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.
Wrong. What is BS is using God as a scapegoat for your prejudices. If someone hates black/white/Jewish/fat/gay/transgender/whatever people because they are bigoted jerks, at least have the courage to own it and say so. "I hate gays, so I don't want you patronizing my business." But no, these business owners take the coward's way out and blame it on their God.
How is it not just as bigoted to hate religious persons? At least have the courage to own it and say so. "I hate religious people, so I don't want you to have the Constitutional Right to freely exercise your religion, or the Right to free speech." But no, these bigots always take the coward's way out.
I am not fond of religion nor indoctrination (degrees in "Divinity") of such.
Your posts make no logical sense.
In fact, they do. Pastor Manning is highly educated. He has a Master's Degree. Are you now finally admitting that the highly educated don't necessarily add much to society, and that it's the QUALITY of their education that actually matters?
Quote:
Are you ready to admit that religion leads to prejudice and hatred?
No, look at the bigotry expressed against those with different beliefs just a few posts before this post. And yes, I called out the bigotry that post expressed.
Should it be legal to walk around naked or to have sex in public?
This is a question which cannot be answered with your theory of morality.
And when you begin to look at most other questions pertaining to morality, you'll realize that your theory can't answer them either.
Is it wrong to steal? Is it always wrong to steal? Aren't there times when it might be morally-justifiable to steal? When are those times?
Is it wrong to murder? Is it always wrong to murder? Aren't there times when it might be morally-justifiable to murder? When are those times? And will everyone agree?
Without god there cannot be objective-morality. There can only be YOUR opinion and MY opinion.
In a secular society, which the USA is, the bold is the only opinion that matters.
MY argument, dearie, is that religion and morality are separate. And that morality exists without reference to a belief in God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
Morality does not exist in religion!
If morality is subjective, then it does not exist. Opinion is not fact.
I am not religious. I do not believe morality exists. Morality consists of individual sentiments, based on individual circumstances, always in the context of society.
If you were alone on an island by yourself, morality would cease to exist.
My argument isn't that atheists are immoral; They are amoral.
Because a morality which is subjective cannot be moral or immoral. Real morality could only exist, if it is based on an unshakable foundation. Otherwise it would always vary from one person to the next.
The only unshakable foundation that could ever exist, would have to come from god. But I never said that god and religion are the same thing.
My point is, if you throw out god, you must throw out morality by definition. Whatever morality you have left, would be completely arbitrary, and would never be agreed upon by everyone.
So whatever morality would remain, would in the best case be derived from a majority-vote, enforced at the barrel of a gun.
If morality is subjective, then it does not exist. Opinion is not fact.
I am not religious. I do not believe morality exists. Morality consists of individual sentiments, based on individual circumstances, always in the context of society.
If you were alone on an island by yourself, morality would cease to exist.
My argument isn't that atheists are immoral; They are amoral.
Because a morality which is subjective cannot be moral or immoral. Real morality could only exist, if it is based on an unshakable foundation. Otherwise it would always vary from one person to the next.
The only unshakable foundation that could ever exist, would have to come from god. But I never said that god and religion are the same thing.
My point is, if you throw out god, you must throw out morality by definition. Whatever morality you have left, would be completely arbitrary, and would never be agreed upon by everyone.
So whatever morality would remain, would in the best case be derived from a majority-vote, enforced at the barrel of a gun.
This is a fundamental and inarguable truth.
Morality does exist. Your opinion is not truth. But just as empathy exists, morality does as well. When we can imagine ourselves in another's situation, when we understand how our actions can do harm, and when we choose not to do harm, that is morality. Religion is not necessary for morality to exist. Therefore your argument regarding atheism is moot. People can be moral, can act in ways to help others and not harm them, without regard to religion.
In fact, sadly, religion is often used to justify immoral behavior. Your "point" is a function of your beliefs. You've created a framework for morality that is based on religion, and you don't seem to be able to grasp that that framework isn't needed. Morality doesn't have to be black and white, it doesn't have to be agreed upon. Human beings are wired to be social animals. Our existence depends on a social system existing. And as social beings, we have developed empathy, and we utilize it to advance our interests as a group rather than individuals. That is the basis of morality. Whether an act is moral or not may be disagreed upon, but that doesn't mean that morality doesn't exist. The fact that the question is debated at all tells us that morality exists.
In a secular society, which the USA is, the bold is the only opinion that matters.
Every law currently in existence is a moral law. If laws are created by religious people, then the laws will be a reflection of their religious values.
The United States is a democracy(or it is supposed to be). If the people actually wanted something, they could get it.
And only through massive amounts of indoctrination and propaganda by the largely atheist elites, are they able to keep the interests of the people suppressed.
Every law currently in existence is a moral law. If laws are created by religious people, then the laws will be a reflection of their religious values.
The United States is a democracy(or it is supposed to be). If the people actually wanted something, they could get it.
And only through massive amounts of indoctrination and propaganda by the largely atheist elites, are they able to keep the interests of the people suppressed.
The laws in every society are a reflection of the values of the people within that society. Religion is irrelevant.
Every law currently in existence is a moral law. If laws are created by religious people, then the laws will be a reflection of their religious values.
The United States is a democracy(or it is supposed to be). If the people actually wanted something, they could get it.
And only through massive amounts of indoctrination and propaganda by the largely atheist elites, are they able to keep the interests of the people suppressed.
Morality can, and does, exist outside of the confines of religion.
Either way, even in a religious society, the laws are made by people, not a god. That was my point.
When we can imagine ourselves in another's situation, when we understand how our actions can do harm, and when we choose not to do harm, that is morality. Religion is not necessary for morality to exist. Therefore your argument regarding atheism is moot. People can be moral, can act in ways to help others and not harm them, without regard to religion.
Do you think there were men in history who were immoral? Did they believe that they were immoral?
Do you think Hitler was immoral? Do you think Stalin was immoral? Do you think American presidents are immoral?
But did they think they were immoral?
I agree that morality stems from empathy. But even the most empathetic people don't agree with each other on what morality is.
To my previous example, "Is it moral or immoral to walk around naked, or to have sex in public?"
If you think it is immoral, then do you think people who have sex in public should be punished?
Wouldn't you be "harming" them by throwing them in jail? So does your empathy require you to never punish people for any reason?
I understand that they should also be empathetic towards you. But what does that even mean in the practical sense?
Empathy means to see things through the eyes of another. But even if he tried to see things through your eyes, what if he still disagreed with you? What if he believed nothing he did was wrong? Should you still punish him?
If you claim that if he was being empathetic towards you, he wouldn't have had sex in public; Does that mean everyone should always do what others want? Is that what empathy is?
The whole idea of empathy as a basis for morality requires that everyone agrees in the first place. Otherwise empathy itself is arbitrary and subjective, and any morality which is derived from it is arbitrary and subjective.
Someone who is beating their child could claim he is actually empathetic. Because he thinks spanking the kid for his bad behavior, will actually benefit the kid over the long-term.
My friend says the only time she ever spanked her child was when he kept running out into the street. What if by spanking him she saved his life? You can say she was harming him, and he didn't like it, but was she not being empathetic?
Everyone believes that they are the good guy. Everyone believes they are doing what is right. Everyone believes that their morality is the best morality. And your simplistic way of defining morality doesn't solve any problems, and it has no application in the real world. The real world is far more complex and nuanced.
The laws in every society are a reflection of the values of the people within that society. Religion is irrelevant.
But on what basis should you obey the laws? Should you obey a law that was only supported by 51% of the people? Should you obey a president who was only supported by 46% of the people?
There is a saying that goes, "You cannot legislate morality".
Do you agree? And if you can't legislate morality, and all laws are moral laws, then should anyone obey any law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18
Morality can, and does, exist outside of the confines of religion.
Either way, even in a religious society, the laws are made by people, not a god. That was my point.
What you call morality, is simply your opinion about what is appropriate behavior.
I agree that your opinion about what is appropriate behavior exists, because you exist, and you're flapping your gums, but is your opinion true?
It is only true to you. Thus morality either does not exist, or can't be proven to exist, so as atheist logic goes, we should assume that it doesn't exist.
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.
