HiddenPotential, you're basing everything from a religious perspective and that's fine, but its not all that's out there. When I wrote that not everyone follows their basic sense of right, I meant everyone, religious or not.
The basic concepts of not killing people or stealing are older than Christianity.
Supposedly religious people kill all the time despite the commandment that says: Thou shall not kill.
Originally posted by Cipher
HiddenPotential, you're basing everything from a religious perspective and that's fine, but its not all that's out there. When I wrote that not everyone follows their basic sense of right, I meant everyone, religious or not.
The basic concepts of not killing people or stealing are older than Christianity.
Supposedly religious people kill all the time despite the commandment that says: Thou shall not kill.
Exactly -- how many wars are started in the name of religion? Look at the Crusades.
For the last time, morals DO NOT stem from religion. That would suggest that most of the worlds killing comes from people without religion.
Interesting fact for you, if religion caused people to always be moral then why is it that religion is responsible for more murder and pain then any other reason?
Morals are caused by society, not religion.
I never said ALL war and strife is caused by religion. I said religion is responsible for more death and war then any other cause in history, which is true.
The vast majority of past wars were faught by people who believed so strongly in their religion that they were willing to kill people who opposed said religion. I think we can all agree that this is not moral.
Had these peoples religion given them solid morals to live by, then they would not have killed numerous other people because they believed in a different invisible man then their opponents.
On a similar note, having the argument of "morals come from religion" should suggest that all people who believe heavily in religion should be moral. However, if this was the case then catholic priests would not have raped young boys. That is NOT moral, no matter how you slice it.
The bottom line is this -- Morals would exist with or without religion. Killing and raping would still be considered wrong, as would stealing and the such. I know this because me and many people I know who are atheists have these same morals, despite the fact that we are NOT religious at all.
Originally posted by HiddenPotential
so you like to use the ethics and live by them but never acknowledge where they came from. Thats weak.
My ethics (or I should say, my ethical system) come from Kant. Well, a modification of Kant's theories--I thought he applied them poorly in certain situations--but basically from Kant. If you think that you can't have morality without religion, it means that you've never studied morality. Which would not be a problem in and of itself, but when you then go on to lecture people about something you clearly don't actually know about, it just makes you look bad.
Originally posted by Cipher
HiddenPotential, you're basing everything from a religious perspective and that's fine, but its not all that's out there. When I wrote that not everyone follows their basic sense of right, I meant everyone, religious or not.
The basic concepts of not killing people or stealing are older than Christianity.
Supposedly religious people kill all the time despite the commandment that says: Thou shall not kill.
Thought shall not murder. It sound cold hearted, but wars don't count as mass murder. Only people can murder, in a average society. Besides there's a war that outweighs all murder and wars throughout the world- the war on germs. 🧑⚕️
Originally posted by BackFire
I never said ALL war and strife is caused by religion. I said religion is responsible for more death and war then any other cause in history, which is true.The vast majority of past wars were faught by people who believed so strongly in their religion that they were willing to kill people who opposed said religion. I think we can all agree that this is not moral.
Had these peoples religion given them solid morals to live by, then they would not have killed numerous other people because they believed in a different invisible man then their opponents.
On a similar note, having the argument of "morals come from religion" should suggest that all people who believe heavily in religion should be moral. However, if this was the case then catholic priests would not have raped young boys. That is NOT moral, no matter how you slice it.
The bottom line is this -- Morals would exist with or without religion. Killing and raping would still be considered wrong, as would stealing and the such. I know this because me and many people I know who are atheists have these same morals, despite the fact that we are NOT religious at all.
Two points- pedophiles are regarded as outcasts, evil people. It doesn't matter where they come from. They are crazy, and thus their beliefs are off track.
You live in a Christian law based country. In africa, they have a lovely idea that female circumsition is an excellent act for their immortal soul. I prefer our law basis
So remember, you have a christian mind set if you live in America or Europe.
Originally posted by Ytaker
Criminals would agree mightily. So, for that matter does Saddam Hussein.
So would Gandhi. Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, killed people to maintain his power, and so, obviously, would not.
And what sort of arguement is that, anyway? I'm sure criminals and Saddam Hussein would agree that using sope is desirable; does that make it wrong?