"Without religion, there would be no morality!"

Phlegmak

Deity
Joined
Dec 28, 2005
Messages
10,966
Location
Nowhere
Can we finally put this idiotic notion to rest? At one time, there were people who lived in their little societies without ever hearing about the Jewish god that many people here on this forum worship. People in New Guinea lived peacefully in their societies. Perhaps they warred among other tribes, but within their own socieities, people got along just fine. This is obviously true about larger, industrial societies as well. They get along fine within their own societies, and make war on other socieities.

So CLEARLY, I mean 100% OBVIOUSLY, Christian morality, a belief in the Jewish god, and knowledge that the Jewish god even exists are not necessary to have morality.

Besides, morality is entirely socially defined. There are no absolute morals. Actually, now that I've said that, the entire notion that the Jewish god is necessary for morality is just moot. This argument shouldn't even exist, quite frankly.
 
So since there are moral people who do not believe in God such belief is not a necessary condition for morality.

Since there are immoral people who do believe in God such belief is not a sufficient condition for morality.

Logically therefore belief and morality are separate things.
 
So since there are moral people who do not believe in God such belief is not a necessary condition for morality.

Since there are immoral people who do believe in God such belief is not a sufficient condition for morality.

Logically therefore belief and morality are separate things.

sounds good...
 
So since there are moral people who do not believe in God such belief is not a necessary condition for morality.

Since there are immoral people who do believe in God such belief is not a sufficient condition for morality.

Logically therefore belief and morality are separate things.
That's beautiful. You said so much in those three little sentences. :hatsoff:
 
Can we finally put this idiotic notion to rest? At one time, there were people who lived in their little societies without ever hearing about the Jewish god that many people here on this forum worship. People in New Guinea lived peacefully in their societies. Perhaps they warred among other tribes, but within their own socieities, people got along just fine. This is obviously true about larger, industrial societies as well. They get along fine within their own societies, and make war on other socieities.
Question: they got along quite well, but did they get along in a manner conducive to human development?
So CLEARLY, I mean 100% OBVIOUSLY, Christian morality, a belief in the Jewish god, and knowledge that the Jewish god even exists are not necessary to have morality.
For moral relativism, yes.
Besides, morality is entirely socially defined. There are no absolute morals. Actually, now that I've said that, the entire notion that the Jewish god is necessary for morality is just moot. This argument shouldn't even exist, quite frankly.
I stab thee, rape thine daughters, and usurp the political power of the US, thus rendering me immune from your non-absolute justice.
 
And on the flip side, of course, there are theist thinkers (like Kant, many would argue) who think morality beside the point, precisely because it is objectively real but unobtainable. One of the greatest difficulties of living in the world is that it demands imperfect moral conduct of us. People who really live according to the dictates of the higher world are rare (and weird) enough that we have a special name for them, and they usually meet sticky ends involving hails of arrows or burning pokers.
 
So since there are moral people who do not believe in God such belief is not a necessary condition for morality.
Unless they grew up in a society that used to believe in God, and whose standards for morality are a "relic" from such times.
Since there are immoral people who do believe in God such belief is not a sufficient condition for morality.
Unless they do not really understand who/what God is, and unless they have totally diff. experiences that it is hard for us to judge.
 
You know in the end it doesn't really matter:

Humans----->Morals

Humans----->Religion---->Morals

They were both ultimately created by humans regardless.
 
Maybe. But which gives more support for morality?

Laws I would say. The difference being that laws promise immediate punishment for immoral behavior and are clearly set out so that all people know what is moral and what is not. Religion on the other hand promises long term punishment after one has died and I would say that in some cases its morality isn't quite clear and often subject to interpretation.

At any rate both are useful tools to control the masses. A combination of both can be useful. But I would say laws are more nessecary than religion.
 
Laws I would say. The difference being that laws promise immediate punishment for immoral behavior and are clearly set out so that all people know what is moral and what is not. Religion on the other hand promises long term punishment after one has died
What do I care for the laws that society has placed to protect itself? Why should I care about society?
and I would say that in some cases its morality isn't quite clear and often subject to interpretation.
Why I follow an organized religion.
At any rate both are useful tools to control the masses. A combination of both can be useful. But I would say laws are more nessecary than religion.
First, you are an elitist. Second, religion does a much better job, because it claims that you cannot escape justice.
 
Genocide strengthens the race.

Rape is a means to facilitate the exchange of the strongman's genes.
Genocide weakens the race by creating more enemies. It didn't work for the Germans very well. It didn't work for Serbia very well during the 1990s. But I will admit that it works more often than not. Genocide also costs money, since potential-workers are being killed, and resources are put into making weapons instead of more positive things.

Rape creates hatred and the rapist will get murdered or imprisoned. The new baby will have a higher probability of dying due to abortion. Or in some places in the Middle East, the woman dies along with her unborn baby, ensuring the strongman's genes aren't passed on.

I said:
Besides, morality is entirely socially defined. There are no absolute morals. Actually, now that I've said that, the entire notion that the Jewish god is necessary for morality is just moot. This argument shouldn't even exist, quite frankly.

You said:
I stab thee, rape thine daughters, and usurp the political power of the US, thus rendering me immune from your non-absolute justice.

What you're failing to realize, for some inexplicable reason, is that there is no society where this is ok. The closest there is is the Yanomami, and that sort of antisocial behavior brings revenge. And like I just said, those horrible things you would do to me are antisocial. There are already morals against doing those things, already created, without religion.


What do I care for the laws that society has placed to protect itself? Why should I care about society?
Because you are part of it.
 
a belief in the Jewish god, and knowledge that the Jewish god even exists are not necessary to have morality.
That's not the same as a belief in any god is not necessary.

Besides many point to the commonality among humans in various places of what CS Lewis called the notion of fairplay as an endowment from our creator and evidence of his existence. So one could say this is evidence of God, or that it is merely the result of society and there are no absolute morals. If it the result of society, then you do need a way to impose morals such as religion.

(I'm still trying to square your post with your concluding statement that there are no absolute morals. "One can be moral without religion." "Without religion, there are no absolute morals." ??)
 
Can we finally put this idiotic notion to rest? At one time, there were people who lived in their little societies without ever hearing about the Jewish god that many people here on this forum worship. People in New Guinea lived peacefully in their societies. Perhaps they warred among other tribes, but within their own socieities, people got along just fine. This is obviously true about larger, industrial societies as well. They get along fine within their own societies, and make war on other socieities.

So CLEARLY, I mean 100% OBVIOUSLY, Christian morality, a belief in the Jewish god, and knowledge that the Jewish god even exists are not necessary to have morality.

Besides, morality is entirely socially defined. There are no absolute morals. Actually, now that I've said that, the entire notion that the Jewish god is necessary for morality is just moot. This argument shouldn't even exist, quite frankly.

The very fact that religion has not in any way improved morality around the world testifies that morality has nothing to do with religion. Murder, rape, and theft go on just as before.
 
What do I care for the laws that society has placed to protect itself? Why should I care about society?

Because you live in it, and you will be punished should you fail to obey those laws.

Second, religion does a much better job, because it claims that you cannot escape justice.

Really? Then why are/were there still crimes in theocratic states in both the past and present? Take Saudi Arabia for instance which follows Shariat or Iran, despite their religious beliefs and brutal punishments, people still break the law and partake in so called "immoral behavior".

I'd like to see you try to run a state purely based on religion without any laws. The result would be anarchy whether the people following it were religious or not. Furthermore while religion promises eventual punishment it does that only occurs after you die, and you still have a chance to repent. The law on the other hand promises more immediate punishment for crimes.

And furthermore even those states mentioned had laws, because the verses of the Koran were not sufficient to keep their populace in line, they intrepretated the Koranic verses and turned them into laws.
 
MayNilad Man said:
For moral relativism, yes.
Moral pluralism is not the same as moral relativism. Besides, you can have moral absolutism through rationality alone - that's probably a better source of morality than a divine being.

Anyway, instead of arguing about this, which will clearly be a waste of time, it might be better to link to the relevant Stanford Encylcopedia article, which explains what the different classes of divine command theory are, and the various problems with them.
 
Top Bottom