Is morality dependent on religion?

[Truronian]

You are at the least very presumptuous to state that you might know that "There is no such thing as God." At the very least you might want to qualify it as "I believe there is no such thing as God." It is quite possible that God exists outside of your knowledge or experience.

"There is no such thing as God" is a perfectly valid standpoint. Its simple an ignostic viewpoint, that the concept of God is meaningless and incoherant.

 

[bigfatron]

This is just a wild hypothesis but my take on the development of human thought goes something like:

Awareness -> Language
\ \-> Abstract thought
\ \-> Self-awareness
\ \-> Empathy
\ \-> Morality
\->Fear -> \->Religion

Religion arises from the need to express morals, impose structure and address the fear of the unknown.

At each stage the next developmental step is the result of the natural selection of a trait that inproves the chance of survival for the group and gene pool.

There is an argument that eating the forbidden fruit as described in Genesis is an allegory for the development of self-awareness and the conscious fear of the unknown that resulted.

To stay on topic, if this hypothesis is correct there is no need for religion to be revealed truth for it to exist, nor does religion become a necessary condition for the existence of morality.

It doesn't, however, preclude the validity of any particular religion. It simply explains how we would have religions whether God existed or not.

 

[bigfatron]

Sorry - those arrows haven't worked so well.

What I'm trying to imply is that fear is a result of awareness, but that only with the development of language, self-awareness, empathy and morality can fear of the unknown become expressed and addressed through religious explanation.

Hope that makes sense

 

[MobBoss]

Sorry - those arrows haven't worked so well.

What I'm trying to imply is that fear is a result of awareness, but that only with the development of language, self-awareness, empathy and morality can fear of the unknown become expressed and addressed through religious explanation.

Hope that makes sense

Ron, I would humbly submit that fear most likely came prior to any of those. Fear of being eaten by a large carnivore, would lead to more awareness and language in order to survive would it not?

 

[Veritass]

Don't you know that attacking a man's sigline is very bad form?

So sorry. Didn't know that was in the rules.

Now, if you could prove the idols of christian, islamic (or any) myth are real, then we could have a real debate about this.

I would never try to prove any of these are real. Please refer to my Religious Science threads, and you will find out that I don't ascribe to this view of God at all.

 

[GenMarshall]

Perhaps I have gotten this whole "atheists cant be moral" thing wrong and judged to harshly based on the actions of one atheist I encountered.

Did I not read in the other thread that you used to be agnostic? Surely returning to the church was a moral action form you at a time when you were not a religious person.

Yes I used to be an agnostic. Even as an agnostic I had my own moral compass.

 

[countalorkrin]

Well, from what I have seen, the vast majority of non-alpha contribution seems to be waiting until the alpha male is distracted and then rushing in for a mating opportunity on the females. Sounds rather selfish to me.



Church of Satan maybe? Saw a show on it just last night and I would say that they certainly would fit that bill.

how dare you say the church of satan is immoral, all you baby killing peadophiles ( catholics) are the immoral ones. the church of satan indulges in human desires which cannot be defined as immoral or moral. and let me ask you something, do you think that an old fart who calls himself the pope and rapes young boys is moral? if you do, give me your address and i'll pay a visit and show you what morality is....

Moderator Action: Use the next two weeks to remind yourself how to stop flaming, trolling, and issuing thinly veiled threats. - The Yankee
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Meleager]

Some athiests have better morals then some christians.

Christianity isn't centred on morals anyway, otherwise I would be stuffed.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

how dare you say the church of satan is immoral, all you baby killing peadophiles ( catholics) are the immoral ones. the church of satan indulges in human desires which cannot be defined as immoral or moral. and let me ask you something, do you think that an old fart who calls himself the pope and rapes young boys is moral? if you do, give me your address and i'll pay a visit and show you what morality is....

1. Baby killing? When, exactly?

2. I don't think that the pope himself ever molested anyone.

3. MobBoss is not Catholic.

 

[GenMarshall]

how dare you say the church of satan is immoral, all you baby killing peadophiles ( catholics) are the immoral ones. the church of satan indulges in human desires which cannot be defined as immoral or moral. and let me ask you something, do you think that an old fart who calls himself the pope and rapes young boys is moral? if you do, give me your address and i'll pay a visit and show you what morality is....

Lets get a couple of things right here. Before the fertalizer hits the fan blades.

1. MobBoss is not even Roman Catholic.
2. You have offended quite a few Roman Catholic posters with the claim of that were baby killing peadophiles. Quite clearly that Catholics are in the pro-life movement. For Peadophile claim, the Chruch frowns uppon thoes priests who abused thoes children
3. The pope has never molested nor raped young boys. The previous popes, including the late Pope John Paul II frowned on thoes priests who abused thoes children.

 

[countalorkrin]

1. Baby killing? When, exactly?

2. I don't think that the pope himself ever molested anyone.

3. MobBoss is not Catholic.

well, in that bible of yours, there is a story about som eking that ordered all non christian babies to be killed. and of course the pope is a child molester, thats the whole reason he is the pope in the first place.

 

[GenMarshall]

well, in that bible of yours, there is a story about som eking that ordered all non christian babies to be killed.

Please provide me with the link to the scripture in question. Clearly there were never orders of killing non-Christian babies in the bible. You may have misinterperated King Herold's order to kill all the babies in the area Jesus was born due because there were news that the messiah was born

and of course the pope is a child molester, thats the whole reason he is the pope in the first place.

The whole reason he is the pope is that he was elected by the College of Cardinals. In your claim that the pope is a child molester, do you have any proof th back that up?

 

[civ2]

Two biggest examples why the answer is YES:
Stalin and Hitler.
NO COMMENTS NEEDED.

 

[Truronian]

Two biggest examples why the answer is YES:
Stalin and Hitler.
NO COMMENTS NEEDED.

Stalin is hardly the best example of an atheist out there. Thats like saying all Jewish people are immoral because Trotsky was Jewish. As for Hitler, he was Christian (or at least, he considered himself Christian).

 

[civ2]

So comments are needed.
OK let's examine communism and nazism.
The first was definitely an atheistic viewpoint.
And what were the results?
Millions of people killed and oppressed by a small group of "leaders".
Now the nazis also felt quite "normal" about killing millions of innocent people only for their nationality (not only Jewish - they wanted to kill others too).
So whichever pretext (political / religious / nationality) it was - in all cases KILLING is a "moral evil" which is such only in the view of religion - and not in the view of either communism or nazism.
In other words - saying you're religious and commiting massacres obviously proves the person openly lying.
Because one of the Ten commandments (also "approved" by Christianity) is "do not murder" - and both of those viewpoints caused deaths of millions of innocent people.
Stalin and Hitler were mentioned as the main personalities of their viewpoints.

 

[Truronian]

So comments are needed.
OK let's examine communism and nazism.
The first was definitely an atheistic viewpoint.
And what were the results?
Millions of people killed and oppressed by a small group of "leaders".
Now the nazis also felt quite "normal" about killing millions of innocent people only for their nationality (not only Jewish - they wanted to kill others too).
So whichever pretext (political / religious / nationality) it was - in all cases KILLING is a "moral evil" which is such only in the view of religion - and not in the view of either communism or nazism.
In other words - saying you're religious and commiting massacres obviously proves the person openly lying.
Because one of the Ten commandments (also "approved" by Christianity) is "do not murder" - and both of those viewpoints caused deaths of millions of innocent people.
Stalin and Hitler were mentioned as the main personalities of their viewpoints.

First of all, murder being a moral evil is not religion dependant. I'm not religious, and I consider murder a heinous act.

Secondly, people have different interpretations of the bible, eg. some say that it condemns all killing, while other say it condemns only the killing of innocents. Hitler could easily have twisted this to mean do not murder Aryans.

Thirdly, you cannot equate atheism with communism. While its true that Stalinism was an immoral atheist regime, this does not mean all atheists are immoral.

Finally a question. The Bible endorses slavery in several places. Does this make slavery moral?

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Two biggest examples why the answer is YES:
Stalin and Hitler.
NO COMMENTS NEEDED.

Trying to cut off discussions by making such statements (using capital letters!) isn't going to work.

Comments are still needed. Using two individuals without morals as you just did as an example for a stereotype for millions of other people is unrealistic and unfair of you.

If I quoted two TV evangelists that abused their parishioners funds, or two priests that molested the little boys they were trusted to care for, or two charismatic christians that led their flock to commit suicide would they be representative of all christians?

Of course the answer is no. Stereotypes when misused as you just did don't add any credibility to your argument, but only highlight the flaws in your logical thought process and cause your statements to be dismissed.

 

[Archbob]

It doesn't have to but if you are of a certain relgion, then your moralities are effected by it.

 

[civ2]

Truronian
The very "interpretation" made by people definitely not learnt enough (I doubt either Stalin or Hitler ever read the whole Bible twice) is the proof that when your moral is independant of religion - it turns twisted in 99%.
I didn't say atheists are immoral - I said those were a good example of how a subjective moral can turn into massacres.
Did you read it _thoroughly_ about the slavery?

Sahkuhnder
Read above.

 

[civ2]

Fallen Angel Lord
Of course it is.
But the point is that when you base your morals on your OWN mind - you are not protected from obvious mistakes.
Would it be not so - there would be no crimes in the world whether everybody was religious or not.