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

kalikshama -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 3:01:55 PM)
I'm digging your new avatar :) [image]http://www.collarme.com/photos/tn/tn_256960.jpg[/image]

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 3:08:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 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. I'm technically not an Atheist (I'm a panentheist) but for the purpose of this discussion, I may as well be an Atheist, considering that none of my moral code is derived from a higher power, nor will my religious/spiritual label give you any clue to what my system of morals may or may not be. That being said, I totally disagree with you freedomdwarf. My morality has got literally nothing in common with legality, the law of the land, social mores, or social contracts. In fact, I'm vehemently apposed, from a moral point of view, to the very idea of the existence of a social contract. I know people who self-describe as Atheists who feel the same way, so you're incorrect that you'd be able to make an objective assessment of an Atheist's moral compass based on what the law happens to be at the time. In fact, I would find it terrible problematic if you could do such a thing, because it means that every Atheist on the planet could be made into either Gandhi or Hitler and back again, by a mere legal chance, and not only does that imply to me that Atheist inherently would lack the capacity for morality (which I don't think is the case) it also isn't inline with what I've observed human nature to be.

Kirata -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 3:28:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama I'm digging your new avatar :) Thank you. [:)] K.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 4:13:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar That being said, I totally disagree with you freedomdwarf. My morality has got literally nothing in common with legality, the law of the land, social mores, or social contracts. In fact, I'm vehemently apposed, from a moral point of view, to the very idea of the existence of a social contract. Unless you were completely lawless and unruly in your growing years, your mindset will have been shaped from the views of your parents/guardians and what you have learned since you left them. You will have made all sorts of conscious decisions about what and what not to follow or adhere to and I seriously doubt that you are a completely lawless asshat. Your base instincts will have been instilled into you from birth. So to say your morality has nothing to do with legality, social contract et al, is quite a nonsense. quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar I know people who self-describe as Atheists who feel the same way, so you're incorrect that you'd be able to make an objective assessment of an Atheist's moral compass based on what the law happens to be at the time. And in a completely different environment when at a young age you might not have the same ethics/morals as you have now. So I stand by my earlier comment - you were influenced more than you give credit for. quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar ...and not only does that imply to me that Atheist inherently would lack the capacity for morality (which I don't think is the case) it also isn't inline with what I've observed human nature to be. Maybe our observations are different. In fact, they probably are. And at no time have I said, or implied, that you or any other atheist lack the capacity for morality.

DomKen -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 4:14:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Not only dodging, but moving the goal posts. But okay, lets be general about it then. Now remember, you did state the following (see above) - morality is fundamentally about society functioning successfully. We may not think about it but that is really what it is. That is why every society that functions outlaws murder and theft and that iswhy it is immoral to murder. So, within the context of your statements - If a society deems, generally, that killing a member of some other society is righteous, would such killing be immoral? i.e. "We don't kill our own. That's against societal norms. Go kill a member of the Zee tribe. That okay. They're sub-human anyway." The question is answerable Yes or NO. For members of that society, like the one judeo-christianity is based on, yes it is moral.

DomKen -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 4:16:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata If that was all there was to it, then in societies that had a slave class morality would require that a "good" slave to be obedient and respectful. In societies where slavery was accepted that was the norm. You need to study some history. Whoa, rock easy on that horsie or you'll fall off. Try to focus on the point of what you quoted. "Morality" is a meaningless term if all it amounts to is whatever the fuck keeps the wheels of a society greased. We don't call that morality, we call it expediency. It's a language thing, yanno? K. No. Morality is not an absolute. It has and does change with the society. It is nothing more than a framework to govern behaviour inside the society. That's why your bible includes numerous rules on how to correctly treat slaves and what prices to charge when selling your kin into slavery.

cordeliasub -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 5:13:45 PM)
I think some things might be "religion-oriented" and cause conflict....but some things have nothing to do with religion at all. They just have to do with the fact that a lot of people on this planet never learned that tact is actually a good skill to acquire, just because it is in your head doesn't men it has to come out of your mouth, and being an ass doesn't necessarily make someone superior. In other words....I think it boils down to who's a narcissistic jerk and who's not more than anything else. A tactless narcissistic jerk must make fun of everyone....a tactful person doesn't. They might think it, but they do not feel the world will be somehow less glorious if they don't voice it. ;)

Kirata -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 6:08:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No. Morality is not an absolute. It has and does change with the society. It is nothing more than a framework to govern behaviour inside the society. I didn't say it was an "absolute". Don't put words in my mouth. I said that morality transends legalities and customs. Otherwise, all you have is legalities and customs. The Taliban, then, have every moral right to behead a woman caught reading a book. And in another country, where for a time it was customary and perfectly legal for Jews to be shipped off to concentration camps and their property confiscated, by your definition that too was moral behavior. Godwin forgive me, but do you even for a moment stop and think about the things you say? quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen That's why your bible includes... My Bible? You really need to stop listening to those voices. Seriously. K.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 6:47:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar That being said, I totally disagree with you freedomdwarf. My morality has got literally nothing in common with legality, the law of the land, social mores, or social contracts. In fact, I'm vehemently apposed, from a moral point of view, to the very idea of the existence of a social contract. Unless you were completely lawless and unruly in your growing years, your mindset will have been shaped from the views of your parents/guardians and what you have learned since you left them. You will have made all sorts of conscious decisions about what and what not to follow or adhere to and I seriously doubt that you are a completely lawless asshat. Your base instincts will have been instilled into you from birth. So to say your morality has nothing to do with legality, social contract et al, is quite a nonsense. Of course my world view was shaped by my upbringing. If I had a different upbringing than I had I very obviously would be a different person. That doesn't mean that my morality is derived from legalities though. If my morality was derived from legality -so that, like your earlier comment suggested, you could distill what my moral compass is from what the law is- my morality would be in line with the law. You'd be able to state that my moral compass dictates that it's immoral to kill, because the law says it's unlawful to kill. Not only is my morality not in line with legalities, in a lot of fundamental cases my morality directly contradicts current Western legalities. And according to my moral compass, whether or not it's moral to kill has literally got NOTHING to do at all with whether or not it's legal to do so. There are circumstances in which I consider it moral to kill where it's illegal, and there's circumstances where it's legal to kill where I consider it to be immoral. quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 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. As far as this specifically is concerned, I don't have a holy book dictating my morality, but it is very much the case that I consider my own sense of morality to absolutely override and supersede, in every way, the law of the land and the society I live in. In fact, I consider it a moral obligation to break the law if it's not in line with what I feel is "right". So as a "source of my moral compass" legality doesn't give you a clue to what my actions may be, or what I may consider right and wrong.

TheHeretic -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 8:55:41 PM)
FR Is "religion," the belief in some particular gods, or is it a larger concept, describing any faith-based worldview? I say the latter. That faith can be placed in anthing from the white-haired, bigoted old dude on his golden throne just beyond the clouds, to the belief that man has this shit all figured out. From one end of that spectrum to the other, is the fundamental belief that an underlying order exists, or can be brought (forced) into existence. That order provides the foundation for a structure of values. Easy shit, except for those who don't like the idea of their favorite flavor faith-based belief system being called a religion. Oh fucking well. The people who are worrying, are those who don't believe in anything at all, beyond themselves in the now. Their values are merely du jour, whatever works this minute, easily rationalized away, or forgotten entirely at each conflicting desire. And, to Vince; there is an easy way not to be charged as a liar. Don't tell stupid fucking lies.

Focus50 -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 9:48:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama quote: Surely I can't be the only guy on the face of the planet who thinks, "Man, if I were Jesus I'd be rolling in my grave at the shit which has been done in my name". I think of this often. Allah, too - this being the age in which we live. Focus.

GotSteel -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 10:23:13 PM)
quote: Does being religious mean that you are.... Depends what do you mean by religious and what do you mean by moral? I ask because religions depending on the definition don't need to involve a deity or a morality. For instance UU's can use the same sort of humanist morality that's popular among atheists in which case, who's more moral? Well should be the same. What do you mean by morality? I think morality is about the well being of humans ergo I'm against oppressing homosexuals. There are others who think morality is about what's pleasing to God ergo they are for oppressing homosexuals. Both sides think they're doing the moral thing because we have completely different ideas about what morality means.

Kirata -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 10:36:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel I think morality is about the well being of humans ergo I'm against oppressing homosexuals. There are others who think morality is about what's pleasing to God ergo they are for oppressing homosexuals. Theological illiteracy pays well these days. Have you tried for a Sunday morning TV show? K.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 10:41:03 PM)
Well, Lord knows you can't simply make up morality on your own... it must come from The Good Book.

Kirata -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/4/2013 11:01:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 They at least imply there's a Mrs Claus. There was for a while, but Yahweh's insane jealousy killed the relationship. Her name was Asherah. [image]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NcD3vhUDde8/TYS0Yiq_exI/AAAAAAAAEhU/29-AKgJd2IQ/s400/Ishtar_goddess.jpg[/image] Asherah was a Mother Goddess, the Canaanite version of Ishtar (pictured above) and Astarte. K.

Kirata -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/5/2013 12:04:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Well, Lord knows you can't simply make up morality on your own... Well honestly, I don't we can. There's certainly no historical evidence of us being any good at it. I think morality is something that is inborn, pre-verbal and non-analytic. Studies have found that infants as young as 15 months manifest an intuitive understanding of fairness and altruism. And, it is not learned. All that is required is that it not be interfered with. Research utilizing fMRI scans has shown that a sense of fairness and justice is built into our brains. Nor is it something exclusive to humans. The same qualities have been found in animal studies. And tests that confront people with moral dilemmas have shown that utilitarian logic does not drive their choices when they are the actors. Logic may dictate that it's better for one person to die than ten, but subjects still balk when they're the one who has to do the killing. What stops them is something visceral, something non-logical and non-analytic. So no, I don't think we can just "make up morality" on our own. It's not something we get to invent. It's something in our nature, the very structure of our brains. Absent developmental defect, it takes major emotional trauma and/or years of work to turn a human being into a nasty selfish fuckhead. And the fact that we have as many of those as we seem to today should be food for thought about how we parent our children and the values they learn from our society. K.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/5/2013 12:24:35 AM)
Studies have shown that humans learn to lie around 24 months, as their brains develop. http://articles.latimes.com/1989-11-19/news/vw-493_1_children-ages And I've cited the primate studies that stealing is innate, more than once. The percentage of people who test 'unconditionally' honest is quite low compared to those who are honest because they feel it advantages them somehow. Morality gets 'made up' when people form groups and power vacuums occur, and it gets made up from the same batch of social cloth as hypocrisy (and ultimately as religion). But the point was better expressed in the song.

Kirata -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/5/2013 12:51:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Studies have shown that humans learn to lie around 24 months The operative word there is "learn," and it fits perfectly with what I said. From the link: youngsters learn to lie from the people around them, and parents are usually the best teachers quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Morality gets 'made up' when people form groups and power vacuums occur, and it gets made up from the same batch of social cloth as hypocrisy (and ultimately as religion). Fine, so social rules are made up and laws and customs develop. But that's all. Morality does not consist in whatever the social rules, laws, or customs happen to be. Think about some of the things you could end up having to ratify as moral behavior in such a case. No, I'm not going there with you. I doubt you'll find very many who will. K.

FrostedFlake -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/5/2013 1:44:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thezeppo 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. Religion. Faith. Sacred. Holy. God. These words and similar ones are clothes for an emperor who does not exist. When you buy in they seem to have meaning but otherwise they hang in the air just the way bricks don't. Unsupported. The purpose of these words is the same as blinders on a horse. They control and direct the attention. How many Christians know anything about any other religion? It works the same the other way. And everyone is satisfied he is right, even though he hasn't bothered to check. Because he has the truth. All of it. And, because he is right, the other guy must be wrong. The word for this is heathen. Or gentile. Or infidel. All three mean barbarian, but in a religious way. If religious people were serious about what they believe they would seek out knowledge rather than use their faith as a reason to avoid it. If religious people were serious about trying to make the place better they would spend a lot more time studying Ghandi and Schwitzer and the Dali Lama. Studying Clarence Darrow and Joe Hill. Studying people who gave of themselves to make the World better. In order to benefit from the example of stewardship. They would also be studying types like J.D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan. and P.T. Barnum, to learn what to avoid. If religious folks were serious about what they believe they would be studying other religions, looking for new ideas and common ground. And friends. Most folks instead accept a hand-me-down world view delivered from on high in a box built like a violin case. A velvet lined space for every idea in the set and no room for anything else. They call themselves religious and expect to be looked up to because they look down on anyone not just like them. Without even thinking about it. That is what having faith means. Don't even think about it, it doesn't fit in the box. Religion does not make you a good person. But it does get you called one. Generally, about once a week. See? I know how to wave a stick.

Kirata -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/5/2013 2:31:03 AM)
Damn, that was an excellently written piece! However, it presents a caricature. A caricature of religion, and a caricature of religious people. I won't insult your intelligence by denying the accuracies in the caricature. But there are religions that do not pretend to embody the only form that truth can take. There are religious people who are familiar with religions other than their own, who do read people who have given of themselves to make the world better, and who give of themselves to make the world better. It is in the nature of some words that their meanings must necessarily float in the air like "bricks don't," and at least the last three in your list fall into that category. But they are not unusual in that regard. The experience of seeing the color "blue" cannot be defined. If you've never experienced seeing the color blue, nobody could possibly explain to you what that experience is like. The words we use for colors aren't "clothes" for an experience that "doesn't exist." The picture you have drawn is a cartoon, a stereotype. If you believe it, you are as blind as the people at whom you are swinging a stick. I don't know if you do, because although in your opening paragraph you sound satisfied that you are right, and that therefore the opposite view is wrong, you began your closing paragraph with "most" folks, not everyone. So it would seem that some benefit of doubt is due, and I suppose I must consider the question still open. In either case, I very much enjoyed your post. K.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Spam Policy

0.046875