Religion Good news!

[Wij]

Only fuzzy morals we have is; save own arse, save mates arse, kill all opposers.

Anything else, all religion of one form or other.

No. It isn't.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yeah, "no it isn't" is a good solid argument.

Burden of proof, people who say morals would exist without religion, ball your court, enjoy.

 

[caLLous]

You don't need 10 fictional instructions written on 2 fictional bits of rock to know what's acceptable and what's not.

 

[Wij]

Yeah, "no it isn't" is a good solid argument.

Burden of proof, people who say morals would exist without religion, ball your court, enjoy.

It didn't require backing up because it's totally obvious.

I have no religion but I have ethics. Millions of others do.

There are non-religious systems of thought that have ethical dimensions, like Communism. Mostly all as dumb as religion but it proves the point.

Where do ethics come from? A cursory study of meta-ethics will show you that belief in a supernatural origin of ethics collapses with even the slightest enquiry. Even if a God did exist I would damn well judge His behaviour by MY ethical standards.

 

[Wij]

You don't need 10 fictional instructions written on 2 fictional bits of rock to know what's acceptable and what's not.

Which ones anyway?

Exodus 20
Exodus 34
or Deuteronomy 5

???

Incest, rape, slavery, torture? No mention of em. 10 commandments don't really cut it.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You're basing your point on a current situation though, which already is a moral setting in place because of religion. Without religion to set rules, our morality these days would be very different and in the very basis of it it's survival above all.

Slavery, torture, incest, rape, killing, all might very well be a regular ongoing thing.

 

[Krazeh]

You're basing your point on a current situation though, which already is a moral setting in place because of religion. Without religion to set rules, our morality these days would be very different and in the very basis of it it's survival above all.

Religion codified existing morals and rules, it didn't create them. Humans are social animals that naturally live in community/tribal settings. Morality stems from that, not religion.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Religion codified existing morals and rules, it didn't create them. Humans are social animals that naturally live in community/tribal settings. Morality stems from that, not religion.

If we're talking christianity, then yes, they modified it to fit different conquer spots. Like with the vikings, they fit all the santamas stuff and easters in there tight and snug. Religion was way before that though.

And in that case, talking without christianity, we might be living by roman god rules and fiddling little boys would be normal. You just can't deny that modern morals and ethics aren't as they are because of religion.

Humans indeed are tribal, but killing eachother for stuff(generic stuff, whatever it was)was a part of our nature for a long time and it very well could be still and a lot more accepted. Not inside your own tribe ofcourse, but still. We'd be a lot mroe ruled by basic survival and protection of family at -all- costs.

Now it's possible, -possible-, that we'd have a similar moral setting these days without religious influence, but since it can't be proven you have to admit the correlation between the two as things are now.

 

[Krazeh]

You just can't deny that modern morals and ethics aren't as they are because of religion.

Yes I can. Modern morals and ethics are due to changes in societal thinking, not religion.

Humans indeed are tribal, but killing eachother for stuff(generic stuff, whatever it was)was a part of our nature for a long time and it very well could be still and a lot more accepted. Not inside your own tribe ofcourse, but still. We'd be a lot mroe ruled by basic survival and protection of family at -all- costs.

Again, societal pressure brought about by increased population (and therefore community) sizes, increased resource availability and improved technological base lead to moral changes. Not to mention evolutionary pressures to favour behaviours that assist the survival of the group rather than simply the individual.

Now it's possible, -possible-, that we'd have a similar moral setting these days without religious influence, but since it can't be proven you have to admit the correlation between the two as things are now.

No I don't. If you're going to claim there's a correlation you have to prove it, it's not down to everyone else to disprove it.

 

[Raven]

A bit like the existence of god then People can't just say there is and that's that, they have to prove it.

 

[Raven]

If we're talking christianity, then yes, they modified it to fit different conquer spots. Like with the vikings, they fit all the santamas stuff and easters in there tight and snug. Religion was way before that though.

And in that case, talking without christianity, we might be living by roman god rules and fiddling little boys would be normal. You just can't deny that modern morals and ethics aren't as they are because of religion.

Humans indeed are tribal, but killing eachother for stuff(generic stuff, whatever it was)was a part of our nature for a long time and it very well could be still and a lot more accepted. Not inside your own tribe ofcourse, but still. We'd be a lot mroe ruled by basic survival and protection of family at -all- costs.

Now it's possible, -possible-, that we'd have a similar moral setting these days without religious influence, but since it can't be proven you have to admit the correlation between the two as things are now.

You're just plain wrong on just about every point.

 

[old.Tohtori]

No I don't. If you're going to claim there's a correlation you have to prove it, it's not down to everyone else to disprove it.

No, the burden of proof is on you to proove that without religion we'd have the same morals and values. With religion it's proven because it's history, it's right there.

 

[Krazeh]

No, the burden of proof is on you to proove that without religion we'd have the same morals and values. With religion it's proven because it's history, it's right there.

Except history doesn't prove it has anything to do with religion. What it does do is prove that changes in societies and collective thinking lead to changes in moral values without any input whatsoever from religion. Evolutionary science also demonstrates that morality is likely linked to evolutionary pressure and studies of the animal world demonstrate that rudimentary morality can be observed in other social animals.

 

[Wij]

No, the burden of proof is on you to proove that without religion we'd have the same morals and values. With religion it's proven because it's history, it's right there.

No, it isn't. Who said it would be exactly the same? Your argument seems to be shifting. What exactly is your claim (in one sentence)?

a.) Morality is defined by and solely comes from something supernatural.
b.) Morality is dictated to us by a supernatural being or beings.
c.) Religion is the sole source of human morality regardless of the truth of its source.
d.) Religion is the main source of human morality regardless of its source.
e.) Religion is a social phenomena and influences morality just as other social phenomena do.

 

[Punishment]

To summarize:

Be nice or sky fairies will fuck you up K

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'm saying that current morals, ethics, what have you wouldn't be what they are without religious influece -because- it has influenced us. That hasn't shifted anywhere. It's a fact, we are what we are due to religion being there and being there in a VERY influencal way.

All i ever said was that it's not given we would be better off morally without religion, we could be worse.

Why you read that i say any of the above is beyond me.

 

[Wij]

I'm saying that current morals, ethics, what have you wouldn't be what they are without religious influece -because- it has influenced us. That hasn't shifted anywhere. It's a fact, we are what we are due to religion being there and being there in a VERY influencal way.

All i ever said was that it's not given we would be better off morally without religion, we could be worse.

Why you read that i say any of the above is beyond me.

They were options. You could choose one of them. As it was you chose (e.) which is pretty much a non-religious claim. You've certainly shifted back from this:

Only fuzzy morals we have is; save own arse, save mates arse, kill all opposers.

Anything else, all religion of one form or other.

 

[Wij]

Compare that quote with this within a page:

All i ever said was that it's not given we would be better off morally without religion, we could be worse.

Not even similar.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yeah sorry, i forgot how brits(especially) read things. In other words; no concept of context of what is said, just exact reading of words and nitpicking those to parts.

Just to make it clearer to you, those two quotes aren't against eachother, they state two different things.

 

[Wij]

Yeah sorry, i forgot how brits(especially) read things. In other words; no concept of context of what is said, just exact reading of words and nitpicking those to parts.

Just to make it clearer to you, those two quotes aren't against eachother, they state two different things.

They do but they invite the reader to arrive at opposing viewpoints. Playing naive now is just ducking.

You initially made a claim that would easily be interpreted as "Humans have little morality without religion" and then retreated your position under analysis. A few posts above you restated it as "Religion has been a major influence on human morality and it would not be as it is now if it had not been there". Which is uncontroversial even for an atheist. Morality and society influence each other. Religion has been a major part of society. It's a sociological claim. Not a religious one.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Interpretation does not fact make Especially if i state that it's nto meant as such.

My very first post on the matter was this;

Well...we would need proof that morality(as it is) would exist without religion.

Which is the same thing i said in "religion has been a major influence...", jsut not in so many words.

I'm not playing anything either, this obsession people have with "you're doing x" is ridicilous really. And that goes towards anyone saying to anyone that.

If you at any point thought i said that religion made all our morals and nothing else influenced them, you're simply wrong in your assumption and that's that.

 

[Wij]

It isn't the same thing. We DO NOT need proof that morality (as it is) would exist without religion. And that counts whether you interpret 'as it is' literally, which would be a stupid claim that noone has made, or you interpret it more loosely, since morality exists all around us without religion.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yes it exists without religion these days, but it wouldn't be the same morals without religions influences in the past.

I'll ask it very simply; has religion, in the past say 2000 years, influenced our morals?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Completely off-topic to this pointless argument that is clearly just to waste time, found a "joke" on youtube;

A Christian and an Atheist walk into a bar...
They proceed to have a few drinks and enjoy each other's company because neither are pretentious assholes.

 

[Wij]

Yes it exists without religion these days, but it wouldn't be the same morals without religions influences in the past.

I'll ask it very simply; has religion, in the past say 2000 years, influenced our morals?

I have specifically said it has on several occasions since morality is heavily influenced by the sociological climate. I have also said that this is not a religious position but a sociological one and does not show that morality has a religious basis. There's a world of difference.

 

[old.Tohtori]

And that's all i've said all along. Which, to return to my very first reply on it; it can't be proven what morals would be this day without religion.

In reply to "what does morals have to do with religion", especially since some people have even a stronger moral code due to being religious.

So religion has something to do with morals, all i've been saying. We can agree.

If you'll note, i never said other factors haven't affected our morals.

 

[Wij]

'Has something to do with' and 'is the basis of' could not be more different things.

And this position is still not a bit like:

Only fuzzy morals we have is; save own arse, save mates arse, kill all opposers.

Anything else, all religion of one form or other.

 

[old.Tohtori]

'Has something to do with' and 'is the basis of' could not be more different things.

And this position is still not a bit like:

Only fuzzy morals we have is; save own arse, save mates arse, kill all opposers.

Anything else, all religion of one form or other.

That's our basic nature, the very primal source of it all as is with all species on this planet.

Has nothign to do with religion and on your first line? Derp, never claimed other.

 

[Wij]

Ok. That just made no sense.

 

[Scouse]

I'll ask it very simply; has religion, in the past say 2000 years, influenced our morals?

No, not really.

Christianity adoped (i.e. stole and claimed it "invented") an existing morality, twisted it and enforced it's bastardisation through fear and (lots of) violence.

Now that christianity is dying it's about-fucking-time death the original morality is coming back to the fore.

i.e. don't steal, don't murder, but you can now have sex with whoever you want to and your kids aren't "invalid" because they're born outside of the church's control.