'Nones' Now as Big as Evangelicals & Catholics in the US

Started by Robtard7 pages

I believe what I said in my post.

You can call it the "golden rule" if you like; it existed long before someone coined that phrase and applied it to religions.

Originally posted by Robtard
I believe what I said in my post.

You can call it the "golden rule" if you like; it existed long before someone coined that phrase and applied it to religions.

So you think there is objective morality or no ?

I believe morals predate religions, religions are man-made after all

I also know there's Atheist with morals

I also know there's Theist with virtually no morals who routinely go against their own claimed beliefs. eg The Catholic pedo priest, the Mormon CEO who embezzles, the Evangelical who condemns homosexuality in one breath and then breaks several Leviticus laws in another

But we agree that morals are objective in the sense that they aren't decided in an arbitrary manner, right ?

Regardless of if people stick to them or not. 2+2=4 regardless of if an observer of that equation believes it or not.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
But we agree that morals are objective in the sense that they aren't decided in an arbitrary manner, right ?

Regardless of if people stick to them or not. 2+2=4 regardless of if an observer of that equation believes it or not.

Religious morality is not objective. It is entirely arbitrary to the will of a supreme being.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
But we agree that morals are objective in the sense that they aren't decided in an arbitrary manner, right ?

Regardless of if people stick to them or not. 2+2=4 regardless of if an observer of that equation believes it or not.

Nah. Morals are decided by people, cos we make them and they're subject to change. eg At one point in America it was moral to own slaves, then it wasn't when enough people thought "hey, Black people are people too and I wouldn't want to be a slave myself, so I won't enslave others."

But sure, I agree that 2+2=4 in regards to math.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Religious morality is not objective. It is entirely arbitrary to the will of a supreme being.

I was going to say something to that effect. It has varied in place and time and is anything but "objective." For example, modern Christians choose to ignore a lot of the barbaric bullshit that would have gotten you burned alive or otherwise executed if you didn't follow in the middle ages.

And they have the nerve to hijack morality and claim they're "objective."

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I was going to say something to that effect. It has varied in place and time and is anything but "objective." For example, modern Christians choose to ignore a lot of the barbaric bullshit that would have gotten you burned alive or otherwise executed if you didn't follow in the middle ages.

And they have the nerve to hijack morality and claim they're "objective."

"Religious morality" is a misnomer, because religious moralities are not moral systems. They provide no frameworks for solving moral problems. They are simply a list of moral dictates, allegedly from a supreme being. That means that they are completely arbitrary to the will of that being, and if He decided that something we all agree is immoral was moral tomorrow, then it would be. There is nothing objective about that.

Agreed.

And the religious in different times and places have indeed completely shifted on what is or isn't moral.

Okay, so the reason you were dancing around my question is because you think morality is subjective. Got it.

Dance? I answered you the first time. You and your silly games.

Originally posted by Robtard
Dance? I answered you the first time. You and your silly games.
CONFESS CONFESS

SAHY WAHTEVER IT IS WOLD MAKE YOU GHEY

Originally posted by Huwgd
CONFESS CONFESS

SAHY WAHTEVER IT IS WOLD MAKE YOU GHEY

Rob is SUPER ghey. 😂

Originally posted by Robtard
Dance? I answered you the first time. You and your silly games.

If someone asks you a yes or no question, it's kind of weird to answer otherwise.

I had a feeling you didn't believe in objective morality, but you said something about do unto others and the sun.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
If someone asks you a yes or no question, it's kind of weird to answer otherwise.

I had a feeling you didn't believe in objective morality, but you said something about do unto others and the sun.

Sometimes simple Yes or No questions like...

Originally posted by ilikecomics
So you think there is objective morality or no ?

...come across as over simplified traps and are thus disingenuous.

It wasn't a trap. I have no gotcha come back to him not believing that morality is objective. Just seeing where he was at.

I think there is objective morality, but that doesn't mean I'm correct.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
If someone asks you a yes or no question, it's kind of weird to answer otherwise.

I see.

Do your parents know you're gay?

Originally posted by Robtard
I see.

Do your parents know you're gay?

This highlights what leech was saying, I get how it's a trick now and why you were hesitant. Thank you for the insight.

American secularism is growing — and growing more complicated

Another book, “Secularism: The Basics,” out this month from Georgetown University professor Jacques Berlinerblau, focuses on political secularism and argues that while Americans may be growing less religious, their government and courts are becoming less secular.

...

Emma Koonse Wenner, religion editor for Publishers Weekly, said there is a bit of a boom happening on the topic. There are so many people who have left traditional religious structures but are still interested in the “spiritual but not religious” genre, she said, that PW now does a regular feature on the topic of the “nones” — those Americans who tell pollsters they have “no religion.” That group has swelled from 16 percent of the country in 2007 to 29 percent today, Pew Research said last month.

@patientleech

Do you worry that the destruction of religion will leave a psycho-spiritual vacuum that people could fill with something worse ? Or do you think any alternatives to traditional religious thinking is superior ?