RE: Does being religious mean that you are:

RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

Does being religious mean that you are:

More moral than the non-religious

13% (8)

As moral as the non-religious

36% (22)

Less moral than the non-religious

18% (11)

chose none of the above as I refuse to voice an opinion yet still vote

31% (19)

Total Votes : 60

(last vote on : 5/14/2014 8:05:37 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

njlauren -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/5/2013 9:22:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Paladinagain If you believe in nothing you will fall for anything. If you have morals you must make judgments. I have a right and duty to shun homosexuals and lesbians as immoral people leading a lesser and damaging lifestyle. Having no standards is not conducive to having morals and one MUST choose their standards and live by the consequences. If history has taught us anything , it is that man cannot govern himself and that most of the people are wrong most of the time. What the hell are you doing on Collarme then? I hope you realize that according to the 'morals' of your faith, this board and all on it are abominations, since sex according to the dear old bible is for making babies, Paul thought sex was so disgusting that he wrote a whole screed about how foul and vile it was (he basically said you shouldn't have sex or get married, and only get married if you have such a case of blue balls you can't stand it). I don't think BD/SM would stand up to your code of morality. BTW, the bible does not say it is your job to shun gays, anymore than it says to shun anyone else who sins. I suggest you read the line about making fun of the mote in your neighbor's eye when you have a log i yours.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/5/2013 9:31:23 PM)
Sense, and behavior are not synonyms. A sense of fairness/unfairness would be crying when given a smaller share of something. An innate moral behavior would be climbing out of the high chair and making sure that every baby in the nursery had identical shares. None of the research cited makes, much less supports the claim that humans are hardwired to instinctively conduct themselves in the latter ( moral as in fair righteous, etc.) manner. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Fairness is not morality it is at most ethics. The sense of fairness observed in studies of pre-verbal human infants is classed as moral behavior. Not a single researcher anywhere attributes it to the baby's "ethics". K.

Kirata -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/5/2013 9:31:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren BTW, the bible does not say it is your job to shun gays It sure doesn't. I think it calls for stoning them or something... [:D] K.

Kirata -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/5/2013 9:47:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Sense, and behavior are not synonyms. A sense of fairness/unfairness would be crying when given a smaller share of something. An innate moral behavior would be climbing out of the high chair and making sure that every baby in the nursery had identical shares. None of the research cited makes, much less supports the claim that humans are hardwired to instinctively conduct themselves in the latter ( moral as in fair righteous, etc.) manner. No behavior observed in the studies. Check. No evidence of hardwiring/structure in the brain. Check. Well damn! Your discovery of fraud on such a scale is a fucking scientific bombshell. This has to be reported. Have you told anybody else? K.

PeonForHer -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/6/2013 5:11:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice FR Recently received but haven't had a chance to read a pertinent new book that sounds fascinating. The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates Yep. It does look fascinating. There's a general idea in there, by the looks of it, that's been kicking around for quite a while. Myself, I've come to the conclusion that the most basic 'moral sense' of all is articulated by the line 'do to others as you'd have them do to you' and that basic sense is at least prevalent - and perhaps near-universal - in humans plus some other species. My little hypothesis is that it's to do with empathy and this grows quite naturally with maturation. A baby learns first that its body is part of it; later it learns that its mother is in some way part of it; later still, that all humans are in some way part of itself. I wince when I see someone else hurt because of that empathetic sense. It's as though I'm being hurt because that person being hurt is a part of me. But, but . . . I say 'nearly universal' because, as we all know, there's also the selfish sense - which involves the ability to 'cut oneself off' from others. Work in progress in my head. But I feel pretty confident about that hypothesis - put it that way.

MstSebastian -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/6/2013 6:22:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata There's a fair amount of research out there, both with infants and animals, and obviously I don't have every study at my fingertips. But here are a couple of links: Babies Know What's Fair Sense of Justice Built Into the Brain K.[/font][/size] So, now what about these means that there is a universal morality? What makes a sense of justice or fairness an indicator of this universal morality?

Powergamz1 -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/6/2013 6:27:22 AM)
Getting a little desperate there? You should be content with your 'victory' of calling the dictionary and encyclopedia 'faux' definitions. BTW, how do you square this assertion of innate morality with an utter lack of integrity while claiming to be one of the 'moral' ones? Or are you going to pretend that never happens either? quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Sense, and behavior are not synonyms. A sense of fairness/unfairness would be crying when given a smaller share of something. An innate moral behavior would be climbing out of the high chair and making sure that every baby in the nursery had identical shares. None of the research cited makes, much less supports the claim that humans are hardwired to instinctively conduct themselves in the latter ( moral as in fair righteous, etc.) manner. No behavior observed in the studies. Check. No evidence of hardwiring/structure in the brain. Check. Well damn! Your discovery of fraud on such a scale is a fucking scientific bombshell. This has to be reported. Have you told anybody else? K.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/6/2013 12:17:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice FR Recently received but haven't had a chance to read a pertinent new book that sounds fascinating. The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates Yep. It does look fascinating. There's a general idea in there, by the looks of it, that's been kicking around for quite a while. Myself, I've come to the conclusion that the most basic 'moral sense' of all is articulated by the line 'do to others as you'd have them do to you' and that basic sense is at least prevalent - and perhaps near-universal - in humans plus some other species. My little hypothesis is that it's to do with empathy and this grows quite naturally with maturation. A baby learns first that its body is part of it; later it learns that its mother is in some way part of it; later still, that all humans are in some way part of itself. I wince when I see someone else hurt because of that empathetic sense. It's as though I'm being hurt because that person being hurt is a part of me. But, but . . . I say 'nearly universal' because, as we all know, there's also the selfish sense - which involves the ability to 'cut oneself off' from others. Work in progress in my head. But I feel pretty confident about that hypothesis - put it that way. I agree with your hypothesis, and would just add that normal development requires the development of empathy in a human being. A person who lacks sufficient empathy is considered abnormal from a psychological perspective. Many psychological disorders have lack of empathy as a diagnostic symptom. So anyone whose selfish side determines their behavior in all scenarios....well, they aren't a properly developed normal human being. And we wouldn't expect such a person to be capable of morality...or only capable of moral behavior under duress, or through tremendous intellectual effort that overrides their base instincts. Interestingly, in my life, I have found that often deeply religious people are also quite selfish relative to the non-religious people I know. Is religion then a way to simply counteract the selfishness that exists in people who have underdeveloped empathy?

Focus50 -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/6/2013 2:26:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Myself, I've come to the conclusion that the most basic 'moral sense' of all is articulated by the line 'do to others as you'd have them do to you' and that basic sense is at least prevalent - and perhaps near-universal - in humans plus some other species. Whoa, let's not lose all perspective of where we are...! In my D/s, I do unto the other and she get's done. That's it...! [;)] Focus.

Moonhead -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/6/2013 2:30:28 PM)
Is that a weal and twue moral judgement, then?

DomKen -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/6/2013 2:56:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice FR Recently received but haven't had a chance to read a pertinent new book that sounds fascinating. The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates Yep. It does look fascinating. There's a general idea in there, by the looks of it, that's been kicking around for quite a while. Myself, I've come to the conclusion that the most basic 'moral sense' of all is articulated by the line 'do to others as you'd have them do to you' and that basic sense is at least prevalent - and perhaps near-universal - in humans plus some other species. My little hypothesis is that it's to do with empathy and this grows quite naturally with maturation. A baby learns first that its body is part of it; later it learns that its mother is in some way part of it; later still, that all humans are in some way part of itself. I wince when I see someone else hurt because of that empathetic sense. It's as though I'm being hurt because that person being hurt is a part of me. But, but . . . I say 'nearly universal' because, as we all know, there's also the selfish sense - which involves the ability to 'cut oneself off' from others. Work in progress in my head. But I feel pretty confident about that hypothesis - put it that way. The thing is, and why I'm skeptical of this book, we are actually slightly more closely related to Pan troglodytes than to Pan paniscus, which is thought to be a fairly recent offshoot of P troglodytes. While the bonobo is very lpeaceful, and incredily sexual, the common chimpanzee is very violent both intra and inter community.

PeonForHer -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/6/2013 3:08:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess Is religion then a way to simply counteract the selfishness that exists in people who have underdeveloped empathy? That's one of its purposes, I'd say. Although, it's historically also often served to justify selfishness.

Focus50 -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/6/2013 3:30:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Is that a weal and twue moral judgement, then? Just a bit of humour - something I concede is not usually associated with religion. <I will now consider myself appropriately admonished> [8\|] Focus.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/6/2013 5:40:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess I agree with your hypothesis, and would just add that normal development requires the development of empathy in a human being. A person who lacks sufficient empathy is considered abnormal from a psychological perspective. Many psychological disorders have lack of empathy as a diagnostic symptom. So anyone whose selfish side determines their behavior in all scenarios....well, they aren't a properly developed normal human being. And we wouldn't expect such a person to be capable of morality...or only capable of moral behavior under duress, or through tremendous intellectual effort that overrides their base instincts. Interestingly, in my life, I have found that often deeply religious people are also quite selfish relative to the non-religious people I know. Is religion then a way to simply counteract the selfishness that exists in people who have underdeveloped empathy? I think you are very close. There is a little thing called the instinct for self preservation that is a facet of your above "whose selfish side determines their behavior in all scenarios....". Self preservation serves the individual, overriding self preservation serves the group (noble sacrifices, accepting one's station, not challenging authority, silence about hypocrisy, swallowing the Kool Aid, and so on... conformity). This creates a tension between the person and society that factors into many social artifacts like religion and politics. In other words, if there did not already exist a mechanism for guilting or otherwise pressuring people into being 'good little workers/students/soldiers/wives and so forth, it would be necessary to invent one.

cordeliasub -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/6/2013 7:23:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess Is religion then a way to simply counteract the selfishness that exists in people who have underdeveloped empathy? That's one of its purposes, I'd say. Although, it's historically also often served to justify selfishness. I wonder sometimes if religion is....what you make it. Religion has been used to justify terrible atrocities. It's been used to persecute others, judge others, and wave horrible signs at military funerals and scream at poor scared young girls as they walk into abortion clinics. Sadly, lots of crappy stuff has been done in the name of religion. But I think there are times when certain aspects of faith can bring about good in people, can comfort, can motivate people to think of others. Can all these things happen without religion? Of course. But I think it boils down to the individual. A person without empathy or with an overdeveloped sense of narcissism or who was just....an obnoxious asshat would probably be that way regardless. They might blame it on religion, not being hugged enough by mommy, claiming to be smarter than everyone they know.....any number of reasons. I'll admit, the older I get, the harder time I have reconciling "Love your neighbor as yourself" with some of the things I see Christians do.

littlewonder -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/6/2013 7:41:33 PM)
quote: How many suicide bombers could you recruit without the promise of the future? Apparently lots according to the Japanese. They didn't become bombers out of a promise of the future or religious reasons. They did so to show their loyalty to their emperor and to not disgrace their families.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/6/2013 7:56:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder quote: How many suicide bombers could you recruit without the promise of the future? Apparently lots according to the Japanese. They didn't become bombers out of a promise of the future or religious reasons. They did so to show their loyalty to their emperor and to not disgrace their families. I think that loyalty to the Emperor was part of the Shinto religion at that time. Following excerpt is from Wiki if one can believe this description. "In 1944–45, the Japanese were heavily influenced by Shinto beliefs. Among other things, Emperor worship was stressed after Shinto was established as a state religion during the Meiji Restoration. As time went on, Shinto was used increasingly in the promotion of nationalist sentiment. In 1890, the Imperial Rescript on Education was passed, under which students were required to ritually recite its oath to offer themselves "courageously to the State" as well as protect the Imperial family. The ultimate offering was to give up one’s life. It was an honour to die for Japan and the Emperor. Axell and Kase pointed out: "The fact is that innumerable soldiers, sailors and pilots were determined to die, to become eirei, that is ‘guardian spirits’ of the country. [...] Many Japanese felt that to be enshrined at Yasukuni was a special honour because the Emperor twice a year visited the shrine to pay homage. Yasukuni is the only shrine, deifying common men, which the Emperor would visit to pay his respects".[32] Young Japanese people were indoctrinated from an earliest age with these ideals." More at kamikaze

DaddySatyr -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/6/2013 7:57:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder quote: How many suicide bombers could you recruit without the promise of the future? Apparently lots according to the Japanese. They didn't become bombers out of a promise of the future or religious reasons. They did so to show their loyalty to their emperor and to not disgrace their families. The Japanese viewed Hirohito (or however his name was spelled) as a "god" in that he was the head of the Shinto religion as well as being the emperor. They "worshipped" him so that example is a bit "muddy", at the very least. Peace and comfort, Michael

Powergamz1 -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/6/2013 7:58:52 PM)
To their Divine Emperor. quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder quote: How many suicide bombers could you recruit without the promise of the future? Apparently lots according to the Japanese. They didn't become bombers out of a promise of the future or religious reasons. They did so to show their loyalty to their emperor and to not disgrace their families.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/6/2013 8:04:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 In other words, if there did not already exist a mechanism for guilting or otherwise pressuring people into being 'good little workers/students/soldiers/wives and so forth, it would be necessary to invent one. Yes, I think this idea is where Marx's term "opium of the masses" comes from. And it simply begs the question of whether someone who has a highly developed sense of duty, responsibility and empathy needs religion at all.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Spam Policy

6.152344E-02