I have, time and again. And rather than get into our typical disagreement that ALWAYS ends in you saying you have to go because the conversation has reached a point where you can no longer argue, you disappear for a few days until no one is paying attention to the fact that you can't prove god, I'd just as soon not.
__________________ "If I were you"
"If you were me, you'd know the safest place to hide...is in sanity!
That lengthy post had nothing to do with my point. But since you brought it up, show me one single post of mine where I declare my moral supremecy to Hindus or Buddhists. To be honest, I really don't consider myself very moral, porque I have a decent-sized criminal wrap-sheet, among other things.
And you don't know "full well" what morality would look like without the concept of god. You might as well try tell me that you know full well what the world would look like in the year 2000 had the Axis won World War II. But you can't, because it would only be speculation. I have my opinions of what the world would be like today had the tide of war went the other way, but its impossible to know for certain. Just like you with your assertion "There would be morals without Santa God!".
I do know full well that morality would exist without religion, becuse morals don't need religion to exist. It's one of the myths used by the religious to validate their faith.
And I never said that you directly said your morals were superior. But if you think that morals wouldn't exist without religion and you are so certain of your particular version of god, then how could you not think your religious choices are superior to the choices of every other religion or version of god, now and in the past?
__________________ "If I were you"
"If you were me, you'd know the safest place to hide...is in sanity!
Ok, now here's what I think it would be like. If there was never such a thing as religion, morals wouldn't be...morals. They would just be laws, rules and social norms. But they wouldn't be 'morals' with the connotation that we think of when we hear the word. So I would argue that morality does require religion based on that.
I don't think they're superior as in "better", but I think they're correct. There's no sense in adhering to a religion unless you think that.
Well yes, religion just compounds the issue exponentially, unless the religion in question doesn't point the finger and arbitrary separate 'righteous people' from 'deviant people' for illogical reasons, which we know Christianity in this case, isn't that kind of religion.
Because at some point, someone decided to declare various acts sinful and against God's supposed views, regardless of logic.
E.G. If you'll notice the (dare I say) evolution "man shall not lie with man, in the bed of a woman" (oldest text), which has somehow now become "homosexuality is a sin" as an all encompassing entity. That's also considering that the oldest religious texts we have of Christianity are not as old as Christianity itself.
And the vast majority of those sects all share the same basic principles, one god, Jesus-God, virgin birth, died for your sins on the cross etc. Otherwise they wouldn't be in the Christianity family.
Though some are more rediculous than others in regards as to how far they stray from the original concept, Westboro Church, being a perfect example.
Edit: Actually, is there a Christian-based religion that doesn't view Jesus as the savior and the commandments as God's laws?
You can sit here in the present as say the moral and legal strictures we follow are ones we would arrive at anyway because they are the ones you have always known. To you they seem obvious and reasonable. Cultural conditioning can do that to people.
A blanket statement that not having a god concept would somehow have no effect on the existence of morals is foolish. I could say the same thing about chocolate if I wanted to. There is no evidence for the claim beyond rather subjective logic.
Following my logic (equally as subjective as your own, of course), lacking god as many people understand it would make morals as we know them virtually impossible to have. Certain things would still exist (in fact I would probably go so far as to say most of them would) but lacking the backing of religion they would not be morals, just laws or common sense.
At most removing god the process of forming our morals would just lead to an equivalent forcing taking its place, like extreme Darwinism or what have you. Without a moral forcing dictating a concept of what is "right" and what is "wrong" the only basis for enforcing constraint of behavior is what is practical and what is beneficial for society as a whole. But those aren't morals, they're just laws.
In practice nothing might change but the rather abstract concept of morality would have to be thrown out the window or altered into the same thing with a different name.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
As can religious conditioning lead you to believe that people couldn't be respectful and decent to each other without the fear of being punished after death. Which is sad if you think about it.
I never said it wouldn't have any affect, just that people and societies could/would realize that harming others and robbing others isn't the way one should treat others, you know, because they would hate being killed, raped or robbed themselves.
Excellent, "common sense" is perfect. So we'd have the same basic human understandings, just they wouldn't be named "morals" and people wouldn't be abiding just because they fear punishment after death, they be abiding because it just makes sense for a society to function and flourish.
"Without a moral forcing dictating a concept of what is "right" and what is "wrong" the only basis for enforcing constraint of behavior is what is practical and what is beneficial for society as a whole. But those aren't morals, they're just laws."-Symmetric Chaos
Exactly, same basic thing, just a different word. Seems you're only disagreement at the end is semantics.
Those parts of Christianity are not the ones relevant to this discussion. The parts that are relevant (as you put it arbitrary separate 'righteous people' from 'deviant people') vary wildly from group to group.
I happen to be part of a very liberal Church, they let in Jews and Atheists and Gays and Blacks and Fatties and all kinds of people (No mutants thought. God hates them.) Debate and analysis of scripture is encouraged. Converting people doesn't make it onto the radar.
And yeah, they do believe in: one god, Jesus-God, virgin birth, died for your sins on the cross etc.
Fun people . . .
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
While I applaud the forward thinking of your Church (I do mean that), correct me if I'm wrong, won't those Jews, Gays and Atheist still burn in hell after death, since they're sinning or not abiding by God's laws in one or more ways according to the Bible?
I am unclear as to how a church is progressive because they "let in" the coloured and the fatties. I'm also unclear on how an actual atheist goes to a church just to tell the people in it how wrong they are.
__________________ "If I were you"
"If you were me, you'd know the safest place to hide...is in sanity!
KMC Community Forums
May 8th, 2008 03:15 AM
