|
Post by deembastille on Jul 8, 2018 14:12:00 GMT
In reality you don't need God for Morals. what you DO need is an appropriate upbringing. most people who have an upbringing of politeness, consideration, compassion [...] also have some sort of God in their lives.
for the most part, parents who bring their children up with the above have some sort of God or their own upbringing of similar morals.
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Jul 8, 2018 21:31:38 GMT
I'm not following your point here - you're going to need to explain it more. Do theists get their morals from their "religious training" (strange choice of words, but their yours - not mine)? Or somewhere else? And if it's religious training where would they get them from if they hadn't received that? Or wouldn't they have any and they would be out murdering and raping people? I think you need the flesh out your argument a bit. I think I've been very clear. It does not necessarily follow that simply because religious people use their religion as a tool to help other people acquire morals, that they needed much help themselves acquiring their morals. Your suspicion that they would be murderers or rapists without their religion is a non sequitur. I noted the reason for your flaw. You assumed that all people must acquire morals the same. I'm sorry I can't tell you why some people acquire morals so much easier than atheists. For 300 different religious people there might be 300 different reasons. It is obvious though that not all atheists have a complete set of good morals. I have met atheists though with a better set than others. There are even some atheists with a better set of morals than some Christians. Those are the exceptions though, not the rule. The general rule is that religion does promote good morals. You seem to be being inconsistent. Does morality come from religion or not?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 8, 2018 21:36:05 GMT
Because otherwise the "morality argument" would be useless in theist/atheist debates (which it already is anyways)
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 8, 2018 21:54:15 GMT
I think I've been very clear. It does not necessarily follow that simply because religious people use their religion as a tool to help other people acquire morals, that they needed much help themselves acquiring their morals. Your suspicion that they would be murderers or rapists without their religion is a non sequitur. I noted the reason for your flaw. You assumed that all people must acquire morals the same. I'm sorry I can't tell you why some people acquire morals so much easier than atheists. For 300 different religious people there might be 300 different reasons. It is obvious though that not all atheists have a complete set of good morals. I have met atheists though with a better set than others. There are even some atheists with a better set of morals than some Christians. Those are the exceptions though, not the rule. The general rule is that religion does promote good morals. You seem to be being inconsistent. Does morality come from religion or not? I am not "inconsistent." You have unrealistic expectations of simplicity. As already pointed out to you there is no one size fits all way to acquire morals. Some people need more help than others. It is totally illogical of you to require all to be the same or "consistent." That is not a rule and you don't get to make any rules. Everything I said is true. It isn't my problem that it boggles your mind. Religion is a very effective tool to help people acquire morals, many of whom would not acquire them otherwise. Some people are very moral from a very young age, others take more training. Religion is very good training. If that doesn't fit your expectations of reality, then your expectations are the problem. That a few atheists are moral people does not mean that religion was not involved in making them moral. They cannot claim to be isolated from a society that has long been very religious.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jul 9, 2018 0:55:47 GMT
You seem to be being inconsistent. Does morality come from religion or not? I am not "inconsistent." You have unrealistic expectations of simplicity. As already pointed out to you there is no one size fits all way to acquire morals. Some people need more help than others. It is totally illogical of you to require all to be the same or "consistent." That is not a rule and you don't get to make any rules. Everything I said is true. It isn't my problem that it boggles your mind. Religion is a very effective tool to help people acquire morals, many of whom would not acquire them otherwise. Some people are very moral from a very young age, others take more training. Religion is very good training. If that doesn't fit your expectations of reality, then your expectations are the problem. That a few atheists are moral people does not mean that religion was not involved in making them moral. They cannot claim to be isolated from a society that has long been very religious. Honestly, if you want to take a cynical approach to human morality, I would think the explanation that human beings have morals because it is more productive to one’s own sense of self-preservation makes more sense than this idea that human morality comes from the belief in some unseen entity. Hell, where do you think the morals that religion teaches people came from in the first place? To atheists like me, they certainly didn’t come from God.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2018 3:20:05 GMT
I actually think there's a lot of truth behind the belief of a necessity in God in that sense for that purpose to control the majority of people. We as humans need a certain level of structure to function and live safely in society, and fear is one of the easiest and most effective way of maintaining that structure.
If there really was an afterlife where you are punished for all you're wrong-doing including the things that you weren't punished for and got away with in this life then that would help prevent a lot of people from doing anything bad in this life. Just think of a world where there is no such thing as laws or consequences for your actions and that would be a very scary world to imagine. Some people might not be as moral as they claim to be. Our morals can change depending on what we're allowed to do and what's considered acceptable in society. Therefore, this sense of God as our source for a moral compass actually can help keep our morals in check despite what is allowed or not allowed in this life.
I find it more easy to believe that morals are learned and taught and not something you're born with. We have the capability of developing our moral compass but that development is influenced by the society we live in.
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 9, 2018 4:49:17 GMT
Honestly, if you want to take a cynical approach to human morality, I would think the explanation that human beings have morals because it is more productive to one’s own sense of self-preservation makes more sense than this idea that human morality comes from the belief in some unseen entity. To be "more productive to one's own sense of self-preservation," one must first have a sense of self-preservation. If were talking about origins here, you can't logically assert that the origin is not the origin. Do not confuse religion with God. Often, the two have nothing at all in common. So to an atheist like you, where do the morals that religion teaches people come from in the first place? That sense of self-preservation you mentioned? Natural selection. www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/review-the-bonobo-and-the-atheist-by-frans-de-waal-8581418.html
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 9, 2018 11:47:31 GMT
I am not "inconsistent." You have unrealistic expectations of simplicity. As already pointed out to you there is no one size fits all way to acquire morals. Some people need more help than others. It is totally illogical of you to require all to be the same or "consistent." That is not a rule and you don't get to make any rules. Everything I said is true. It isn't my problem that it boggles your mind. Religion is a very effective tool to help people acquire morals, many of whom would not acquire them otherwise. Some people are very moral from a very young age, others take more training. Religion is very good training. If that doesn't fit your expectations of reality, then your expectations are the problem. That a few atheists are moral people does not mean that religion was not involved in making them moral. They cannot claim to be isolated from a society that has long been very religious. Honestly, if you want to take a cynical approach to human morality, I would think the explanation that human beings have morals because it is more productive to one’s own sense of self-preservation makes more sense than this idea that human morality comes from the belief in some unseen entity. Hell, where do you think the morals that religion teaches people came from in the first place? To atheists like me, they certainly didn’t come from God. Two things are possible, order and disorder. In nature it is obvious that the one that arises normally is disorder. Arguments have been made that there are instances of order arising in nature such as snowflakes or the separation of fluids of different densities. All of those are not at all order arising or entropy reversing. Fluids of different densities separate because entropy was reversed by mixing them. Some enegy source was required to move the fluids out of their natural position due to gravity. With that removed it returns to its natural position. The order or complexity of snowflakes is nothing but the result of the angle the two hydrogen atoms make with the oxygen atom in molecules of water and the actually limited possibilities of arranging the molecules and their positive and negative charges in close proximity. By "limited" is meant they are always hexagonal, never pentagonal or triangular, or any other. That is, when water molecules in vapor are compacted they fit together is specific ways according to the charges on the constituent atoms. They "fall" into those patterns somewhat like the fluids are falling. If you want to argue that morality arises naturally you need to explain why it hasn't already.
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Jul 9, 2018 12:11:20 GMT
That strikes me as a rather cynical way to look at human nature. You’re seriously telling me the only way we as a civilization can be moral is if we live in fear of an entity that will torture us if we don’t do what we’re told? I don't remember hearing, or reading, anyone say that; I don't know if there are certain religions that do. I do believe in God, but I also believe you can have a moral compass without believing in one. Having a moral compass depends on the individual, whether theist or atheist.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 9, 2018 12:15:25 GMT
That strikes me as a rather cynical way to look at human nature. You’re seriously telling me the only way we as a civilization can be moral is if we live in fear of an entity that will torture us if we don’t do what we’re told? I don't remember hearing, or reading, anyone say that; I don't know if there are certain religions that do. I do believe in God, but I also believe you can have a moral compass without believing in one. Having a moral compass depends on the individual, whether theist or atheist. It's pretty common practice to make up an argument in the absence of a real one.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jul 9, 2018 15:18:35 GMT
That strikes me as a rather cynical way to look at human nature. You’re seriously telling me the only way we as a civilization can be moral is if we live in fear of an entity that will torture us if we don’t do what we’re told? I don't remember hearing, or reading, anyone say that; I don't know if there are certain religions that do. I do believe in God, but I also believe you can have a moral compass without believing in one. Having a moral compass depends on the individual, whether theist or atheist. There certainly are people who think that. A quick Google search will show that this is a common argument between atheists and theists.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 9, 2018 16:04:31 GMT
That strikes me as a rather cynical way to look at human nature. You’re seriously telling me the only way we as a civilization can be moral is if we live in fear of an entity that will torture us if we don’t do what we’re told? I don't remember hearing, or reading, anyone say that; I don't know if there are certain religions that do. I do believe in God, but I also believe you can have a moral compass without believing in one. Having a moral compass depends on the individual, whether theist or atheist. Perhaps you can observe for yourself that people are not born knowing that stealing is wrong. Many people anyway, if not all, do not know stealing is wrong until their parents teach them. Now you can argue that people can learn that stealing is wrong from the government and in fact some people must and do learn that way. An interesting point however to many philosophers is how does the government know stealling is wrong? Given that most people are not born knowing stealing is wrong where did the notion originate? Perhaps you have something to say to these philosophers.
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 9, 2018 19:53:00 GMT
Countries with higher rates of atheists or irreligious people like Sweden seem to be doing fine. …. Once again... A product of 10,000 years of mostly religious-based civilization. ... and millions of years of natural selection.
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Jul 9, 2018 21:11:06 GMT
I think we need to decide ourselves what sounds more plausible a source for morality.
1. Either morality is magically transferred into people being part of a religion directly from the source of that religion. 2. Or the society that they grow up in teaches them morality and empathy and any influence religion may have on it is purely co-incidental.
You decide whichever one makes more sense to you.
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 9, 2018 22:15:50 GMT
I think we need to decide ourselves what sounds more plausible a source for morality. 1. Either morality is magically transferred into people being part of a religion directly from the source of that religion. 2. Or the society that they grow up in teaches them morality and empathy and any influence religion may have on it is purely co-incidental. You decide whichever one makes more sense to you. I would modify number 2. Religion is an expression of culture in a society. People are taught morality partly through religion as well as through other aspects of culture.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 9, 2018 22:32:01 GMT
I think we need to decide ourselves what sounds more plausible a source for morality. 1. Either morality is magically transferred into people being part of a religion directly from the source of that religion. 2. Or the society that they grow up in teaches them morality and empathy and any influence religion may have on it is purely co-incidental. You decide whichever one makes more sense to you. I'm having difficulty caring what you think. Perhaps you can list reasons why I should. Your method of winning arguments appears to be based on making up rules that require you to win. "Either morality is transferred magically" is not a rule. You just made that up. It does not have to be transferred magically for religion to play an important role in helping people learn morality. It has been explained many times now that science is not capable of solving issues in society that develop because people disagree what the problem is, and that most issues in society develop because people disagree what the problem is. Such issues require an art, not a science, and religion is certainly an art fit for the task.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 9, 2018 23:47:59 GMT
…. Once again... A product of 10,000 years of mostly religious-based civilization. ... and millions of years of natural selection. Didn't help the animals much... The first we did when we climbed out of the trees and caves to become more than an animal was to become religious. There's no real separating early civilization and religion.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 10, 2018 11:47:27 GMT
I don't remember hearing, or reading, anyone say that; I don't know if there are certain religions that do. I do believe in God, but I also believe you can have a moral compass without believing in one. Having a moral compass depends on the individual, whether theist or atheist. There certainly are people who think that. A quick Google search will show that this is a common argument between atheists and theists. When I searched for it, it largely fell into two categories 1. Atheist thought it up and made presumptions about the religious view of it in order to make up a debate about it exactly as this thread did. 2. They conflated the notion of what morals we should have with what they pretend Christians say about morality. Religion haters are pretty much the ONLY people who think that anyone is saying there is only one moral standard which is different from a typical Christian who thinks God's moral standard is better than the others that people can adhere to.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 10, 2018 15:35:53 GMT
When I searched for it, it largely fell into two categories 1. Atheist thought it up and made presumptions about the religious view of it in order to make up a debate about it exactly as this thread did. 2. They conflated the notion of what morals we should have with what they pretend Christians say about morality. Religion haters are pretty much the ONLY people who think that anyone is saying there is only one moral standard which is different from a typical Christian who thinks God's moral standard is better than the others that people can adhere to. Pretty much THIS^ It's why I kinda assumed that this was just another " Why are religious people so stupid to believe stupid things that I'm just kinda assuming that they believe as fact?" thread .
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jul 10, 2018 17:09:06 GMT
There certainly are people who think that. A quick Google search will show that this is a common argument between atheists and theists. When I searched for it, it largely fell into two categories 1. Atheist thought it up and made presumptions about the religious view of it in order to make up a debate about it exactly as this thread did. 2. They conflated the notion of what morals we should have with what they pretend Christians say about morality. Religion haters are pretty much the ONLY people who think that anyone is saying there is only one moral standard which is different from a typical Christian who thinks God's moral standard is better than the others that people can adhere to. www.pewglobal.org/2014/03/13/worldwide-many-see-belief-in-god-as-essential-to-morality/townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2008/12/18/why-atheism-is-morally-bankrupt-n734917
|
|