The Official Erik Mesoy KOs Religio-Morality Thread!

[Erik Mesoy]

Based on Perfection's famous thread, which I'n sure I don't need to point to...

The claim is generally phrased in one of these ways:
"There were no morals before <religion X>"
"Morality does not exist outside of <religion Y>
"All the evil and loss of morality in our society is directly tied to increased secularisation and the destruction of <religion Z>"
Sometimes evolution is mentioned too.

REFUTATION 1:

Behold, I have come to thee, and I have brought ma&#257;t (i.e., truth, integrity) to thee. I have destroyed sin for thee. I have not sinned against men. I have not oppressed [my] kinsfolk. I have done no wrong in the place of truth. I have not known worthless folk. I have not wrought evil. I have not defrauded the oppressed one of his goods. I have not done the things that the gods abominate. I have not vilified a servant to his master. I have not caused pain. I have not let any man hunger. I have made no one to weep. I have not committed murder. I have not commanded any to commit murder for me. I have inflicted pain on no man. I have not defrauded the temples of their oblations. I have not purloined the cakes of the gods. I have not stolen the offerings to the spirits (i.e., the dead). I have not committed fornication. I have not polluted myself in the holy places of the god of my city. I have not diminished from the bushel. I did not take from or add to the acre-measure. I did not encroach on the fields [of others]. I have not added to the weights of the scales. I have not misread the pointer of the scales. I have not taken milk from the mouths of children. I have not driven cattle from their pastures. I have not snared the birds of the gods. I have not caught fish with fish of their kind. I have not stopped water [when it should flow]. I have not cut the dam of a canal. I have not extinguished a fire when it should burn. I have not altered the times of the chosen meat offerings. I have not turned away the cattle [intended for] offerings. I have not repulsed the god at his appearances. I am pure. I am pure. I am pure. I am pure...."

(This particular Necronomicon is 3500-4500 years old.)



REFUTATION 2: The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis.

I'm lazy, go read it yourself, good night.


Oh, and I'm back here at CFC OT. I hope you like my posting frenzy. I'll probably be handing this thread over to someone else just as soon as I get bored with it; hopefully I can at least reduce the number of claims like the ones I listed above. Because they annoy me.

 

[stormbind]

Much better: The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis

 

[Cheetah]

I had to laugh a bit when I saw the thread title.

But just so I get this straight, this is a thread to prove that morality exists independent, outside and before religion, and therefore does not need to be part of a religion?

 

[CruddyLeper]

That's a refutation is it? A quote even more out of date than Republican campaign promises and a book written by a bloke that was clearly off his nut.

Hmm. I can see you're going to be really tricky.

 

[Mise]

Of course morality exists independently of religion You can follow every moral rule in the bible but still not believe in God and hence be moral without being religious...

 

[Taliesin]

That's a refutation is it? A quote even more out of date than Republican campaign promises and a book written by a bloke that was clearly off his nut.

Hmm. I can see you're going to be really tricky.

Um... you might want to be careful about disparaging the usefulness of ancient moral texts, especially those from which somewhat less ancient texts are mostly derived. Oh, and also about insulting the sanity of one of the 20th century's most respected Christian apologists.

Just some friendly advice.

 

[Keirador]

How about objective morality? Do you believe that exists outside religion?

 

[SeleucusNicator]

I would argue that a belief in objective morality is very similar to belief in a religion; i.e., while you can have somebody believe in objective morality without that person believing in a god, the kind of belief necessary for both is very similar and, in that sense, morality is very much like religion.

 

[cgannon64]

I'd like to pose a question to the Athiests who have a definite set of morals: Are these morals just for you, or for everyone? If they are just for you, why not for everyone else? If they are for everyone, why don't you chasten those who do not follow them?

 

[Taliesin]

Maybe the atheist's set of principles includes a stipulation not to impose them on others. Good atheists typically don't have morals. Instead, they attempt to live ethically, which has nothing to do with forcing other people to follow discrete edicts.

 

[cgannon64]

Maybe the atheist's set of principles includes a stipulation not to impose them on others.

Why wouldn't the athiest impose his morals on someone else? Not impose, but why wouldn't he at least beleive that they should follow the same morals? What makes them good for the athiest and not for every other person?

they attempt to live ethically,

Ethical living involves following a set of morals, does it not? Maybe not the Ten Commandments, and maybe not any set of morals that has been codified, but it still involves morals.

which has nothing to do with forcing other people to follow discrete
edicts.

Living ethically, I presume, means forcing yourself to follow discrete edicts - whether made by others or by yourself, that is irrelevant. Why wouldn't these discrete edicts be right for other people?

 

[Micaelis Rex]

I really don't have time for this, but this is just rediculous. How can you say that morality exists outside of religion without defining morality? What exactly is moral, what is not moral, who decides what is and what is not moral, and on whose authority do they decide it?

As for your first refutation, are you saying that because this guy rejected his (apparently corrupt) religion, his morals exist outside of religion at large? That is quite a jump in logic. A person's sense of what is right and what is wrong is affected by far more than the religion popular to his time and place. His values were passed to him from somewhere, more likely a mentor(s). What is to say that these mentor's values did not come from a relationship with God? Even if they didn't, you can go back another generation. You see what I'm getting at - you assume that because one's values are not derived from a certain religion that they are not derived from God.

As for your second argument, I am not familiar with that book. If you'd like to post something on it, feel free and I'll respond to that.

 

[WillJ]

I'd like to pose a question to the Athiests who have a definite set of morals: Are these morals just for you, or for everyone? If they are just for you, why not for everyone else? If they are for everyone, why don't you chasten those who do not follow them?

Um, what makes you think we don't chasten those who don't follow them?

 

[cgannon64]

Hmm, I suppose atheists do that, but they don't ever seem to suggest that their own morality should be followed.

Instead, I've only seen them chasten people who don't follow their own moral code, and them some mumbling about not imposing values.

 

[WillJ]

Hmm, I suppose atheists do that, but they don't ever seem to suggest that their own morality should be followed.

Instead, I've only seen them chasten people who don't follow their own moral code, and them some mumbling about not imposing values.

I can't speak for all atheists, but I'll do so anyway. When it comes to morality, we tend to adopt a live-and-let-live attitude, which in a way could be construed as "not imposing values," but it's really an imposition of values in and of itself, which many people don't seem to realize. When atheists ramble on about not imposing moral values, we're only considering moral values that only concern oneself (making the moral decision to not eat ham, for example)---most atheists certainly don't think murderers should be released from prison, for example.

 

[Micaelis Rex]

I can't speak for all atheists, but I'll do so anyway. When it comes to morality, we tend to adopt a live-and-let-live attitude, which in a way could be construed as "not imposing values," but it's really an imposition of values in and of itself, which many people don't seem to realize. When atheists ramble on about not imposing moral values, we're only considering moral values that only concern oneself (making the moral decision to not eat ham, for example)---most atheists certainly don't think murderers should be released from prison, for example.

OK, you're saying that your "morality" should be forced on others when it comes to society, for example, making murder illegal. That is objective morality. Who decides what is and what is not objectively moral?

 

[cgannon64]

I can't speak for all atheists, but I'll do so anyway. When it comes to morality, we tend to adopt a live-and-let-live attitude, which in a way could be construed as "not imposing values," but it's really an imposition of values in and of itself, which many people don't seem to realize. When atheists ramble on about not imposing moral values, we're only considering moral values that only concern oneself (making the moral decision to not eat ham, for example)---most atheists certainly don't think murderers should be released from prison, for example.

But, if the person considers himself immoral if he eats ham, why wouldn't he consider everyone who eats ham immoral? And if he does, why wouldn't he say that? Because it is impolite? If his morality is less important than manners, is it really morality?

 

[CruddyLeper]

Um... you might want to be careful about disparaging the usefulness of ancient moral texts, especially those from which somewhat less ancient texts are mostly derived.

I thought Egyptian Necronomicon was more of a how to guide for mummies.

Oh, and also about insulting the sanity of one of the 20th century's most respected Christian apologists.

I think I'm getting him mixed up with the Alice in Wonderland guy.

Just some friendly advice.

Always welcome. Although not always followed.

 

[WillJ]

OK, you're saying that your "morality" should be forced on others when it comes to society, for example, making murder illegal. That is objective morality. Who decides what is and what is not objectively moral?

Two things: 1. I'm not saying what I think, I'm saying what we atheists tend to think. 2. That's not necessarily objective morality. Why couldn't it be subjective?

But, if the person considers himself immoral if he eats ham, why wouldn't he consider everyone who eats ham immoral? And if he does, why wouldn't he say that? Because it is impolite? If his morality is less important than manners, is it really morality?

The atheists I speak of, which I believe are the majority of atheists, do not think it's immoral to eat ham. And they don't think it's immoral to think otherwise, just incorrect. But they do think it's immoral to think otherwise and act on those thoughts.

 

[cgannon64]

The atheists I speak of, which I believe are the majority of atheists, do not think it's immoral to eat ham. I suppose the phrase should really be "not having impository values" (although that's still impository itself, of course), not "not imposing your values."

But, how can one have any kind of morality without having impository values? If you do not beleive your values are universal, what are they?

Anyway, do you really beleive that imposing moral values is wrong? Don't you support laws banning murder and rape and all those nasty things? Isn't that imposing your moral values? The only reason it doesn't seem like that is that your values, in those cases, are nearly-universally held values. But you still support imposing them, and I imagine if they weren't universal, you would support imposing them on others.