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

FrostedFlake -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 1:14:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake

This should be easy. It is after all the product you are selling.

I haven't seen her trying to "sell" anything to anybody. Are you always like this when your fur gets wet?

K.

My fur is not wet. Nor is it an attack to ask a religion monger what religion IS.

I didn't ask because I want to know. I already do.

I asked so another, perhaps you, might notice he doesn't know. And think about that.

What we have so far is: Holy = Sacred = worthy of Worship. In fact, these words mean nothing whatsoever. Particularly when used to define each other.

And the Tone Marini supposes I am using is the result of almost brushing up against reality. It's frightening, so is interpreted as an objectionable tone.



thezeppo -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 1:47:25 AM)

You should probably explain what 'religion' and 'holy' is, then, rather than ask leading questions about it. So far you are a fine example that you don't need to believe in a God to start swinging a stick.



Focus50 -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 3:29:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

I asked a question... so shoo and let the grownups discuss

Heh. A question that miscast what he said. But okay, so it's an English language problem then. Don't fall off your horse about it. You'll get better with practice.

K.


[sm=sleepy.gif]



DomKen -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 5:32:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Maybe you should have not disrespected every atheist and agnostic by saying we are all inherently amoral


Maybe you should broaden your horizons of perception, and try to comprehend that I didn't.

Good luck with that.

Maybe you should not try and walk back the very obvious insult against a broad group of people and simply apologize.



Yachtie -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 5:56:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

Being Christian, one should have an idea of the moral compass I should operate by. If one is Muslim I too should have an idea of the moral compass they should operate by. When it comes to an Atheist, I really have no idea at all.


I could agree with this, if it where the case that you could find either Muslims or Christians to actually behave in line with their religion's moral compass on a somewhat consistent basis.




It's not about WHAT man does. It's about the rules, being the SOURCE of how one should operate (like Hoyle's Rules for card games).

That is where a problem crops up. People judge the rules (and the source of the rules) by the actors. Thus religious people are often judged less moral by Atheists or non-religious people simply because the Rules are disproved by the actors. But anyone with a brain should discern that it's the failings of the actor to live up to the rules.

Christianity tells us "we are all fallen". To live up to the rules is a struggle. But the Christian, or Muslim, or... have objective Rules to live up to. Those rules are not subject to subjective interpretation. Neither are they whimsical. You don't make them up as you go. You do not fashion the rule to fit the circumstance.

"you could find either Muslims or Christians to actually behave in line with their religion's moral compass on a somewhat consistent basis."

But you do know what that moral compass should be. It's not the compass's fault one does not / cannot follow it. A major salient point is that the Compass is objective. It is there.


Now, point me to the Rules Atheists have. Show them to me. Show me the source of their moral compass.

I have had Atheists tell me it is immoral to murder. I agree. My Rules state such. The objective compass I subscribe to points to that. I cannot argue with it.

I ask the Atheist to tell me on what basis [he] states murder is immoral. I then get amazing soliloquies pointing to this and pointing to that. I get opinion. I get rhetoric. Their compass points this way, and that way. I'm never sure just which way it will point though. Depends, as it's subjective rhetoric.

But I say this. It is impossible for any i.e. Christian to point to the moral compass (Rules) and objectively state it points other than where it does.




Zonie63 -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 6:01:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280

Because of their certitude that their is an afterlife, they can convince themselves and other to commit some of the most heinous acts to please a deity and ensure a better life in the next. If you believe there isn't an afterlife or aren't sure, you have to value your present life both in its quality and duration. If there is nothing on the other side, you must make the most of what you have now.


I'm not sure that I agree with this. I'm not religious myself, and I have no information or evidence of any Afterlife. However, some might argue that the belief in an Afterlife would actually compel moral behavior and discourage people from committing heinous acts, mainly because of the belief that there will be consequences for one's actions after death.

For those who don't believe in an Afterlife, that doesn't automatically mean that they're going to value their present life or that they care about any consequences for their actions. Indeed, if my death leads to the same result no matter what I do in this life, then what difference does it make if I die today or 30 years from now? What difference does it make what kind of life I lead, since we'll all be in the same place 100 years from now?

Also, some would argue that those who commit heinous acts in the name of religion or God are actually demonstrating their lack of faith and non-belief. Some religionists might even consider it the height of arrogant blasphemy and heresy for a human being to set himself up as "God's instrument." Any human who kills an "unbeliever" in the name of God is essentially saying, "My God is a quadriplegic who is incapable, weak, and helpless. He is unable to kill the unbelievers himself, so He needs me to do it."

quote:


Now I know many religious argue that without an afterlife why would one care about being moral. I feel that it is central that one acts morally, not as religion defines it, but as reason defines. That being that you ultimately respect and care for your fellow man in the effort that they do the same for you.


I suppose the same argument can be made in regard to secular laws. People are probably kept in line that way as well, since the thought of arrest and imprisonment might keep some people from harming their fellow human. But it obviously doesn't work for everybody.

quote:


Meanwhile you care for your own well-being and health, so that you can spend as much time as pleasantly as possible while you are alive. Really without the promise of paradise in the here after, you have to be worried that negative would endanger your chances of having a better life.

How many suicide bombers could you recruit without the promise of the future?


While I have no personal experience in recruiting suicide bombers, I don't see how it would be out of the question to recruit them without the promise of a future. Humans have been asked to make the ultimate sacrifice countless times "for king and country," even if the promised "future" may only amount to a plaque or a monument somewhere (which the dead person won't be around to enjoy).

Some people may not know or care if there's an Afterlife, but they still might want to be remembered and honored after they're gone. That can be a powerful inducement for some people to commit heroic acts as well as despicable acts.

quote:


How can you systematically hate someone without the support large group of haters?


Anybody can hate, and everybody hates something. I don't see that religion has any monopoly on hate.

quote:


Any thoughts on religions and morality in general not specific to one religion or another?


I think that any organization of humans eventually gets to a point where protecting the institution becomes more important than the beliefs/principles they claim to uphold.

As I said, I'm not religious myself, but I view religion as just one aspect of society. I don't generally question individuals' belief systems, since that's a private matter, but when it comes to organizing, forming lobbies and political blocs which impact on a given jurisdiction, nation, or group of nations, then I view religions more as I would view political parties or factions. I don't think it means that the religious or non-religious are any more or less "moral" than the other.



TheHeretic -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 6:05:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Maybe you should not try and walk back the very obvious insult against a broad group of people and simply apologize.


LOL. No. No apologies for not tailoring my comment to the lowest, and most easily offended, denominator. Either puzzle out what was actually said, or get out of the deep end.

I am curious though, Ken, why someone with such an established history of being a shameless liar as you have built for yourself, would want to participate in a thread on morality to begin with. In the faith-based value structure you operate by, is lying perfectly ok?







thezeppo -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 6:27:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

Being Christian, one should have an idea of the moral compass I should operate by. If one is Muslim I too should have an idea of the moral compass they should operate by. When it comes to an Atheist, I really have no idea at all.


I could agree with this, if it where the case that you could find either Muslims or Christians to actually behave in line with their religion's moral compass on a somewhat consistent basis.




It's not about WHAT man does. It's about the rules, being the SOURCE of how one should operate (like Hoyle's Rules for card games).

That is where a problem crops up. People judge the rules (and the source of the rules) by the actors. Thus religious people are often judged less moral by Atheists or non-religious people simply because the Rules are disproved by the actors. But anyone with a brain should discern that it's the failings of the actor to live up to the rules.

Christianity tells us "we are all fallen". To live up to the rules is a struggle. But the Christian, or Muslim, or... have objective Rules to live up to. Those rules are not subject to subjective interpretation. Neither are they whimsical. You don't make them up as you go. You do not fashion the rule to fit the circumstance.

"you could find either Muslims or Christians to actually behave in line with their religion's moral compass on a somewhat consistent basis."

But you do know what that moral compass should be. It's not the compass's fault one does not / cannot follow it. A major salient point is that the Compass is objective. It is there.


Now, point me to the Rules Atheists have. Show them to me. Show me the source of their moral compass.

I have had Atheists tell me it is immoral to murder. I agree. My Rules state such. The objective compass I subscribe to points to that. I cannot argue with it.

I ask the Atheist to tell me on what basis [he] states murder is immoral. I then get amazing soliloquies pointing to this and pointing to that. I get opinion. I get rhetoric. Their compass points this way, and that way. I'm never sure just which way it will point though. Depends, as it's subjective rhetoric.

But I say this. It is impossible for any i.e. Christian to point to the moral compass (Rules) and objectively state it points other than where it does.




Isn't the entire reason Christianity has had so many schisms and has so many denominations today because people can't agree on what is objectively correct? Look at Mormonism for example, look at Christian fundamentalists. If you are a Christian you can certainly point to the locus classicus of the rules, but it seems a bit of a stretch to say the morals of the Bible are interpreted objectively.
Lets be honest, a lot of the literal content of the Bible would not be considered moral today. It requires interpretation, therefore subjectivity.



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 6:30:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
It's not about WHAT man does. It's about the rules, being the SOURCE of how one should operate (like Hoyle's Rules for card games).

That is where a problem crops up. People judge the rules (and the source of the rules) by the actors. Thus religious people are often judged less moral by Atheists or non-religious people simply because the Rules are disproved by the actors. But anyone with a brain should discern that it's the failings of the actor to live up to the rules.

I don't agree at all.
People judge the rules as they are presented by those that should know and uphold said rules - not by those that attempt to follow them.
And for those who are religious, most rules are written in some form of holy book that they can read for themselves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
Christianity tells us "we are all fallen". To live up to the rules is a struggle. But the Christian, or Muslim, or... have objective Rules to live up to. Those rules are not subject to subjective interpretation. Neither are they whimsical. You don't make them up as you go. You do not fashion the rule to fit the circumstance.

Those rules are written by others in much the same way that the rules of society are written by the law makers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
"you could find either Muslims or Christians to actually behave in line with their religion's moral compass on a somewhat consistent basis."

But you do know what that moral compass should be. It's not the compass's fault one does not / cannot follow it. A major salient point is that the Compass is objective. It is there.

And like many of these rules, the religious ones are there for those that follow.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
Now, point me to the Rules Atheists have. Show them to me. Show me the source of their moral compass.

The law of the land and society that you are living in.
In theory, that law should override anything written in any holy book.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
I have had Atheists tell me it is immoral to murder. I agree. My Rules state such. The objective compass I subscribe to points to that. I cannot argue with it.

Not so much 'immoral' as against the law of the land.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
I ask the Atheist to tell me on what basis [he] states murder is immoral. I then get amazing soliloquies pointing to this and pointing to that. I get opinion. I get rhetoric. Their compass points this way, and that way. I'm never sure just which way it will point though. Depends, as it's subjective rhetoric.

Not at all.
It's the law of the land and society.
That is not subjective at all and certainly not rhetorical although it's not religious.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
But I say this. It is impossible for any i.e. Christian to point to the moral compass (Rules) and objectively state it points other than where it does.

Yep.
And the same can be said from an athiests PoV too.
Just because it isn't in some holy book doesn't make it any more subjective or rhetorical than those talking their compass from such a book.



chatterbox24 -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 6:38:19 AM)

That is a hard poll to answer.

Is one more moral then the other? Gess that is determined by the individual. I have seen people who do not consider themselves religious and do so many " Good works". THey are kind, caring, loving, empathic to people. They have a inborn great quality, and religious practices do no motivate them, its just their nature. What motivates them? It is either they are a superb individual or they do it selfishly to look better? Either way people benefit from it. BUt no one sees their heart, so really its based on their true motivation.

And on the other hand, I have seen people who say they are religious, but they must just be sitting there in church just to put on a face, because they are cruel to others, jealous of everything, miserly, hateful, but they think sitting there in church makes them holy. PLZZZZZZZZZZZ. Their heart is pretty easy to see.

I do think overall people who follow religion in some way, do have a better moral compass then the majority. I guess by having a doctrine they follow keeps goodness in mind, and is always a reminder.

However, I tend to pick and choice from different religious beliefs. Is it wrong? Maybe? Maybe not? I try to listen to my heart. I grew up baptist and they believe just because someones does good things routinely, it doesnt matter those good works wont get you to heaven. You have to be saved and preferrable baptised. TO me my heart always said " COME ON PEOPLE, if a person is good they are good" If there is a God out there, he is gonna see that, not say , you did good your whole life, but tough cookies, you arent saved so straight to hell with you!!!" THat is simply ridiculous to me. FOr one a person has to be introduced and taught. What if those people never were introduced to the word?

ANyway my two cents.




FunCouple5280 -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 6:43:22 AM)

quote:

But you do know what that moral compass should be. It's not the compass's fault one does not / cannot follow it. A major salient point is that the Compass is objective. It is there


two things:

It could be the compass' fault if it is vague, contradictory, or creates unreasonable expectations.

Or, What if it is just flat out wrong? I think of the amount sexual repression that is used within the Christian and Muslim compasses. It is a natural urge of the body designed to propagate the species. This notion of morality that gets in the way of the natural function of the body is designed to control and manipulate, not create a moral value to the betterment of 'man.'


As far as judging a religion on the actors....I think that is a valid process. If hardly any of the actors can live up to it even remotely, then its message is just fluff and rainbows and not practical. I think of the idea of acting Christ like rather than Christian. The Christian imposes belief and values and justifies through the selective reading of scripture. The Christ like person, loves unconditionally respects people's moral choices and leads by example and love rather than imposition and mandate. How many people can claim they even perform one Christ-like act per day? The reality is it is so rare that it opens the door for criticism of the entire religion.



FunCouple5280 -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 6:51:08 AM)

quote:



quote:



ORIGINAL: Yachtie
I have had Atheists tell me it is immoral to murder. I agree. My Rules state such. The objective compass I subscribe to points to that. I cannot argue with it.


Not so much 'immoral' as against the law of the land.


Really, explain why an atheist doesn't try and legalize murder in a democratic society. Explain how one could argue that murder in general would be considered a moral act? I am not talking about weird circumstances or exclusions like self-defense. I am talking about walking up and killing a random stranger..... Make a solid argument for that and I will eat my shoe.

Think before you go out advocating murder...



Yachtie -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 7:08:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
I ask the Atheist to tell me on what basis [he] states murder is immoral. I then get amazing soliloquies pointing to this and pointing to that. I get opinion. I get rhetoric. Their compass points this way, and that way. I'm never sure just which way it will point though. Depends, as it's subjective rhetoric.

Not at all.
It's the law of the land and society.
That is not subjective at all and certainly not rhetorical although it's not religious.



It has to be subjective. This is absolutely the case else laws would not change. Like Dred Scott, objective (you could point to it) till it wasn't. The compass changed to where it pointed. Therein is the difference between subjective law of man and morality. That's the funny thing about morality. What is moral/immoral today was as yesterday as will be tomorrow.

If laws against murder are but the law of the land, watch out. That could change.



Yachtie -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 7:10:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280

Really, explain why an atheist doesn't try and legalize murder in a democratic society.


You're kidding, right? [He'd] be opting to potentially putting his own head in a noose. Self preservation comes to mind first.

I never implied Atheists are stupid.



FunCouple5280 -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 7:11:34 AM)

So murder may be legal one day, yet gays will always be an abomination in the eyes of the lord[8|]



Yachtie -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 7:12:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280

It could be the compass' fault if it is vague, contradictory, or creates unreasonable expectations.



Rhetorically argumentative.

The compass still IS. That you cannot argue with.



FunCouple5280 -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 7:12:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280

Really, explain why an atheist doesn't try and legalize murder in a democratic society.


You're kidding, right? [He'd] be opting to potentially putting his own head in a noose. Self preservation comes to mind first.

I never implied Atheists are stupid.




I wasn't mocking you, I was mocking warf



Yachtie -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 7:14:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280

So murder may be legal one day, yet gays will always be an abomination in the eyes of the lord[8|]



So will murder.



I'm beginning to think you are not tall enough for this ride.



FunCouple5280 -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 7:14:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280

It could be the compass' fault if it is vague, contradictory, or creates unreasonable expectations.



Rhetorically argumentative.

The compass still IS. That you cannot argue with.




Therefore it can also be wrong



FunCouple5280 -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 7:15:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280

So murder may be legal one day, yet gays will always be an abomination in the eyes of the lord[8|]



So will murder.



I'm beginning to think you are not tall enough for this ride.



I love how you justify a wrong with a right, a wrong is a wrong



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125