You don't need religion to have morals.

[forufes]

I agree.

 

I don't. I find empathy an illogical emotion which can be overturned by logic. Just like fear or disgust, it's a choice.

I am however, religious, and like single cell organisms, I am driven by pain and pleasure, and no pain is greater than what is promised in hell, and no pleasure is greater than what is promised in heaven.

 

I see no real reason to attach myself to what other people feel. Although I recognize the natural allure to do so.

 

Sociopathy is deemed a sickness by a society, not a surprise.

 

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

~ Steven Weinberg

 

Simply wrong.

To clarify needlessly; many people are good because of religion, and bad for a lack of it.

Also, lack of religion caused more people to do evil things, than an abundance of it has.

[mooeypoo]

I don't. I find empathy an illogical emotion which can be overturned by logic. Just like fear or disgust, it's a choice.

I am however, religious, and like single cell organisms, I am driven by pain and pleasure, and no pain is greater than what is promised in hell, and no pleasure is greater than what is promised in heaven.

 

I see no real reason to attach myself to what other people feel. Although I recognize the natural allure to do so.

 

Sociopathy is deemed a sickness by a society, not a surprise.

Simply wrong.

To clarify needlessly; many people are good because of religion, and bad for a lack of it.

 

So you actually claim that you don't hurt others not because you believe it's wrong, but because you're afraid of retribution -- and that makes you *more* moral than someone who believes it is wrong without having to be threatened??

 

The fact religion is a good way to *control* the masses doesn't mean it is the base of morals, or that it is more moral to act a certain way because you're scared rather than because you actually think it moral.

 

Also, lack of religion caused more people to do evil things, than an abundance of it has.

Lack of religion caused more people to do evil things? Excuse me?

 

Simply counting the inquisition, the crusades, fundamentalist terrorist attacks in the name of religion, the killing of women and children for being disobedient to the laws of religion tip this awkward scale waaaay way over to the side of "religious people did bad things".

 

But of course, when it's easier to claim without evidence, it's possible to claim anything. So.. care to support this pretty outrageous claim, forufes?

Sociopathy is deemed a sickness by a society, not a surprise.

And yet, not by religion, which is also not surprising, considering:

 

 

The FBI gave the standard profile of a serial killer, He is a person with few friends. He became much more religious just before he started murdering people.

(.. snip ..)

 

Bruce Lee murdered 26 people. The Flint Journal article says "Bible reading was his only consolations" and he quoted the bible saying "Matthew 6, verse 24 no servant can be a serve of two masters."

David Berkowitz (Corbis) called the SON OF SAM, murdered more than 10 women. The newspaper said "He called himself a born again Christian"

 

Berwid The article in the Flint Journal quotes him "I was searching the bible and soul searching and I decided God wanted me to do that."

 

The Yorkshire Rapier "was on a divine mission and felt he had been chosen to hear the word of GOD (JESUS)." Reported the Flint Journal. He murdered 11 girls.

 

Miller a serial killer had that thing called faith, believed in Jesus. The Flint Journal article says he was always carrying the Bible.

 

Sampson Kanderayi, a mass murderer called The Ax Killer, killed more than 30 people. The newspaper reported "he did it to appease evil spirits." He was a Christian

 

Watts, The Sunday Morning Slasher killed 11 women. This article says he did it "to eliminate evil spirits".

Source: http://home.comcast.net/~pobrien48/serial_killers.htm

 

And that, of course, doesn't count the muslim fundamentalist terrorists who kill hundreds (and in the case of 9/11, thousands) of people in the name of religion.

 

By the way, Dahmer was forgiven by at least one pastor, so it seems not only did he kill despite his religious upbringing -- according to Christian dogma, he will not be punished in hell.

 

Is that your definition of "Moral"?

[CharonY]

 

I don't. I find empathy an illogical emotion which can be overturned by logic. Just like fear or disgust, it's a choice.

 

 

Science disagrees with you. There is a large body of evidence describing empathy in numerous social animals, including humans. This also includes lack thereof and association with certain personality disorders. A review on evolution of empathy: Decety Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2011 Aug;1231:35-45.

Take a look at the abstract:

 

There is strong evidence that empathy has deep evolutionary, biochemical, and neurological underpinnings. Even the most advanced forms of empathy in humans are built on more basic forms and remain connected to core mechanisms associated with affective communication, social attachment, and parental care. Social neuroscience has begun to examine the neurobiological mechanisms that instantiate empathy, especially in response to signals of distress and pain, and how certain dispositional and contextual moderators modulate its experience. Functional neuroimaging studies document a circuit that responds to the perception of others' distress. Activation of this circuit reflects an aversive response in the observer, and this information may act as a trigger to inhibit aggression or prompt motivation to help. Moreover, empathy in humans is assisted by other domain-general high-level cognitive abilities, such as executive functions, mentalizing, and language, which expand the range of behaviors that can be driven by empathy.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

To clarify needlessly; many people are good because of religion, and bad for a lack of it.

Also, lack of religion caused more people to do evil things, than an abundance of it has.

OK, so who exactly are the ones who are bad due to a lack of religion?

To clarify needlessly; many people are good because of religion, and bad for a lack of it.

How could you possibly hope to know that?

How could you tell?

It's an absurd claim to make.

 

 

Just for the sake of discussion, lets say that Stalin was an atheist- lacking all religion.

And, for the sake of discussion, I'm sure we can agree that he was evil.

But, how can you possibly know that one caused the other?

Perhaps he was just born bad and religion would have just slightly altered his targets and methods.

[cladking]

 

You should read the link in my last post.

 

The sky fairy might be wired into your brain, but He's not to be found in mine.

 

If morals were hardwired into the brain, we wouldn't have had to discuss "what is moral". We wouldn't have had to *change* what is considered moral as our societies evolve socially, either.

 

 

 

I suspected it might be risky to say that almost everything humans believe is hardwired into the brain where people don't accept the simple premise that it's language which created humanity. Language was hardwired and everything that was and is no more (ancient language and science) and everything that is which is built on the rubble as well as modern science are all founded on language.

 

It is the ability to pass complex ideas across generations which created humanity and it is the individual's infinite adaptability which allows us to act contrary to our nature. This ability to act contrary to our nature is seen everywhere from the holocaust to our ability to "feel" with our visual cortex. Intelligence is not at the root of humanity's success. If it were we'd still have little more than fire and a few stone tools. Complex language lies at the root of our success and everything springs from it.

 

It's true that morals per se might not be directly hardwired but they are an artefact of language which is an artefact of how the brain operates.

[forufes]

 

Science disagrees with you. There is a large body of evidence describing empathy in numerous social animals, including humans. This also includes lack thereof and association with certain personality disorders. A review on evolution of empathy: Decety Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2011 Aug;1231:35-45.

Take a look at the abstract:

If you say science disagrees with me then you don't understand my position.

I am not saying empathy doesn't exist in living beings, including humans.

I'm saying we can transcend it, logically.

OK, so who exactly are the ones who are bad due to a lack of religion?

To clarify needlessly; many people are good because of religion, and bad for a lack of it.

How could you possibly hope to know that?

How could you tell?

It's an absurd claim to make.

Those who are reformed with religion, were bad due to a lack of it, and tell of the many good who are such because they had enough of it.

Also, when religion says "do not steal" and a person of a religion steals, isn't that because they aren't religious enough?

 

the original quote is what's absurd.

 

Just for the sake of discussion, lets say that Stalin was an atheist- lacking all religion.

And, for the sake of discussion, I'm sure we can agree that he was evil.

But, how can you possibly know that one caused the other?

Perhaps he was just born bad and religion would have just slightly altered his targets and methods.

Maybe, religious people can be bad. But that just makes them less religious.

It is not because of religion that religious people are bad, it's for a lack of it.

That combined with empathy, empathy is also a source of morality for religious and atheist people alike.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

 

 

I suspected it might be risky to say that almost everything humans believe is hardwired into the brain where people don't accept the simple premise that it's language which created humanity. Language was hardwired and everything that was and is no more (ancient language and science) and everything that is which is built on the rubble as well as modern science are all founded on language.

 

It is the ability to pass complex ideas across generations which created humanity and it is the individual's infinite adaptability which allows us to act contrary to our nature. This ability to act contrary to our nature is seen everywhere from the holocaust to our ability to "feel" with our visual cortex. Intelligence is not at the root of humanity's success. If it were we'd still have little more than fire and a few stone tools. Complex language lies at the root of our success and everything springs from it.

 

It's true that morals per se might not be directly hardwired but they are an artefact of language which is an artefact of how the brain operates.

Wrong on a number of levels.

If language (rather than a capacity for language) was hard wired, we would all speak the same language.

Also, if everything is language, how can anyone invent anything new?

They can't even think of it, because there's no word for it.

 

Without language (in the broadest sense) there could be no religion, but there might be morals of some sort.

[TaoRich]

Also, lack of religion caused more people to do evil things, than an abundance of it has.

 

With all due respect, that has to be the most denialist statement I have ever read.

 

[forufes]

In the religious society which is the majority of human society, what is the ratio of evil religious people to moral laymen?

And considering that religion and god are the number one source for morality in theistic societies(otherwise atheists wouldn't be battling the concept so strongly, including this thread), can't we say that religion has managed our societies more fine than not?

 

 

What I'm saying basically, is that in current societies, religiousness is still strongly related to(not exactly synonymous with) morality. And look at us, we're doing just fine.

 

And I don't understand why you posted that picture, to reaffirm your self given superiority to yourself and your colleagues?

What value or merit does it add to this thread? What discussion is there in it, than dismissing attempts for discussion; "I'm right and you're wrong and I don't need to tell you why because I'm too smart to do so".

 

When I get baffled by someone's ignorance or lack of logic, and I don't have the time or patience to call them out, I move along or put them on ignore.

Edited March 3, 2014 by forufes

[mooeypoo]

You should put a mirror on that post, forufes, especially given the fact you seem to ignore the responses we posted so you can repeat your own.

 

Are you going to answer the last couple of posts I made, or are they too on-point?

[John Cuthber]

In the religious society which is the majority of human society, what is the ratio of evil religious people to moral laymen?

And considering that religion and god are the number one source for morality in theistic societies(otherwise atheists wouldn't be battling the concept so strongly, including this thread), can't we say that religion has managed our societies more fine than not?

 

 

What I'm saying basically, is that in current societies, religiousness is still strongly related to(not exactly synonymous with) morality. And look at us, we're doing just fine.

 

And I don't understand why you posted that picture, to reaffirm your self given superiority to yourself and your colleagues?

What value or merit does it add to this thread? What discussion is there in it, than dismissing attempts for discussion; "I'm right and you're wrong and I don't need to tell you why because I'm too smart to do so".

 

When I get baffled by someone's ignorance or lack of logic, and I don't have the time or patience to call them out, I move along or put them on ignore.

I'm calling Poe's law on this.

Nobody could sincerely say (in effect)

"I'm too arrogant to accept that I might be wrong, so I will ignore those who disagree and move on, pausing only to call them arrogant."

Come on Forufes, admit it.

You are an atheist pretending to be a theist putting forward an absurd version of theist belief, just to make the theists look dumb.

 

And that's before anyone addresses the question of how arrogant you need to be to claim to know the will of God and slaughter thousands in His name.

 

Nice try, but there's no way that anyone could truly believe that tripe.

[cladking]

Wrong on a number of levels.

If language (rather than a capacity for language) was hard wired, we would all speak the same language.

Also, if everything is language, how can anyone invent anything new?

They can't even think of it, because there's no word for it.

 

Without language (in the broadest sense) there could be no religion, but there might be morals of some sort.

 

Animals all have language and no one believes they thought it up.

 

Their language isn't like modern human language but more like a song or poetry that expresses meaning. Before complex language arose as a result of some mutation the human animals would have had a similar language. The mutation didn't suddenly give rise to new language it just made the existing animal language more complex. In addition to making it more complex it also created the human species by its abiility to pass learning across generations. This language became increasingly complex as more learning was added to it and it collapsed giving rise to modern symbolic language.

 

It is merely hubris to believe we have such complete knowledge or to believe that beavers invented dams through trial and error but men use genius. It's hubris to believe that ancient people could invent agriculture and cities despite being moribound with superstition. Our beliefs are passed down to us through language and these beliefs are a single perspective which is not highly consistent with reality or the nature of being human.

 

Human needs gave rise to morality through the logic of natural language and this was forgotten and became religion. But these needs persist despite our use of symbolic language and can be deduced logically. In either case morals are the result of logic; either the natural logic of the first human language or the acquired logic of symbolic language. They are not dependent upon nor derived from religion but religion is representative of the morals developed from natural logic.

[John Cuthber]

 

Animals all have language and no one believes they thought it up.

 

Their language isn't like modern human language but more like a song or poetry that expresses meaning. Before complex language arose as a result of some mutation the human animals would have had a similar language. The mutation didn't suddenly give rise to new language it just made the existing animal language more complex. In addition to making it more complex it also created the human species by its abiility to pass learning across generations. This language became increasingly complex as more learning was added to it and it collapsed giving rise to modern symbolic language.

 

It is merely hubris to believe we have such complete knowledge or to believe that beavers invented dams through trial and error but men use genius. It's hubris to believe that ancient people could invent agriculture and cities despite being moribound with superstition. Our beliefs are passed down to us through language and these beliefs are a single perspective which is not highly consistent with reality or the nature of being human.

 

Human needs gave rise to morality through the logic of natural language and this was forgotten and became religion. But these needs persist despite our use of symbolic language and can be deduced logically. In either case morals are the result of logic; either the natural logic of the first human language or the acquired logic of symbolic language. They are not dependent upon nor derived from religion but religion is representative of the morals developed from natural logic.

Let me know when that makes a difference.

i.e. tell me when it stops being true that I have morals but no religion.

 

BTW, you seem to have ignored my point about the idea that if language were hard wired we would all speak the same language.

To an extent, that's why dogs all bark, but cats all meow.

 

Never mind; it's off- topic.

[cladking]

Let me know when that makes a difference.

i.e. tell me when it stops being true that I have morals but no religion.

 

BTW, you seem to have ignored my point about the idea that if language were hard wired we would all speak the same language.

To an extent, that's why dogs all bark, but cats all meow.

 

Never mind; it's off- topic.

 

Of course you can have morals and no religion and this will persist as long as the human race. But it is hubris to believe that sky fairies which can't be seen or detected don't exist. Certainly it can be seen from a philosophical perspective and logic appears to weigh against their existence but they can't be ruled out.

 

We believe we have great knowledge but that's because we see what we understand and know and don't see what's outside our experience or unknown. We think of everything we know about acceleration caused by a magnet on the face of the earth but we don't notice that we don't understand the relationship between gravity and magnetism or their natures. Technology gives us comforts that religion never could and we deduce this must mean there is truth in science but not in religion. This is hubris as well since we don't even really understand the nature of religion.

 

Yes. The answer was off topic so I sneaked it in the best I could in my last post.

 

It isn't my contention that one can't have morals without religion. It is my contention that if we understood the nature of religion that we'd see that both religion and morals spring from logic; one is natural logic (the cat's meow) and the other is symbolic logic.

 

I'd love to talk about metaphysics but people are usually reluctant. It can keep for a more appropriate thread.

[John Cuthber]

"But it is hubris to believe that sky fairies unicorns which can't be seen or detected don't exist."

"But it is hubris to believe that sky fairies Thor which can't be seen or detected don't exist."

And so on, until your head is full of junk.

There's proof aplenty that the God of the Bible doesn't exist.

 

"It is my contention that if we understood the nature of religion that we'd see that both religion and morals spring from logic;"

Unfortunately for you, that contention isn't supported by evidence.

If it were then scientists (who are quite good at logic and evidence) would all be religious.

As I understand it, the stats go the other way.

[TaoRich]

<snip> can't we say that religion has managed our societies more fine than not?

 

No, we cannot.

 

Consider these "situations" ... all of which can be distilled down to one or other form of the childish argument: "my imaginary dude in the sky is superior to your imaginary dude in the sky, therefore I am bound to kill, maim, torture, destroy your entire community, under threat of failure denying me a place amongst the holy tabernacle cloud choir / gaggle of virgins etc. etc. ad nauseum".

 

1. Israelites vs. Philistines ( ongoing ... )

2. Crusaders vs. Heathens

3. Nazis vs. Jews

4. India / Pakistan : Muslims vs. Christians ( ongoing ... )

5. N Ireland : Catholics vs. Protestants ( ongoing ... )

6. Bosnia / Herzegovina : Muslims vs. Christians

7. America (sic) vs. The Whole of the Muslim Middle East : Christians vs. Muslims ( okay this one is really about oil, but let's stick to the official party line ... )

 

Right, add that up and you'll get to 10's of millions of dead people ... several 10's in fact ...

 

Could you please give me some examples of where Atheists / Agnostics have set out to remove an entire religion/gene-pool from the planet ?

 

( There's at least 2 attempted/failed genocides in the list above ).

 

And the point of the picture above ? Same as this one:

 

Edited March 4, 2014 by TaoRich

[tar]

Mooeypoo,

 

The religious wars that we have had can not be assigned to God, since we have not found any particular God to assign them to. The belief in a particular god or gods can certainly be the cause of religious wars because since their are no gods to battle it out, it is us that must be battling it out. One groups will against another groups will, based on the common beliefs of right and wrong held by an entire population that tie the entire population to a "greater" good, as the definition of religion alludes to.

 

Take the current situation in the Ukraine. Split loyalties. Some facing East to mother Russia, some facing West to Europe and the Americas, and some just wanting to be Ukrainian. There is probably not very many people in the Ukraine right now, that just wish the nightmare would be over, and they could wake up and just live life again, the way its "supposed" to be lived.

 

Yet we here in America, and in Europe believe that Putin has overstepped his bounds and broken the rules of international behavior, by taking over the Crimean pennisula by force of arms. Stovestapol (sorry forget the spelling) has a shared port, used by both the Ukrainian and Russian fleets. The Russians required the Ukrainian sailors to immediately surrender their ships or be boarded and steved (whatever that is). So how does one "stop" Putin's will? On what moral basis? That there is a "greater good" of peace and freedom, democracy and human rights and world order and cooperation at stake, that one should look to as a common belief that "should" win the day? Can we talk? Can we reason it out? Do we apply political pressure and cause Putin to feel like an "outsider" to morally? And if he persists, do we come to blows? Already, the U.S. is mired in battles around the world, do we commit blood and money to yet another "moral" battle? If morals could be had, without religion (a common set of beliefs), we would have an easy answer.

 

It is no more moral or immoral to impose your will on another, believing you are right, then to let evil stand, knowing it is wrong and "should" be defeated.

 

The litany of battles fought in the name of religion is long and stupid. But since there is no God to fight in the name of, or against, then all that remains to consider is the ideas and the ideals that form our morality. If there is an overarching judge of us, that can be used in all situations, whether that be logic or math or genes or survival of the species or whatever, if there is a "final" judge of right and wrong, then this is not a completely different "idea" than the idea of God. And if we all held the same beliefs as to what the nature of this judge is/was/will be, then it would be a religious belief.

 

Dimreepr,

 

The Pirahas came into my consciousness concerning my personal investigation of the "meaning" behind language. What was automatic and "from the genes" and what was learned. Specifically important to both understanding language, and morals and religion, in terms of what neurological aspects are repurposed or hijacked or "common" to all, is the fact that the Pirahas don't know how to count. Never used it, and don't see a reason to learn how to do it. They know "more" and "less" but never bothered to put a number to it.

 

We have Arabic numerals, because some Arab gave them to us.

 

Regards, TAR

[TaoRich]

<snip>

Take the current situation in the Ukraine. Split loyalties. Some facing East to mother Russia, some facing West to Europe and the Americas, and some just wanting to be Ukrainian.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-dr-susan-brooks-thistlethwaite/putins-holy-russia-goes-to-war_b_4886776.html

 

Putin's 'Holy Russia' Goes to War

Posted: 03/02/2014

What do you get when you combine ultra-nationalist religious and political conservatism along with homophobia and sexism? Some might say you get the Tea Party in the United States, but today that is the toxic mix that is fueling Vladimir Putin's militaristic moves against the people of Ukraine.

In other words, Pussy Riot is right. The lyrics of this Russian feminist, punk rock protest group, based in Moscow, are exactly on target. The themes of their protest music, as can be seen in Pussy Riot! A Punk Prayer for Freedom connect feminism, lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender rights, opposition to the dictatorial tendencies of Putin, and the links between Putin and the leadership of the Orthodox Church.

 

 

 

Kill the non-believers ...

God hates faggots ...

etfc.

 

And so it goes on and on and on and on ...

[CharonY]

If you say science disagrees with me then you don't understand my position.

I am not saying empathy doesn't exist in living beings, including humans.

I'm saying we can transcend it, logically.

.

 

Nope, if you overcome these emotions it it will be due to mechanisms like habituation or conditioning, but not by merely applying logic. I f you go bungee jumping the first time your logic will tell you that the chances of accidents are low and you are nicely secured. Still, your adrenaline will speak. Similarly, if you see other someone getting harmed you will wince (or, if you have good self control, it will require a PET scan to reveal brain activities that emulate getting harmed yourself). Unless you are a psychopath, of course. Fears, empathy and similar emotions are deeply embedded in us and while we can overcome them e.g. by getting desensitized, it does require quite some efforts. As such indoctrination is a much more suitable mechanisms to overcome empathy.

 

The overall point however, is that social behavior and empathy are much more deeply rooted than religion.

[forufes]

I'm calling Poe's law on this.

Nobody could sincerely say (in effect)

"I'm too arrogant to accept that I might be wrong, so I will ignore those who disagree and move on, pausing only to call them arrogant."

Come on Forufes, admit it.

You are an atheist pretending to be a theist putting forward an absurd version of theist belief, just to make the theists look dumb.

 

And that's before anyone addresses the question of how arrogant you need to be to claim to know the will of God and slaughter thousands in His name.

 

Nice try, but there's no way that anyone could truly believe that tripe.

What I'm saying (in effect); either show that someone is stupid, or move along and ignore them.

But to call someone stupid because they are so in your head, without showing why, is unacceptable.

And the nice thing is, once you show and explain why someone is stupid, calling them so explicitly becomes unnecessary.

Just look at it, a long post of arguments and opinions, and a short reply of "you're stupid, you and your like, i.e. the majority of people in the world, and are not worth arguing with.

Yeah... thanks for...uh... enlightening me.. I guess.. I'll be sure to come here more often to get more wisdom like that, and to show my thankfulness, I'll give you a green arrow, keep up your hard and well-thought work..

 

Venom is dripping from this thread..

I liked it better when religion was off limits on SFN. But I think it was unhealthy for all the members to keep all those feelings welled up inside of them..Poe's law indeed.

 

 

Nope, if you overcome these emotions it it will be due to mechanisms like habituation or conditioning, but not by merely applying logic. I f you go bungee jumping the first time your logic will tell you that the chances of accidents are low and you are nicely secured. Still, your adrenaline will speak. Similarly, if you see other someone getting harmed you will wince (or, if you have good self control, it will require a PET scan to reveal brain activities that emulate getting harmed yourself). Unless you are a psychopath, of course. Fears, empathy and similar emotions are deeply embedded in us and while we can overcome them e.g. by getting desensitized, it does require quite some efforts. As such indoctrination is a much more suitable mechanisms to overcome empathy.

 

The overall point however, is that social behavior and empathy are much more deeply rooted than religion.

Non-sequitur, IMHO.

I agree with you that empathy is ingrained in us, but I find religion and the belief in the supernatural, especially when it comes to matters about our origin and mortality, also ingrained in us. Both can be overcome, but how did you decide which is more deeply rooted?

And you know, I might even ask "does it matter?"

If humankind didn't have such strong susceptibility to religion, then why did they make it up so long ago and stick with it all this time? Do human societies need habituation or conditioning to be religious, or to be atheistic? Yet that hasn't stopped any of you to oppose your societies and upbringing and recondition yourself with science to overcome the "natural" religious root in humans.

Why can't I do the same about empathy?

[CharonY]

 

I agree with you that empathy is ingrained in us, but I find religion and the belief in the supernatural, especially when it comes to matters about our origin and mortality, also ingrained in us. Both can be overcome, but how did you decide which is more deeply rooted?

 

Due to the fact that empathy and social behavior is found in other animals as well. As you may have noticed, the reference I presented earlier was about the evolution of empathy. It s not something exclusive to us humans. So unless you want to point out that animals are religious, I am pretty confident that empathy has a longer history with us.

Edited March 4, 2014 by CharonY

[John Cuthber]

 

Just look at it, a long post of arguments and opinions, and a short reply of "you're stupid,

OK, I will play along, but I'm not fooled.

 

You seem to have got this the wrong way round.

You turn up at the end of a very long thread which already includes the arguments about the implausibility of religion,

Then, you put up one fairly short post making unsupported assertions about the almighty.

And, then you complain that nobody bothers to go over (yet again) all the evidence which shows that you are talking through a hole in your hat (and which you apparently didn't read).

Instead, you say "You are arrogant! for not immediately accepting my unevinced assertion!"

 

Like I said, it's obviously a parody.

Nobody would really do that.

[mooeypoo]

Mooeypoo,

 

The religious wars that we have had can not be assigned to God, since we have not found any particular God to assign them to. The belief in a particular god or gods can certainly be the cause of religious wars because since their are no gods to battle it out, it is us that must be battling it out. One groups will against another groups will, based on the common beliefs of right and wrong held by an entire population that tie the entire population to a "greater" good, as the definition of religion alludes to.

I didn't assign them to god, I assigned them to religions. There's a difference, tar.

 

It was also as a response to seriously weird claims of in the general sense of no religious person was ever violent, which is blatantly (and ridiculously) false, especially in light of the examples I've given.

 

It seems the originator of those claims chose to ignore the responses, though.

 

Take the current situation in the Ukraine. Split loyalties. Some facing East to mother Russia, some facing West to Europe and the Americas, and some just wanting to be Ukrainian. There is probably not very many people in the Ukraine right now, that just wish the nightmare would be over, and they could wake up and just live life again, the way its "supposed" to be lived.

We're not really talking about the same topic here, though. I'm not saying all wars and all evils come from religion, I'm saying religion isn't exempt from being a cause of wars.

 

In the argument of whether one can have morals without having religion, this is relevant, especially when there were some claims raised that religion is the most moral and non-religious is evil.

 

The fact not all wars and not all reasons for wars are as simple as "religion" doesn't mean that religion wasn't directly the cause of *many* wars and many evils. When we discuss the morality of "religion" we should discuss those too.

 

Yet we here in America, and in Europe believe that Putin has overstepped his bounds and broken the rules of international behavior, by taking over the Crimean pennisula by force of arms. Stovestapol (sorry forget the spelling) has a shared port, used by both the Ukrainian and Russian fleets. The Russians required the Ukrainian sailors to immediately surrender their ships or be boarded and steved (whatever that is). So how does one "stop" Putin's will? On what moral basis? That there is a "greater good" of peace and freedom, democracy and human rights and world order and cooperation at stake, that one should look to as a common belief that "should" win the day? Can we talk? Can we reason it out? Do we apply political pressure and cause Putin to feel like an "outsider" to morally? And if he persists, do we come to blows? Already, the U.S. is mired in battles around the world, do we commit blood and money to yet another "moral" battle? If morals could be had, without religion (a common set of beliefs), we would have an easy answer.

 

It is no more moral or immoral to impose your will on another, believing you are right, then to let evil stand, knowing it is wrong and "should" be defeated.

I don't understand what this has to do with whether morals come from religion.

 

It's a red herring; what we could and should do politically is different than what and where morals come from, and whether morals *can* come outside of religion.

 

There's a difference between morality, moral decisions, moral discussions, and what actual political actions a government chooses to take (that, as we all know, don't have anything to do with morality, at least more often than not)

 

So, I am not seeing the connection to the actual discussion..?

 

The litany of battles fought in the name of religion is long and stupid. But since there is no God to fight in the name of, or against, then all that remains to consider is the ideas and the ideals that form our morality.

Exactly. Which means that morality can (and in my opinion *SHOULD*) exist outside of religion, and without religion.

 

If there is an overarching judge of us, that can be used in all situations, whether that be logic or math or genes or survival of the species or whatever, if there is a "final" judge of right and wrong, then this is not a completely different "idea" than the idea of God. And if we all held the same beliefs as to what the nature of this judge is/was/will be, then it would be a religious belief.

I don't think there's a judge at all, and I believe morality is not fixed; it evolves with time and changes with different societies, as we can see all over the world. That said, this fits the idea that morality can exist outside of religion, which is what this thread is about.

 

We seem to be in agreement here, unless I'm missing something.

[forufes]

CLARIFICATION

I replied to two posts in my post #151.

I retract my reply to the second post, and any defense thereof.

[John Cuthber]

OK Forufes, play nicely by the rules and reply to the point I made.