Support NeoGAF

[Rentahamster]

Your lack of basic understanding of what the Bible is, what Christianity is, who Christ, Moses are,what are the relationships between the Old and the New Testament clearly show your knowledge in this area is surface level at best.

What does it say about a God who requires you to attend school to ascertain the true intention of his Word? Did He stutter? How are you so confident that you are right, when there are so many other true believers who might disagree with you?

With your permission, I would like to leave this conversation on a friendly note, we could go back and forth forever but I would like to exit

If you wish to disengage, that is your prerogative as the rules of this forum allow. I would still prefer if you had more clearly elaborated on if you think the rules as laid down in Exodus are moral or not. That is the main point. Debating what parts of the Old Testament is valid in the New Covenant is merely an ancillary topic.

 

[mcz117chief]

I would still prefer if you had more clearly elaborated on if you think the rules as laid down in Exodus are moral or not.

Any in particular?

What does it say about a God who requires you to attend school to ascertain the true intention of his Word? Did He stutter? How are you so confident that you are right, when there are so many other true believers who might disagree with you?

The Ten Commandments and the Commandments of Love are enough and any person can learn them without going to school, we are arguing about nuance that almost never comes up in daily lives and for those some form of education is necessary.

 

[Rentahamster]

The hamster is right, as he is often.

 

[Rentahamster]

Any in particular?

Exodus 21

The Ten Commandments and the Commandments of Love are enough and any person can learn them without going to school, we are arguing about nuance that almost never comes up in daily lives and for those some form of education is necessary.

Why is education necessary to understand the perfectly divine?

 

[mcz117chief]

Exodus 21

Yeah, but which in particular out of those, can you pick one?

Why is education necessary to understand the perfectly divine?

Perfectly divine is God's love which can be understood by literally anyone. Nuance when it comes to Moses' laws is not "perfectly divine".

 

[Rentahamster]

Yeah, but which in particular out of those, can you pick one?

Up until 27. The rest deals with stuff regarding Bulls, which is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Perfectly divine is God's love which can be understood by literally anyone. Nuance when it comes to Moses' laws is not "perfectly divine".

If it can be understood by literally anyone, why does it need formal education to truly understand, and why is there so much disagreement among Christians about what it all means and how to achieve salvation? What makes Moses' instructions not perfectly divine?

 

[mcz117chief]

If it can be understood by literally anyone, why does it need formal education to truly understand

I literally just said it doesn't

Also, I already posted this which answers your question

Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”

So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

He said to Him, “Which ones?”

Jesus said, “‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ”

And, like I said before, Moses' laws were there to help Jews through a terrible and tough period of time, nothing more.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

Why do you guys keep bringing up a single religion? Wouldn't this apply to all of them?

 

[Rentahamster]

I literally just said it doesn't

Not according to this:

Attend a seminary or study theology like I did for 5 years and then you might get all the answers you seek.

And, like I said before, Moses' laws were there to help Jews through a terrible and tough period of time, nothing more.

My question, however, was if you think those laws were moral or not.

 

[Rentahamster]

Why do you guys keep bringing up a single religion? Wouldn't this apply to all of them?

It does.

 

[mcz117chief]

Not according to this:

My question, however, was if you think those laws were moral or not.

That was in relation to the topic of questions like nuances between the Old and the New Testament. You really should read my posts more carefully. If you want specific answers to very specific questions then you obviously need education to understand them, vast majority of people don't have to bother with this because it doesn't come up in their daily lives. Just live by what Jesus taught and you'll be fine.

And which law, specifically, are you talking about? Give me one concrete example that bothers you, not a list.

 

[GymWolf]

Not to be harsh but does a thing like this really need a topic?

I mean is there any doubt that you don't need to believe in fairytales to be a man with good morality??

On the contrary, a lot of men have shitty morality because they are religious nutcases, just look at some islamic people or the catholic religious war that happen in the past.


So no, we don't need religion to be good people and whoever think otherwise is a moron.

 

[Rentahamster]

That was in relation to the topic of questions like nuances between the Old and the New Testament. You really should read my posts more carefully. If you want specific answers to very specific questions then you obviously need education to understand them, vast majority of people don't have to bother with this because it doesn't come up in their daily lives. Just live by what Jesus taught and you'll be fine.

This is in the context of God's manual to how to live and whether or not it makes sense for so much if it to be so ambiguous. Why do you get to pick and choose what requires education and what doesn't? If God wants all of humanity to be saved, wouldn't it be in His best interest for his instructions to be as clear as possible?

Can you live by what Jesus taught, yet reject his divinity, and still go to heaven?

And which law, specifically, are you talking about. Give me one concrete example that bothers you, not a list.

Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 21 - King James Version

Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them. If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master...

www.biblegateway.com

Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 21 - New International Version

“These are the laws you are to set before them: Hebrew Servants - “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with...

www.biblegateway.com

21 “These are the laws you are to set before them:

Hebrew Servants
2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.


5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.


7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.



26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.

 

[Rentahamster]

Not to be harsh but does a thing like this really need a topic?

I mean is there any doubt that you don't need to believe in fairytales to be a man with good morality??

On the contrary, a lot of men have shitty morality because they are religious nutcases, just look at some islamic people or the catholic religious war that happen in the past.


So no, we don't need religion to be good people and whoever think otherwise is a moron.

Given the amount of people who posted in this thread who disagree with your point of view, apparently it is.

 

[mcz117chief]

If God wants all of humanity to be saved, wouldn't it be in His best interest for his instructions to be as clear as possible? Can you live by what Jesus taught, yet reject his divinity, and still go to heaven?

Good teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?
But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.

How much easier can it get?

“Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven."

 

[GymWolf]

Given the amount of people who posted in this thread who disagree with your point of view, apparently it is.

Really? There is people who think that we need religion to have good morality?

Holy fuck...

And how this people explain the milions and milions of atheist with good morality?? Are we all fake? Am i a devil inside??

And how about all the pedophile priests inside churches? Is fucking a young boy good morality?? Well time to prey on some park i guess...

I swear religious people are even more funny than woke people sometimes.

 

[Azurro]

Because the commandments are universal, which I also said many times already.

This is silly, so the commandments are universal and relevant, yet they were introduced in the Old Testament, which is irrelevant because it was setting up Jesus, yet Jesus came to confirm the teachings of his father, who is also him. Which one is it? Christianity is full of contradictions.

 

[Rentahamster]

Good teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?
But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.

How much easier can it get?

The ambiguity I'm talking about is the one we've been discussing for the past couple pages. The one you had to go to seminary school to figure out.

 

[mcz117chief]

Christianity is full of contradictions.

No, it isn't

The ambiguity I'm talking about is the one we've been discussing for the past couple pages. The one you had to go to seminary school to figure out.

which one?

 

[Rentahamster]

Really? There is people who thing that we need religion to have good morality?

Holy fuck...

Well, technically speaking, in accordance with the topic of this thread, it's "god", not "religion". However, as has been demonstrated in this thread, some posters use the two terms interchangeably to my chagrin.

 

[Rentahamster]

which one?

The one about whether or not the Ten Commandments are still relevant in the New Covenant or not. But again, I don't really care about that all too much. The only reason I brought that up was to bolster my point about Exodus 21 in the first place.

 

[GymWolf]

Well, technically speaking, in accordance with the topic of this thread, it's "god", not "religion". However, as has been demonstrated in this thread, some posters use the two terms interchangeably to my chagrin.

They are just made up stories to me so they can use all the terms they want for what i care, the point doesn't change a bit.

 

[mcz117chief]

The one about whether or not the Ten Commandments are still relevant in the New Covenant or not. But again, I don't really care about that all too much. The only reason I brought that up was to bolster my point about Exodus 21 in the first place.

Multiple times I wrote that Jesus said "keep the commandments".

 

[Rentahamster]

Multiple times I wrote that Jesus said "keep the commandments".

Yes, I know. Which indicates that the words of the Old Testament are still relevant in the context of the New Covenant.

Back to Exodus 21 though.

 

[mcz117chief]

Back to Exodus 21 though.

Do you think Exodus 21 follows the 11th Commandment of Jesus Christ?

 

[Rentahamster]

Do you think Exodus 21 follows the 11th Commandment of Jesus Christ?

The slave can potentially love the master. Who knows if that love is reciprocated. I'm sure the master loves all that free labor though!

“But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

Do you think the instructions for life in Exodus were given by God to Moses to the people?

 

[mcz117chief]

Do you think the instructions for life in Exodus were given by God to Moses to the people?

I wasn't there, I don't know. It is possible though. Only God knows how it went down. The people who experienced it recorded it this way. I am not an expert on the Old Testament, if you want a detailed commentary of Exodus 21 I would recommend the World Biblical Commentary which I used extensively during my studies. It is very well written and if it doesn't contain the answers you need then there are many other commentaries around.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

This thread is a nu atheist trainwreck.

 

[Rentahamster]

I wasn't there, I don't know. It is possible though. Only God knows how it went down. The people who experienced it recorded it this way. I am not an expert on the Old Testament, if you want a detailed commentary of Exodus 21 I would recommend the World Biblical Commentary which I used extensively during my studies. It is very well written and if it doesn't contain the answers you need then there are many other commentaries around.

Do you think the Ten Commandments were given by God to Moses to the people?

 

[H4ze]

I don't need a god to know that being an asshole is not cool.
I don't believe in god, but I still don't rape and kill, I don't steal and I would never hurt someone for fun.

 

[nikolino840]

There is a culture without religion as a sample ?

 

[thequestion]

There is a culture without religion as a sample ?

Cancel Culture

 

[poppabk]

It kinda depends on whether you believe in a real actual God. If you do then you can argue that any human moral code comes from God and without God laying down the law we would be a bunch of savages. If you don't believe in a real God then god is just an artificial construct who reinforces a moral code created by humans and so the moral code could obviously exist without the concept of god.

 

[Sign]

You cannot argue morality emanates from God. You argue your particular brand of morality comes from him, but your brand of morality is different than the brand of morality of a japanese person, and different from the morality of an Indian person. If it was true that morality emanated from your particular version of God, then why does it vary across the world? It should be non changing, static and known to everybody, but it isn't.

What does that tell you? That your religion is nothing but incidental and a product of coincidence. The text itself is nothing more than kind of an agreement from people of that era of what was good behaviour with some silly myths thrown in there for fun.

Again, we were talking about a study that suggested children, before they could understand God, were demonstrating an understanding of "right and wrong."

There are two ways to look at this:
1) All children demonstrate the same understanding of the same "rights and wrongs," which implies a universal morality (may or may not be attributable to a God).
2) Children of different backgrounds demonstrate different ideas of what "right and wrong" are based off their culture, which goes back to the OP failing to list a single country that has been 100% free from religious and Godly influence.

Again, I'm not arguing about Christianity being true. This thread isn't about Christianity, it is about a society, any society being able to develop without a Godly influence.

I kinda agree with that, but only because of rules meant to control your behaviour in unnatural ways. Especially with rules concerning sexuality, they are purposefully difficult because of the historical context due to the status of women as property of the man of the house. The rules are usually silly and self imposed, so it's not like they provide any meaningful addition to your life.

If God doesn't exist there is no such thing as unnatural, but you would have to be more specific. Also, it is not for you to say what provides meaning. Though, I can tell you that religious are less likely to be depressed and recover quicker from depression when they are.

Religious and Spiritual Factors in Depression: Review and Integration of the Research - PMC

Depressive symptoms and religious/spiritual (R/S) practices are widespread around the world, but their intersection has received relatively little attention from mainstream mental health professionals. This paper reviews and synthesizes quantitative ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Depressive symptoms and religious/spiritual (R/S) practices are widespread around the world, but their intersection has received relatively little attention from mainstream mental health professionals. This paper reviews and synthesizes quantitative research examining relationships between R/S involvement and depressive symptoms or disorders during the last 50 years (1962 to 2011). At least 444 studies have now quantitatively examined these relationships. Of those, over 60% report less depression and faster remission from depression in those more R/S or a reduction in depression severity in response to an R/S intervention.

However, the great, great majority of religious people don't actually give two shits about their texts and the teachings, they are Christian/Islamic/whatever because of the sense of identity and community, that's about it, so their life is not any bit more demanding than an atheist's. An Atheist is way more likely to have read the bible than a Christian.

Unless you can provide an actual source for this, I'm just gonna file it under opinion.

That is a dishonest position. Humanity naturally inclined to gods due to our capacity for creativity and imagination as well as our lack of knowledge combined with the fact that life has mostly been desperate for most people in history. It's the god of the gaps concept, a man back then didn't understand the process behind lightning, but if he saw one striking down and killing his brother Jubaba, he probably thought, "The gods are angry!", similarly if there's a drought, he must have thought "the gods are not happy with us and are punishing us".

As more and more people have more resources, better access to education and a better quality of life, religiosity lowers, it's a rather natural process, religious fervor almost declines over time in a country where economic standing of its people increases.

This entire discussion is about whether or not the presence of God is required for a society to develop a moral framework. You are basically saying that, yes, yes it is. Which has been my only point this entire thread.

And no, the wokes are not the result of a lack of god, let's not get crazy here. The "woke" exists because of the weakening of the concept of family due to the USA's hyper individualism as well as laser focus on universities for profit. It would actually be interesting to see the history of this, but woke people come from out of control activists having a large forum to promote their ideas. Universities have plenty of useless programs, such as women's studies, Islamic studies and such, but they were created so that the biggest amount of people could come to the school and make the largest amount of money.

Where do useless activists that have nothing to offer society except anger go to? They go to preach in universities to spread their ideas to impressionable young people. Wokeness is a religion my friend, just like Christianity, and they are nuts.

I know, that is my point. Societies need religion. Christianity in the West has declined in prominence and something worse has filled its space. This thread suggests that a society can exist without religion, clearly not.

Wokeness is a form of Marxism. If we are lucky it will die and Christianity will find a resurgence (it is good at that), or it won't and we move on to communism and the human atrocities. Like I said.

 

[Rentahamster]

which goes back to the OP failing to list a single country that has been 100% free from religious and Godly influence.

Which goes back to you failing to understand the thesis and willfully ignoring my given examples while pretending they don't count.

Being influenced by religion is irrelevant. Not using god as a justification in constructing a code of conduct is what's relevant.

 

[Rentahamster]

Again, I'm not arguing about Christianity being true. This thread isn't about Christianity, it is about a society, any society being able to develop without a Godly influence.

Being able to show that the word of the god you believe in has been immoral also supports my thesis.

 

[Sign]

Which goes back to you failing to understand the thesis and willfully ignoring my given examples while pretending they don't count.

Being influenced by religion is irrelevant. Not using god as a justification in constructing a code of conduct is what's relevant.

Your thesis fell apart within by post 5 of this thread. You then shifted the goal posts to "authoritative."

If a society has Gods, their code of conduct and every facet of their life is influenced by it whether directly or not.

If it is possible for morality to exist without the influence of Gods, there should be a society that has zero Gods from its inception.

 

[mekes]

The message can be good, but I don’t think the being they inject into the messages is needed at all. And I’m just referring to what I consider the good parts of a few of books I know a little about. I do believe you could argue that religion as a whole has been significantly better used for evil than good. Even today you don’t need to look far to see how messed up humans can make religion seem. People being stoned to death, heads chopped off, paedos, suicide bombers, conmen - oh so many conmen, so many you could make an army out of them.

 

[Rentahamster]

Your thesis fell apart within by post 5 of this thread. You then shifted the goal posts to "authoritative."

Your understanding is what fell apart. Please make an effort to analyze my argument as it stands. Describing a morality mandated by a god is authoritative. I'm describing how it works.

If a society has Gods, their code of conduct and every facet of their life is influenced by it whether directly or not.

Wrong. That only applies to religions that claim their god created and controls everything. Then it would follow that every facet of life is influenced by God. There are other creator gods in other religions who create the universe and then take a backseat on the whole morality issue (Daoism, Shinto, etc). There are also religions whose gods mainly just hang out and control specific earthly things like the wind, or thunder, or the harvest. These gods also usually don't dictate morality either. Oftentimes, these gods are also assholes. (Ancient Greek, ancient Norse, etc).

If it is possible for morality to exist without the influence of Gods, there should be a society that has zero Gods from its inception.

You misconstrue the thesis again. It's not "influence", it's "existence". Also, that is a false framing. The correct and more accurate way of demonstrating the validity would be to say,

"If it is possible for morality to be derived without the existence of a God, there should be a society that has created a moral code of conduct without using God as a justification".

Wouldn't you agree that is a much better framing that is 100% within the scope of the thesis?

 

[ConkerTheSquirrel.]

Ex-Christian here.

I'm a better person without 'god' in my life. The very thought of thinking that there's an outside force (assuming that they care) influencing what I do is pretty horrifying to me.
Having to think that a god exists to relinquish your responsibilities from moral dilemmas is, in my opinion, a disservice to you as a human being. There's no growth from there.

 

[MHubert]

I don't want to derail the moon thread, so let's have that conversation here.

I sometimes hear that morality is only possible from a belief in God and religion. While that might apply to some societies in human history, it does not apply to all of them. If God were absolutely requisite for a moral society, how can the existence of successful "godless" societies be explained? Does God just download His morality into these societies without them being aware? I find that unlikely.

A sense of right and wrong is something that most humans have even as toddlers, before any of them can even be capable of understanding what God is. Therefore, even a belief in a god or gods is not necessary for the foundation of morality. God's word is static and absolute, so why are there so many denominations of the same religion with their own takes on what is and isn't moral? Why is it that over time, our sense of morality has changed (e.g. slavery, women's rights, war, genocide, eating habits, animal husbandry, etc) whereas the instructions from God have not? That indicates to me that the main driver of what's moral is culture, not theology.

(Keep in mind this thread is not arguing about the existence of a god or gods. That's a different topic.)

You are conflating the term 'God' with 'religion' a bit. A morality without the god? sure. A morality without religion? nope.

Any kind of morality needs a metaphysical assumption on what is 'good' and what is 'bad/evil'. This assumption will in and of itself always relate to some kind of religious thought (idea) or behaviour, assuming that you define religion as a kind of organized belief.

There is surely examples of godless societies (albeit not very successful ones), but these societies always tend to establish what you would call religious doctrines and behaviour. Culture is more or less an algamation or byproduct of said doctrines and behaviour which means that they (religion and culture) are not onthologically equal, thus making it an unfair comparison.

 

[Rentahamster]

You are conflating the term 'God' with 'religion' a bit.

No I'm not. I made a distinction.

A morality without the god? sure. A morality without religion? nope.

You can have morality without either.

Any kind of morality needs a metaphysical assumption on what is 'good' and what is 'bad/evil'.

No it doesn't. You can derive "goodness" and "badness" from how positively or negatively something affects society according to whatever goals you want to set for that society.

This assumption will in and of itself always relate to some kind of religious thought (idea) or behaviour, assuming that you define religion as a kind of organized belief.

I just demonstrated that it doesn't have to. Defining religion so generally also comes with its own set of problems when trying to isolate the relevant factors of this thesis.

There is surely examples of godless societies (albeit not very successful ones), but these societies always tend to establish what you would call religious doctrines and behaviour. Culture is more or less an algamation or byproduct of said doctrines and behaviour which means that they (religion and culture) are not onthologically equal, thus making it an unfair comparison.

I'm not comparing culture and religion. That's not what this thread is about.

 

[DeepBreath87]

You can have "A" morality without a god, but there is no foundation to it. It will just be your subjective interpretation of right and wrong based on whatever experiences and feelings you have. You can make appeals to science or human wisdom, but fundamentally, your morality will just be your opinion. Nothing more.

And you may consider religion to be the same thing, but religion will a foundation built on the contributions many, many people over thousands of years. While the details of those religions may not always be sound (creation myths for example), the general wisdom stands up more because its been tested and tried. The idea that you can throw away the morality found in religion and just make one up on your own is the actual definition of hubris.

 

[Rentahamster]

You can have "A" morality without a god, but there is no foundation to it. It will just be your subjective interpretation of right and wrong based on whatever experiences and feelings you have.

There is a very real foundation to morality that is based on societal values. It's the values.

There is no foundation to god morality either if it's impossible to prove that foundation exists.

"I value human life because that is important to both my own survival and the survival of my group, so I will conduct myself as pro-life as possible and err on the side of living beings as reasonably as possible" - a moral guideline based on reality, with a foundational value, and a reason for being so.

"I shalt not kill because God told me to" - functionally similar, but entirely predicated on a premise that can't be proven. It doesn't give an individual liberty. It is an authoritarian dictate. As long as this person's faith in God holds up, though, they'll probably follow this mandate well.

You can make appeals to science or human wisdom, but fundamentally, your morality will just be your opinion. Nothing more.

You can make appeals to the supernatural, but fundamentally, your morality will just be based on a supernatural being that cannot be proven to exist because there is no evidence to support it. Nothing more.

And you may consider religion to be the same thing, but religion will a foundation built on the contributions many, many people over thousands of years. While the details of those religions may not always be sound (creation myths for example), the general wisdom stands up more because its been tested and tried. The idea that you can throw away the morality found in religion and just make one up on your own is the actual definition of hubris.

Who's throwing away the morality found in religion? That's not what I'm advocating. Take what works, ignore what doesn't.

Jefferson Bible - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The US Constitution has been tested and tried too. I think it holds up pretty well, wouldn't you agree?

 

[CrapSandwich]

Moral systems themselves have become as bastardized as most (if not all) religions have. Today moral dogmas are largely interpreted as something saying "You should do this and you should not do that" because "good" people do certain things and do not do certain other things, according to whichever dogma you're looking at. They have become a method of judgement, a way to measure oneself and others and finding out who stands where on the scale of "good" people and "bad" people. This was never the intent of the major religious teachings. The intent was always to provide people with a practical method of coming to know themselves, this world, and god, and dealing more harmoniously with these things. The word "god" itself has become so laden with the dualistic perspective of the universe being something here, and god being some otherly-dimensional being somewhere else, that "god" is now utterly useless for anything other than determining who is in a believer group and who are the non-believers, the same dynamic that exists in any in-group/out-group situation. The messages in those religions have largely been lost, just as in a very long running game of telephone where people attempt to relay to the next person what the previous person told them, always resulting in a wild deviation from the starting message by the time the game is finished.

So we have a situation today where the point of morality has been lost, the words have become meaningless, and the methods are mostly forgotten. Within the vacuum, much of the human world has been sucked into a void of neuroticism and egotism wherein we seek little else than status, resources, and pleasures, that is at least when we're not terrorizing ourselves with the multitude of spectre-like fears that we've adopted. If we could push a reset button on these words it would be helpful. Make an attempt to understand god from a non-dualistic perspective, whether pantheistic or panentheistic--ie "god is everything" or "god is everything and then some." Reset the notion of morality from "good and evil" to a set of tools and methods that can help people. If we could rediscover the ancient methods people used to get out of the ego trap and allay their neurosis, then we might get somewhere. But by the way "god" and "morality" are used these days, they aren't required for anything other than being a member in a particular group. On the other hand, secular morality is utterly useless as well. It teaches nothing of any real or lasting value and becomes a cudgel used by the powerful to subjugate the less powerful, much the same as happened within most of our religions.

 

[ConkerTheSquirrel.]

I don't need a god to know that being an asshole is not cool.
I don't believe in god, but I still don't rape and kill, I don't steal and I would never hurt someone for fun.

I would like to think that this behaviour is hardwired within us to keep civilization intact.

No I'm not. I made a distinction.


You can have morality without either.


No it doesn't. You can derive "goodness" and "badness" from how positively or negatively something affects society according to whatever goals you want to set for that society.


I just demonstrated that it doesn't have to. Defining religion so generally also comes with its own set of problems when trying to isolate the relevant factors of this thesis.


I'm not comparing culture and religion. That's not what this thread is about.

100% agree.



You should watch this.

 

[Rentahamster]

I would like to think that this behaviour is hardwired within us to keep civilization intact.

Our species probably wouldn't have survived to be the apex predator of the planet without this sense of societal cohesion and cooperation ingrained, passed on, and reinforced in successive generations.

Humans Domesticated Dogs And Cows. We May Have Also Domesticated Ourselves

Humans Domesticated Dogs And Cows. We May Have Also Domesticated Ourselves

www.discovermagazine.com

 

[MHubert]

No I'm not. I made a distinction.


You can have morality without either.


No it doesn't. You can derive "goodness" and "badness" from how positively or negatively something affects society according to whatever goals you want to set for that society.


I just demonstrated that it doesn't have to. Defining religion so generally also comes with its own set of problems when trying to isolate the relevant factors of this thesis.


I'm not comparing culture and religion. That's not what this thread is about.

I sometimes hear that morality is only possible from a belief in God and religion.

I replied to this opening statement which I assume is a part of your thesis.

You can have morality without either.

No you cannot, because this:

You can derive "goodness" and "badness" from how positively or negatively something affects society according to whatever goals you want to set for that society.

is a perfect example of a metaphysical assumption about what is 'good'. How did you conclude the inherent 'goodness' of said goal in the first place? And how do you objectify (or justify, for that matter) what constitutes a positive or negative effect, for what is in this case some kind of arbitrary goal? Did you maybe construe or buy into some kind of ideology and thereby expect to be free from the 'shackles of mere belief'?

To me it seems that 'the relevant factors' of your thesis are relying the fact that if something feels right(good) and since that feeling (culture) changes throughout time, then there can be no reality of an actual right/goodness (you know, the most fundamental idea of any religion or god). Yet, then you claim that you can derive what is right/good by having some kind of beneficial goal as a society, and somehow skip the step where you assume what is good in the first place - a step that involves you (or society) entering a religious relationship with your ideas (as in, you believe your ideas and actions correlates with what is actually good). The concept of religion as organized belief fits like a glove as a critique to your thesis, wide as it may be.
I challenge you to find me an example of a culture that is totally divorced from any religious assumption or behaviour.

 

[DeepBreath87]

There is a very real foundation to morality that is based on societal values. It's the values.

There is no foundation to god morality either if it's impossible to prove that foundation exists.

"I value human life because that is important to both my own survival and the survival of my group, so I will conduct myself as pro-life as possible and err on the side of living beings as reasonably as possible" - a moral guideline based on reality, with a foundational value, and a reason for being so.

"I shalt not kill because God told me to" - functionally similar, but entirely predicated on a premise that can't be proven. It doesn't give an individual liberty. It is an authoritarian dictate. As long as this person's faith in God holds up, though, they'll probably follow this mandate well.


You can make appeals to the supernatural, but fundamentally, your morality will just be based on a supernatural being that cannot be proven to exist because there is no evidence to support it. Nothing more.


Who's throwing away the morality found in religion? That's not what I'm advocating. Take what works, ignore what doesn't.

Jefferson Bible - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The US Constitution has been tested and tried too. I think it holds up pretty well, wouldn't you agree?

I don't really think we disagree all that much. The idea that you can take the good parts of religion with the foundation doesn't really hold up. I look at religion more as people of the centuries grappling with these huge questions. Searching for answers to problems greater than people can really come to terms with. The idea of God to me is that something exist greater than our understanding that answers those questions. I don't exactly subscribe to the idea that God is a dude in the sky or anything. But I do think good and evil exist outside the presence of subjective human experience. I think human morality is our searching to understand those things. But its ok if people don't see it that way. I don't know that functionally it makes much difference.

 

[Rat Rage]

Morality is a 100% natural concept.

Morality consists of two oposing concepts: good and the bad/evil.

the good: equals all actions that both aid human sociality and strengthen the general natural fitness of the human species as a whole.

the bad/evil: equals all actions that both hinder human sociality and weaken the general natural fitness of the human species as a whole.

Simple as that.