Originally posted by NewGuy01
Right.
Morality is but the outcome of the ideologies of Religion.
Morality are the rules stablished by Religion. If you don't believe in Religion, you shouldn't believe in it's rules neither.
Animals aren't immoral! They are the perfect example of an Atheist (Since they don't believe in Religion because they can't).
P.D. Don't take offense for saying Animals are good Atheists. I mean no offense.
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Morality is but the outcome of the ideologies of Religion.
Wrong.
Morality are the rules stablished by Religion. If you don't believe in Religion, you shouldn't believe in it's rules neither.
No, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in any rules. Hell, I could come up with my own rules, and it would still be a moral code, religion or no.
Animals aren't immoral! They are the perfect example of an Atheist.
Right.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Wrong.No, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in any rules. Hell, I could come up with my own rules, and it would still be a moral code, religion or no.
Right.
Eh....yeah. However the current laws are based on the Moral concept of Religion.
If you dont believe in God then you can create your own moral rules.
"god is the moral foundation of our culture"
No, he isn't.
Our culture has become more ethical as we've seperated ourselves from god. The West's 'ethics" have been based on a gradual seperation of the church and a state.
And religion isn't "transcendent", it's based on very fallible human beings' perceptions.
Aitheism is simply a lack of belief in god, it doesn't remotely preclude you from creating your meaning to base your virtues off. As we are naturally social beings, it's natural we would opt to cooperate rather than kill each other.
Religion did not create morality, the morals religion instills were morals that existed well before the religions existed. The morals of a religion are based on the morals of the people who create the religion, not the concept of god itself.
There simply isn't anything morally off about athiesim. And as society has shifted away from reliance on religion, we've become better more tolerant and moral people.
Not to mention that the whole, "do good and you get rewarded or do bad and get punished" is just as shallow as any material based morality.
Religious people have no business preaching to atheists about morality.
My personal point of view is that there's a special type of religious regressivism and a special type of atheist regressivism, and certain specific benefits accrued to the best members of both groups. The idea that if everyone was religious or everyone was atheist we'd live in a noticeably better world is absolute nonsense IMO, and I think it'd get worse either of those ways tbh.
morality can't be attributed to religion as morality exists with or without it. The use of reason and logic to better society can outright be attributed to athieism as it was unsubstatiated religious beliefs that was replaced by the use of logic and reason.
Society has become more tolerant and more advanced as religion has had less and less of an influence recently.
Stands to reason that as religion has less and less of an influence on sh!t, society will get better.
Originally posted by RockydonovangIt seems that to me that you, unknowingly I suppose, opened up a path to refute this point by using Peterson's reasoning. (which I share to some degree.)
morality can't be attributed to religion as morality exists with or without it.
I will address some points made in this thread soon.
In the meantime I must say I see a few necessary correctives concering some anthropological claims.
Originally posted by socool8520
I agree that a notion of the afterlife at least, has been with us for awhile, but I don't think it has ultimately shaped our morality. It has been an influence, but I think survival and having to stick together influenced our cooperation, and ultimately, forced us to treat each other better. just my opinion though.
Originally posted by socool8520
That doesn't mean that god has to bring you there or it the influence of a god. It could just as easily be for cooperation's sake. The mutual benefit of working together to progress. no God needed.
Exactly. It's not just your opinion. It's really... fact. lol
And Peterson claims to be rooted in evolutionary theory and he totally misses this point. It's baffling.
Originally posted by Stigma
Still, that is not the claim made.Cooperation is the way in which the ideal may have been realized. Say, for thousands of years by trial and error humanity got better and they reached a certain moral system.
It may be the case, sure. 馃憜
What is said though, is that a moral ideal was a faundation for the process of developing that morality. Thus, this ideal is transcendent in itself.
Then he's making the claim that morality existed before everything else, just like God supposedly did. It's another unprovable claim and is therefore moot.
Is that why the Bible and Koran advocate rape and slavery? It's rooted in our evolutionary past for sure.. heh
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Our culture has become more ethical as we've seperated ourselves from god. The West's 'ethics" have been based on a gradual seperation of the church and a state.馃憜 And religion isn't "transcendent", it's based on very fallible human beings' perceptions.
Yeah, in fact, with secular meditations atheism is far more capable of 'transcendence' than any fundamental religion. Anthropomorphized gods are obstacles to transcendence.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Religion did not create morality, the morals religion instills were morals that existed well before the religions existed. The morals of a religion are based on the morals of the people who create the religion, not the concept of god itself....
Religious people have no business preaching to atheists about morality.
馃憜
If there's a problem with atheism Jordan Peterson has not found it or at least has not articulated it effectively.