they feel is therefore objectively the most probable core and everything else is just noise.
Of course none of that is an issue for myself as most of the above religions share a core claim. That a conscious moral agent exists other than humans. And since there is no evidence for that I am not concerned with which religion is the most correct - so much as which religion is not evidenceless nonsense from the outset. So far: None.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
It's funny to outsiders. But I would never laugh at any religious person. For some people it's one of the only positive things in their lives.
|
I do not see a conflict between those two things. Something can be a source or mirth and a source of import at the same time. My laughing at someone's nonsense - and their finding direction and meaning in that nonsense - are not mutually exclusive. And I see no benefit from acting like they are either.
If for example someone for thinks their underwear is magical in some way or has magical properties - that is great for them. It is unendingly side splitingly hilarious to me.
So win-win really. We are both getting great benefit from their magic underpants! Or haunted bread! Or whatever it is.