Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
We've talked about the existence of God, about whether or not it is possible to know this. But what about asking a more pragmatic question: Would the world be better off without religion?
Religion has without a doubt given positive meaning to millions of peoples' lives, given them hope, and given them instructions for how to live and interact with their fellow humans. But, religion has also been the cause of incredible amounts of death, suffering, violence, oppression, suppression, sexism, and homophobia. Moreover, we know that ethics/morality can and does exist independently from religion, which means people can do good things without religion. So given all of this, it is a very interesting question to ask.
While it is interesting, it is not to be confused with questioning the existence of God, as they are two separate topics. For example, one can believe in God yet not be religious. This question instead is about the amount of good versus the amount of bad that religion causes.
If you have the time, watch this highly interesting debate (whose panelists include the great, great grandson of Charles Darwin) from Intelligence Squared:
milk_manEven though they are sinful, just like everyone else. There is nothing about gay people that makes them worse than anyone else. Any true Christian doesn't treat gay people worse than anyone else.
Thank you for proving my point, you just said being gay is a sin, and no saying just like everyone else doesn't negate the point you just made.
You just said being gay is worse and more sinful than being in a straight marriage. That's the issue at its core right there, and that's why a huge amount of Christians in America discriminate against them.
nocturnalExactly wanting to help people, weather helping people gives you a good feeling or whatever your reason is. Not to please someone who sits up in the clouds because it's what he wants. I think those are two very different ways of thinking and it definitely matters.
californiagrownEverything I said went right over your head.
But I'll humor you. Why does it matter?
I completely get what you're saying you're saying people only do nice things for themselves and thats selfish, and there are people out there who do nice things that are Cristian not because it's what God wants but it's because it's what they want.
Because as milk explained he is extra nice to gay people because it's sin and they live sinful lives but being nice to gay people and other sinners is what Jesus wants. You don't see anything wrong with that?
nocturnalI completely get what you're saying you're saying people only do nice things for themselves and thats selfish, and there are people out there who do nice things that are Cristian not because it's what God wants but it's because it's what they want.
Because as milk explained he is extra nice to gay people because it's sin and they live sinful lives but being nice to gay people and other sinners is what Jesus wants. You don't see anything wrong with that?
No i do not.
Additionally i can see instances where being religous would compel you to do the charitable, peaceful thing when simple conscience wouldn't eg. the whol give thy enemy the other cheek kinda thing.
It aint all bad homie. lighten up and accept that good people do good things, and bad people do bad things. everything else is ancillary.
nocturnalThank you for proving my point, you just said being gay is a sin, and no saying just like everyone else doesn't negate the point you just made.
You just said being gay is worse and more sinful than being in a straight marriage. That's the issue at its core right there, and that's why a huge amount of Christians in America discriminate against them.
Do you know how to read? I said being gay is no worse than any other sin. People in a straight marriage sin, too. Therefore neither one is better than another.
milk_manDo you know how to read? I said being gay is no worse than any other sin. People in a straight marriage sin, too. Therefore neither one is better than another.
Yeah but the gay sin continues on and on and on, and christians see it as an affront to god that those couples dont give two shits if they are "sinning".
Lotsa christians like to get on their high horse about a lot of shit, Why the fuck havent they tried to outlaw pre-marital sex? The stand-your-ground law? any other religon that whorships false idols?
oh, thats right... because gays are easy to persecute and have been persecuted for ever.
californiagrownYeah but the gay sin continues on and on and on, and christians see it as an affront to god that those couples dont give two shits if they are "sinning".
Lotsa christians like to get on their high horse about a lot of shit, Why the fuck havent they tried to outlaw pre-marital sex? The stand-your-ground law? any other religon that whorships false idols?
oh, thats right... because gays are easy to persecute and have been persecuted for ever.
Well the simple answer to that question is because they would never be able to outlaw something so broad and variable.
But the Christians didn't necessarily want gay marriage "outlawed." They just didn't want it to become legal. There's a pretty big difference
Additionally i can see instances where being religous would compel you to do the charitable, peaceful thing when simple conscience wouldn't eg. the whol give thy enemy the other cheek kinda thing.
It aint all bad homie. lighten up and accept that good people do good things, and bad people do bad things. everything else is ancillary.
I'm not saying that all religion is all bad, they're definitely a lot of positive things that come out of it, but when you look at religion since the beginning of humanity. That's where my arguments coming from.
milk_manWell the simple answer to that question is because they would never be able to outlaw something so broad and variable.
But the Christians didn't necessarily want gay marriage "outlawed." They just didn't want it to become legal. There's a pretty big difference
youre right. And racists didnt want to outlaw black voting rights, they just didnt want to make it legal for blacks to vote. Theres a pretty big difference.
Still unadulterated bigotry. sorry bud.
Why are Christians okay with contraception being sold? thats some unatural, sinful shit.
Here's a question. Would have the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks crashed those planes into the WTC knowing there was no afterlife awaiting them? Would have soldiers from around the world thrown themselves into battle as willingly if they knew when they died it was game over? How would have this effected what we see the world as today? No doubt our world would have been vastly different without the advent of religion. And since physicists are lazy and haven't got around to answering the multiverse theory yet, we can not possibly know what would have ensued if religion never formed. There are simply to many variables for any one of us to come up with anything more than a guess.
JustGoWithItHere's a question. Would have the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks crashed those planes into the WTC knowing there was no afterlife awaiting them? Would have soldiers from around the world thrown themselves into battle as willingly if they knew when they died it was game over?
1) yes, very likely they would have. they wanted to hurt the USA, pure and simple. their families were richly rewarded for their acts as well.
2) yes. Athiests and non-believers have and will continue to die fighting wars for ideological, and patriotic reasons.
NS member/mod J.D. posted this in the thread on terrorist attacks in Paris, thought it was relevant for our discussion here:
"I don't think it's generalizing. There are specific doctrines within Islam that are highly problematic and the moderates you refer to need to recognize this and address them head on, instead of saying things like "these attacks had nothing to do with Islam" (a blatant lie), and distracting from the underlying problem by worrying about backlash against Muslims.
These Muslim doctrines are different from doctrines in other religions - that should be obvious, because the Quran and Bible (or any other religious text) are different books with different religious rules. There are also certain basic underlying facts about Islam that differentiate it from other religions - as you identify, Christianity had its crusades, and its inquisition, and there was a reformation, where Islam has not been reformed. Part of that is because Islam, uniquely among Abrahamic religions, claims to be God's final word - in the case of Christianity and Judaism, at least, we're waiting for something more. That has its own problems, but the point is, we're dealing with different challenges in confronting Islam than we are with other religions. They're not the same. Treating them the same is lying to oneself.
One of the key differences is where Islam comes from. Muhammad is not Jesus. Muhammad was a very successful warlord, which is why Islam was successful. He was able to successfully defeat numerous enemies, and in the process gain a number of followers. This is inherently problematic, because following in the footsteps of a medieval warlord, treating this person as your moral guide, is not going to yield acceptable social behaviour in the 21st century. I'm honestly surprised you even raised the Hadiths; there is a lot in there that is horrifying. The fact that ISIS routinely enslaves women and rapes them daily... they're not doing anything that Muhammad and his followers didn't do during their conquests. This reveals a further issue: there is nothing that ISIS is doing that isn't eminently justifiable under Islamic doctrine. Murdering gay people by throwing them off of rooftops is prescribed in the hadiths. Cutting off the hands of thieves, as Saudi Arabia is often referred to for, is similarly prescribed. Moderate Muslims will point to many of these doctrines and say that ISIS is misinterpreting them in the most heinous, overly literal fashion, but the problem is that ISIS's interpretation is pretty reasonable just from the words on the page, which are supposedly the literal word of God. So convincing them they're wrong to read the holy scriptures that way becomes pretty difficult.
Next thing I'd note is that I don't really know what you mean by "extremist". Maajid Nawaz has some helpful terminology here. He differentiates between Islamists, who take the view that society should be governed under Islamic law to some extent, and Jihadists, who think the same but that this Islamic rule must be brought about by force (namely, Jihad). Both of those pose problems, and while Jihadists are obviously "extremists", you could argue that Islamists are too, and here, pew polls are absolutely revealing. There is an alarming percentage of the population of, for example, Pakistan or even southeast Asian muslim majority countries that will say the punishment for apostasy (leaving the Muslim faith) should be death. Are those people extremists? If so, there are tens of millions of extremists, if not hundreds of millions. You mention "cherry picking" parts of the picture, but that is precisely what we need to do. Islam, or any religion, is a collection of doctrines. It's a set of ideas, or rules, particularly when we come to Sharia, and we do need to cherry pick because a really devoted Muslim who really treats this as the word of God is going to subscribe to all of it. So if there are 90 completely acceptable moral rules, and then ten that are horrifying, we need to talk about the ten that are horrifying and deal with those before more gays get thrown off of rooftops.
As a result I don't think the word "extremist" is very helpful. "Extremism" is only a problem depending on the things you take to the extreme, just like "religious fundamentalism" is only a problem depending on the fundamentals of your religion. The more fundamentalist you are as a follower of Jainism, the less we need to worry about you hurting innocent people, for example.
Sad to say, but the reality of the situation is that what we saw in Paris today is a lovely Sunday afternoon picnic compared to the horror that we might laughing refer to as the lives of women and other vulnerable groups in certain areas dominated by fundamentalist Islam. The practice of acid-throwing is perhaps the most jarring example; girls permanently disfigured because their attackers feel that women should not learn how to read.
It is absolutely infuriating to know that this behaviour exists. The worst sufferers of Islamism in the world are actually Muslim. These problems need to be solved for their sake as much as for the Western world's sake, and that starts by being honest about what the problem is, and not trying to figure out how to be sensitive to a religious group. A religion is just a set of ideas and all ideas exist to be criticized."
nocturnalI completely get what you're saying you're saying people only do nice things for themselves and thats selfish, and there are people out there who do nice things that are Cristian not because it's what God wants but it's because it's what they want.
Because as milk explained he is extra nice to gay people because it's sin and they live sinful lives but being nice to gay people and other sinners is what Jesus wants. You don't see anything wrong with that?
californiagrownNo i do not.
Additionally i can see instances where being religous would compel you to do the charitable, peaceful thing when simple conscience wouldn't eg. the whol give thy enemy the other cheek kinda thing.
It aint all bad homie. lighten up and accept that good people do good things, and bad people do bad things. everything else is ancillary.
Nocturnal does have a point- our motives/intentions do play a big role in the judging/critiquing the morality of an event. Actions on their own, while important, are not the only thing that matters.
For example, if someone does a good deed accidentally or without knowing it, are they considered a good person? Or even more to the point, what if they try to do something immoral but make a mistake and end up doing something good for someone? Would they be considered a good person?
In regards to judging the morality of an event, the motives & intentions of the agent are just as important as the act itself. However, if you only care only about upping the social utility of a moral action (did it move the needle in a positive instead of negative direction) then I guess it doesn't matter for you.
onenerdykidNS member/mod J.D. posted this in the thread on terrorist attacks in Paris, thought it was relevant for our discussion here:
"I don't think it's generalizing. There are specific doctrines within Islam that are highly problematic and the moderates you refer to need to recognize this and address them head on, instead of saying things like "these attacks had nothing to do with Islam" (a blatant lie), and distracting from the underlying problem by worrying about backlash against Muslims.
These Muslim doctrines are different from doctrines in other religions - that should be obvious, because the Quran and Bible (or any other religious text) are different books with different religious rules. There are also certain basic underlying facts about Islam that differentiate it from other religions - as you identify, Christianity had its crusades, and its inquisition, and there was a reformation, where Islam has not been reformed. Part of that is because Islam, uniquely among Abrahamic religions, claims to be God's final word - in the case of Christianity and Judaism, at least, we're waiting for something more. That has its own problems, but the point is, we're dealing with different challenges in confronting Islam than we are with other religions. They're not the same. Treating them the same is lying to oneself.
One of the key differences is where Islam comes from. Muhammad is not Jesus. Muhammad was a very successful warlord, which is why Islam was successful. He was able to successfully defeat numerous enemies, and in the process gain a number of followers. This is inherently problematic, because following in the footsteps of a medieval warlord, treating this person as your moral guide, is not going to yield acceptable social behaviour in the 21st century. I'm honestly surprised you even raised the Hadiths; there is a lot in there that is horrifying. The fact that ISIS routinely enslaves women and rapes them daily... they're not doing anything that Muhammad and his followers didn't do during their conquests. This reveals a further issue: there is nothing that ISIS is doing that isn't eminently justifiable under Islamic doctrine. Murdering gay people by throwing them off of rooftops is prescribed in the hadiths. Cutting off the hands of thieves, as Saudi Arabia is often referred to for, is similarly prescribed. Moderate Muslims will point to many of these doctrines and say that ISIS is misinterpreting them in the most heinous, overly literal fashion, but the problem is that ISIS's interpretation is pretty reasonable just from the words on the page, which are supposedly the literal word of God. So convincing them they're wrong to read the holy scriptures that way becomes pretty difficult.
Next thing I'd note is that I don't really know what you mean by "extremist". Maajid Nawaz has some helpful terminology here. He differentiates between Islamists, who take the view that society should be governed under Islamic law to some extent, and Jihadists, who think the same but that this Islamic rule must be brought about by force (namely, Jihad). Both of those pose problems, and while Jihadists are obviously "extremists", you could argue that Islamists are too, and here, pew polls are absolutely revealing. There is an alarming percentage of the population of, for example, Pakistan or even southeast Asian muslim majority countries that will say the punishment for apostasy (leaving the Muslim faith) should be death. Are those people extremists? If so, there are tens of millions of extremists, if not hundreds of millions. You mention "cherry picking" parts of the picture, but that is precisely what we need to do. Islam, or any religion, is a collection of doctrines. It's a set of ideas, or rules, particularly when we come to Sharia, and we do need to cherry pick because a really devoted Muslim who really treats this as the word of God is going to subscribe to all of it. So if there are 90 completely acceptable moral rules, and then ten that are horrifying, we need to talk about the ten that are horrifying and deal with those before more gays get thrown off of rooftops.
As a result I don't think the word "extremist" is very helpful. "Extremism" is only a problem depending on the things you take to the extreme, just like "religious fundamentalism" is only a problem depending on the fundamentals of your religion. The more fundamentalist you are as a follower of Jainism, the less we need to worry about you hurting innocent people, for example.
Sad to say, but the reality of the situation is that what we saw in Paris today is a lovely Sunday afternoon picnic compared to the horror that we might laughing refer to as the lives of women and other vulnerable groups in certain areas dominated by fundamentalist Islam. The practice of acid-throwing is perhaps the most jarring example; girls permanently disfigured because their attackers feel that women should not learn how to read.
It is absolutely infuriating to know that this behaviour exists. The worst sufferers of Islamism in the world are actually Muslim. These problems need to be solved for their sake as much as for the Western world's sake, and that starts by being honest about what the problem is, and not trying to figure out how to be sensitive to a religious group. A religion is just a set of ideas and all ideas exist to be criticized."
milk_manDo you know how to read? I said being gay is no worse than any other sin. People in a straight marriage sin, too. Therefore neither one is better than another.
If Jesus died for our sins, and believing in Jesus forgives our sins, then why does it matter if a person is gay or whatever. All they need to do is believe in jesus to be forgiven.
S.J.WIf Jesus died for our sins, and believing in Jesus forgives our sins, then why does it matter if a person is gay or whatever. All they need to do is believe in jesus to be forgiven.
You can murder, rape, steal, and torture people and still get into heaven but hey! You better not use your mind to question my exsistane or you'll burn in hell for eternity.
S.J.WIf Jesus died for our sins, and believing in Jesus forgives our sins, then why does it matter if a person is gay or whatever. All they need to do is believe in jesus to be forgiven.
JGWIYou can murder, rape, steal, and torture people and still get into heaven but hey! You better not use your mind to question my exsistane or you'll burn in hell for eternity.
No you don't just have to believe in God and then you go to heaven.
"You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that that faith without deeds is useless?" James 2:19-20
Believing in Jesus doesn't make your sins forgiven. Repenting does :)
milk_manNo you don't just have to believe in God and then you go to heaven.
"You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that that faith without deeds is useless?" James 2:19-20
Believing in Jesus doesn't make your sins forgiven. Repenting does :)
Does that make me doubly doomed? I don't believe nor even if I did would I repent.
milk_manNo you don't just have to believe in God and then you go to heaven.
"You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that that faith without deeds is useless?" James 2:19-20
Believing in Jesus doesn't make your sins forgiven. Repenting does :)
wearing two different fabrics is a sin, so in for a penny in for pound. Either way I'm going to hell so might as well sin as much as possible. :) :) :)
JGWIDoes that make me doubly doomed? I don't believe nor even if I did would I repent.
You've got (hopefully) a lot of life ahead of you to think about it more man.
S.J.Wwearing two different fabrics is a sin, so in for a penny in for pound. Either way I'm going to hell so might as well sin as much as possible. :) :) :)
We can discuss what what a sin actually is in the new covenant. But basically, that's extremely far from the truth. The Ten Commandments will give you a good picture of what a sin is, not the book of exodus.
milk_manYou've got (hopefully) a lot of life ahead of you to think about it more man.
We can discuss what what a sin actually is in the new covenant. But basically, that's extremely far from the truth. The Ten Commandments will give you a good picture of what a sin is, not the book of exodus.
pretty sure I don't see being gay as a sin in the 10 commandments...
milk_manWe can discuss what what a sin actually is in the new covenant. But basically, that's extremely far from the truth. The Ten Commandments will give you a good picture of what a sin is, not the book of exodus.
Actually, Jesus says “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place” (Matthew 5:17). When Jesus talks about the law or references scripture, he is always referring to the Old Testament since the New Testament doesn't exist as scripture yet. According to Jesus, the Old Testament still holds true (he's going to add to it though). So if you think that Exodus or Deuteronomy or Leviticus don't pertain to Christians, you're either wrong or you don't think that Jesus was right. Either way, you've got a not-so-small theological dilemma to work out.
The very concept of sin is in itself insulting. Through no fault of our own we are created sick, we are commanded to get well, we are commanded to love Him for it, and if not we will suffer in hell for all of eternity. That's hardly perfect love- it's more akin to totalitarianism. And all of this coming from a supposedly absolutely perfect being in all regards (perfectly all-knowing, perfectly all-powerful, perfectly benevolent, truly everywhere, etc). If anyone seriously believes that such God is absolutely perfect in all regards, then you don't understand just how good such a being would actually be- i.e. he wouldn't throw a temper tantrum and toss you in a firey hell for all of eternity just because you don't automatically love him for making you sick. However, if this is true, then God is not absolutely perfect in all regards. He is just super super powerful (but not all-powerful), mostly good but with a huge, vengeful chip on his shoulder, and with limited knowledge (since he doesn't already know that I am not going accept his ridiculous demands).
milk_manThe Ten Commandments will give you a good picture of what a sin is, not the book of exodus.
Also, not to say that they're aren't any good prescriptions of how to live our lives within the Ten Commandments, it should strike us as weird that this is the 2nd commandment: "Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image". Out of all possible immoral things we are capable of committing, this is really the second most important thing we should concern ourselves with?
S.J.Wpretty sure I don't see being gay as a sin in the 10 commandments...
It would fall under adultery
onenerdykidActually, Jesus says “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place” (Matthew 5:17). When Jesus talks about the law or references scripture, he is always referring to the Old Testament since the New Testament doesn't exist as scripture yet. According to Jesus, the Old Testament still holds true (he's going to add to it though). So if you think that Exodus or Deuteronomy or Leviticus don't pertain to Christians, you're either wrong or you don't think that Jesus was right. Either way, you've got a not-so-small theological dilemma to work out.
The Ten Commandments are the law of the Old Testament that Jesus is talking about. Otherwise theologians also say that he is simply saying that he is not abolishing it; but he's not saying that it is all to be strictly followed. In Acts 10:14 Jesus tells Peter to kill a forbidden animal and eat it. Peter says, "surely not, Lord! I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." The voice from heaven said, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
The Ten Commandments are of the Old Testament, and that is the law that still applies.
onenerdykidAlso, not to say that they're aren't any good prescriptions of how to live our lives within the Ten Commandments, it should strike us as weird that this is the 2nd commandment: "Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image". Out of all possible immoral things we are capable of committing, this is really the second most important thing we should concern ourselves with?
They are not in order of importance. Jesus was asked by an expert in the law which commandment is greatest. Jesus told him, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments."
The Ten Commandments are the law of the Old Testament that Jesus is talking about. Otherwise theologians also say that he is simply saying that he is not abolishing it; but he's not saying that it is all to be strictly followed. In Acts 10:14 Jesus tells Peter to kill a forbidden animal and eat it. Peter says, "surely not, Lord! I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." The voice from heaven said, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
The Ten Commandments are of the Old Testament, and that is the law that still applies.
They are not in order of importance. Jesus was asked by an expert in the law which commandment is greatest. Jesus told him, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments."
If I number your arguments as to avoid confusion:
1. Homosexuality does not necessarily fall under adultery. Any claim as such is grasping blindly into thin air. Nowhere within the concept of homosexuality is the concept of adultery. Adultery is not a necessary condition for the existence of homosexuality. To say that all homosexuality amounts to adultery shows a lack of understanding of each concept- no matter which religion you follow. You can argue that it is immoral, but that it always amounts to adultery is simply not correct.
2. God has commanded many things in addition to the Ten Commandments. This means that there are many laws that God wants us follow, but only ten which are written by and given by God Himself. So, it is definitely a mistake to think that the only "laws" Jesus is referring to are limited to the Ten Commandments. It is like saying that the US Constitution is the only group of laws in the US- no, there are many laws in the US in addition to the Constitution. The Constitution just happens to be the main set, just as the Ten Commandments are the main set for Christianity. This is why both St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine referred to God's laws not always in limited reference to the Ten Commandments.
3. The Commandments are the only instructions actually written by and given by God Himself. However noble it is, "love thy neighbor as thyself" is not one of the original Commandments. That is not to say it is not a law, according to God. This just goes back to my above point that the Commandments are not the only laws within Christianity. They are merely the only ones written by and given by God Himself.
200 years ago people didn't know enough to not be religious. They couldn't understand the world around them so they reverted to faith. Their fear of whatever diety they believed in helped to keep them in line and imo helped society to function better.
However, in 2016 IN MY OPINION we know enough to know there's other reasons why things happen (naturally). Now idc if you believe in God... But I don't think the pros of religion outweigh the current cons of religion. Political division is at least moderately based on religion... Obviously extremism sucks. The things that people say, do, and prevent others from doing based on their faith is just whacky to me. It doesn't serve the wholesome purpose it did hundreds of years ago for most.
200 years ago people didn't know enough to not be religious. They couldn't understand the world around them so they reverted to faith. Their fear of whatever diety they believed in helped to keep them in line and imo helped society to function better.
I think it was more that 200-400 years ago, society didn't allow people to be otherwise. The Catholic Church tried and convicted Galileo of heresy for teaching the heliocentric model of the universe for which he spent the remaining years of his life under house arrest, until his death. When high profile and wealthy people like Galileo are getting locked up (or worse), the common people lived in fear of not following the Church and as such, they obediently fell in line. Furthermore, this is a time period when owning a Bible and/or translating a Bible was illegal and punishable by death. Common people were not allowed to educate themselves on their religion- they were forced to rely on the Church itself for instruction.
So for the educated, the knowledge was there, but the punishments for publicly following it were quite severe. For the uneducated, not only was the knowledge not there but there were deadly punishments for those attempting to figure it out.
The ten commandments are a joke. The first four are sycophancy and not a single one of them speaks against slavery, which is condoned elsewhere in the bible. That alone is enough for me to disregard any attempt by anyone to use the bible as a moral compass or justification.
minihefThe ten commandments are a joke. The first four are sycophancy and not a single one of them speaks against slavery, which is condoned elsewhere in the bible. That alone is enough for me to disregard any attempt by anyone to use the bible as a moral compass or justification.
What is a good basis for a person's moral compass in your opinion?
I'm more than okay with a girl rubbing up against my junk. Does that mean it's cool to rub up against her? In this case, reason would say yes, and as long as her boyfriend wasn't around reason would say I'm good to go!
Additionally, reason and the golden rule are very often at odds with each other. Reason would say that I should never help others unless I know I will be rewarded.
californiagrownReason is subjective, and so is the golden rule.
I'm more than okay with a girl rubbing up against my junk. Does that mean it's cool to rub up against her? In this case, reason would say yes, and as long as her boyfriend wasn't around reason would say I'm good to go!
Additionally, reason and the golden rule are very often at odds with each other. Reason would say that I should never help others unless I know I will be rewarded.
Correct! Reason is subjective as is the golden rule when dealing with situations as you described. I'd actually argue that morality is subjective because the vast majority of people religious or not get their sense of morality not from the scriptures of their religion but rather through reason annnnnnd the golden rule. I don't want to be be robbed, therefor I don't rob people. I don't want to be murdered nor do I want anyone I care about to be murdered because I know how much it hurts, therefor I don't murder because I recognize that others are just as sentient as I am. Some people don't understand this and or don't care therefor they murder and steal without thinking twice about it. And perhaps as you described, some don't have a problem with being robbed or murdered or raped or mugged eat... Therefor they don't see the wrong in doing it, but that to me would seem a rather rare thing.
I personally am a proponent of utilitarianism so if I had to choose a system to replace religion as a moral compass it would be a maluable form of Act Utilitariansm.
The story of Jesus is almost a direct copy of the story of Horace. Actually many cultures have copied and adapted their Gods/scriptures from Egyptian stories.
californiagrownReason is subjective, and so is the golden rule.
I'm more than okay with a girl rubbing up against my junk. Does that mean it's cool to rub up against her? In this case, reason would say yes, and as long as her boyfriend wasn't around reason would say I'm good to go!
Additionally, reason and the golden rule are very often at odds with each other. Reason would say that I should never help others unless I know I will be rewarded.
Practical reason (that reason that is directed towards action) is bound up with a mixture of fact and opinion. It is not as certain as mathematics, but once you start arguing from certain definitions, certain conclusions will follow. For example, if you believe that people by definition are autonomous beings, then it would be wrong for you act in a way that removed the autonomy from another person (i.e. you are free in so far as you cannot infringe on another's freedom). You would be acting in direct opposition to that which defines us. Or if you believe that we should be maximizing human flourishing and minimizing human suffering, then there are also moral consequences to that.
The "Golden Rule" is a good beginner's starter-kit to morality. It existed in writing hundreds of years prior to Christ and some philosophers (notably Kant) argue that it is simply a result of using practical reason, specifically the categorical imperative- act only in such a way that you can will the reasons for your actions to be universal laws for all rational beings. If something is ok for all humans to do (i.e. tell the truth) then by definition it is ok for you too (thereby fulfilling the Golden Rule). Kant's moral philosophy generally supplies the foundation for our modern concepts of autonomy, dignity, and inherent moral value. And in no way are such things as rape, slavery, genocide, or any type of moral inequality (among rational beings) permissible. I would say that is a pretty good start to solving a lot of the world's current problems and vastly superior to any moral teachings in religion.
JGWII don't want to be murdered nor do I want anyone I care about to be murdered because I know how much it hurts, therefor I don't murder because I recognize that others are just as sentient as I am. Some people don't understand this and or don't care therefor they murder and steal without thinking twice about it. And perhaps as you described, some don't have a problem with being robbed or murdered or raped or mugged eat... Therefor they don't see the wrong in doing it, but that to me would seem a rather rare thing.
I personally am a proponent of utilitarianism so if I had to choose a system to replace religion as a moral compass it would be a maluable form of Act Utilitariansm.
I would argue the reason those above acts are always wrong is that they violate the categorical imperative- you cannot make murder a law for all people to follow (I hope that is obvious), same for stealing, or lying, or cheating, or name-any-vice-here, they all become obsolete once you apply them for all rational beings to follow. They only work as exceptions to the rule, not a rule itself. And when they are turned around on you (i.e. Golden Rule), their immorality becomes self-evident.
The problem I see with boiling things down to pure sentience (utilitarianism) is that certain things can be very wrong and not cause any pain or suffering whatsoever. For example- if someone drugs a girl at a party, has sex with her while she is unconscious, and she never ever knows what happened & lives her entire life thinking she just fell asleep, I would argue that is incredibly immoral. But simply looking at the utility of the act- no pain or suffering was caused, and in fact the utility of act was probably increased because the rapist had a good time.
For all of Bentham and Mill's great work in philosophy (Mill's writings on Free Speech are amazing btw), I fear their moral philosophy can't always prevent horrible things from happening. But I would agree that if more people at least thought about the consequences of their actions, we would at least be in a better place, practically speaking.
californiagrownWhat is a good basis for a person's moral compass in your opinion?
People can only ever use their own ability to reason to decide what is moral and what is not. That reason is, of course, informed by lots of things like upbringing, empathy etc. And that is equally true for religious people as it is non-religious people.
People who pretend they use any religious teaching as a moral compass ignore the fact that they make their own decisions on which parts of those teachings they follow. For example many Christians believe slavery is immoral even though it is condoned in the bible, and some other Christians believe that stoning homosexuals to death is moral even though it is clearly considered immoral in wider society. There is no moral constant there, it's just different people with their own individual interpretations.
Furthermore, specifically in relation to Christianity, morality has no value. The only thing that matters is believing in the right God. You are inherently sinful anyway and it doesn't matter how many immoral acts you commit - as long as you accept Jesus and repent then all is forgiven and you spend an eternity in heaven. On the other hand being as 'good' as possible i.e. not hurting people, treating others with compassion and kindness, gets you nowhere if you do not accept Jesus. That teaching is fundamentally immoral in my opinion, especially given that an omniscient God would know exactly what it would take to make one a believer, and therefore whether someone is or not is arbitrary.
regardless of whether or not you have a faith, its impossible to deny that religion has shaped almost every culture in the world in some way. so no, we would not be better of without religion, it would be a rather boring world without it.
and to people saying the world would be better without religion, dont be dumb the world would be "better" in your eyes if everyone believed in the same thing, faith or not.
roddy116regardless of whether or not you have a faith, its impossible to deny that religion has shaped almost every culture in the world in some way. so no, we would not be better of without religion, it would be a rather boring world without it.
roddy116regardless of whether or not you have a faith, its impossible to deny that religion has shaped almost every culture in the world in some way. so no, we would not be better of without religion, it would be a rather boring world without it.
No one is saying that religion doesn't shape a culture, but rather that it shapes culture in a very negative way, as well as positive. Religious beliefs have led to (or at the vers least totally encouraged) unnecessary wars, the imprisonment and/or deaths of influential thinkers (Socrates, Galileo, etc), and contributed to the downfall of one of the most positive scientific & philosophical eras of all time, the Islamic Golden Age.
But don't claim that without religion there would be a total void and life would be boring- the efforts of philosophy, science, and art would have flourished without the impediments of religion stifling their progress. "Religion ends and philosophy begins, just as alchemy ends and chemistry begins and astrology ends, and astronomy begins."
I've been rereading Carl Sagan's book Pale Blue Dot and having reached the end there is one passage that makes up the last couple paragraphs that I find incredible interesting. The book itself outlines Sagan's view on religion, morality, and his vision of the future of the human race. The last paragraph reads as follows.
"The Cosmos extends for all practical purposes, forever. After a brief sedentary hiatus, we are resuming our ancient nomadic way of life. Our remote decedents, safely arrayed on many worlds through the solar system and beyond we be unified by their common heritage, by their regard for their home planet, and by the knowledge that, whatever other life may be, the only humans in all the Universe come from earth.
They will gaze up and strain to find the pale blue dot in their skies. They will love it no less for its obscurity and fragility. They will marvel at how venerable the repository of all our potential once was, how perilous our infancy, how humble our beginnings, how many rivers we had to cross before we found our way."
There were lots of other spots in the book where Sagan expressed his view on the implications and effects religion has had on our species, however, simply reciting those would in my opinion be too easy. I find these last two paragraphs meaningful because it really shows the growth of human’s maturity in understanding our place in the universe. We so often want to make ourselves the center of things. This in part is due to the fact that most of us only know the world in which we live on. Such a mindset can clearly be seen throughout history and any attempts to shake this way of thinking has been met with hostility. We do not like change maybe that is why so many people adopt conservative views as they age. Coming to the realization that we are not the center of all things as suggested by the science dating back to the age a Galileo can be very unnerving to people. It follows that if the universe was not made for us, then no such thing as an afterlife or divine intervention exists. People don’t want to die and they want to matter!
This quote describes a future in which we come to the realization that we are not the measure of all things. And that it is of our interest to align ourselves with reality. We cannot master the universe but we can be take comfort in knowing that we are a part of it as it is of us and while there may be no ultimate meaning to the existence of our species, we can take pride in knowing that we have come as far as we have without blowing ourselves to pieces as he describes in the second paragraph.
The final sentence “how many rivers we had to cross before we found our way” to me shows what religion has done for us. We as a species have repeatedly been met with challenges in our quest to an ultimate goal. As for what that goal is, is to be determined. Perhaps the only goal we set upon ourselves is to survive, or perhaps it is to as described above fully understand our place in the universe and what that means to our species. The rivers we had to cross include our previous attempts to understand where we stand in the universe. Ultimately these attempts will in his view be no more than obstacles in the quest for finding the truth, and each step a step forward in understand the universe we live in.
If you feel like actually getting to know ISIS and how they think, issue #15 of the ISIS magazine is available as a PDF download here
If anyone actually believes that ISIS is a result of Western Imperialism, they explicitly & directly attack that nonsense of that claim. They even go so far as to spell out all of the reasons why they hate us, just to be clear that there is no confusion- the primary reasons are purely religious, stemming 100% from the Qur'an.
"What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list. The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam." -page 32/33, section "Why We Hate You & Why We Fight You"
onenerdykidIf you feel like actually getting to know ISIS and how they think, issue #15 of the ISIS magazine is available as a PDF download here
If anyone actually believes that ISIS is a result of Western Imperialism, they explicitly & directly attack that nonsense of that claim. They even go so far as to spell out all of the reasons why they hate us, just to be clear that there is no confusion- the primary reasons are purely religious, stemming 100% from the Qur'an.
"What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list. The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam." -page 32/33, section "Why We Hate You & Why We Fight You"
Is downloading that article going to cause the FBI, CIA, NSA and every other agency to come down on me?
onenerdykidThe link is to the Clarion Project, not ISIS. I don't know to what extent they are monitored by the US government.
I saw that, but I'd rather not have a federal agency possibly come to my place of work for reading that.
I guess I'll check it out at home. It isn't too surprising though. The NYT had a GREAT piece the other week that I think a lot of people here should read.