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

thezeppo -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/5/2013 4:29:00 AM)
Thank you, I genuinely do appreciate it. I hope you don't take this as patronising but this post makes you sound articulate and educated with something to say, as opposed to just spoiling for a fight with someone. I do have something to say on this, but its taking too long for me to make sense and I have far too much work to do so I will just apologise for singling you out in the first place - its a frustration I have with the forums in general and I shouldn't have commented specifically on you. Kudos for taking me at my word and delivering a thoughtful, well argued post.

GotSteel -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/5/2013 8:37:07 AM)
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). Define morality?

Powergamz1 -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/5/2013 8:46:20 AM)
Morality: n. > conformity to ideals of right human conduct. Merriam Webster unabridged dictionary. Now it is your turn... Define 'troll'.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/5/2013 8:51:34 AM)
No, the point is that the human brain's development process includes the stage where it is possible to learn to lie. 2 years olds can't have sex either, but that doesn't mean it isn't innate. And as I said, unconditional honesty is rare, and hypocrisy and morality are interwoven... so of course people don't want to go there . That's the whole purpose of fabricating a religion and a Good Book. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata 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.

GotSteel -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/5/2013 10:03:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Now it is your turn... Define 'troll'. One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. Now it is your turn... Define 'troll'.) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.

DomKen -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/5/2013 10:23:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata 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. Not this tired crap again. You defend christianity with a fervent passion which would be surpassing odd if you weren't in that faith. You just claimed morality transcended "legalities and customs" which means you think morality comes from something beyond humanity. What are you pretending that means if it doesn't mean handed down from your beloved sky guy?

GotSteel -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/5/2013 10:48:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Define morality? I ask because the answers do matter to the conversation, heck by some definitions of morality we're talking about something which is hardwired into our brains.

Kirata -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/5/2013 11:43:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Not this tired crap again. You defend christianity with a fervent passion which would be surpassing odd if you weren't in that faith. You've been pushing this lie since at least 2010, and my reply to you then still stands: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3434149 Moreover, deconstructing puerile and idiotic arguments is not the same as defending what they are attacking. The posts in which I've actually addressed Christianity would not be construed as a "defense" by a Christian. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4321006 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You just claimed morality transcended "legalities and customs" which means you think morality comes from something beyond humanity. What are you pretending that means if it doesn't mean handed down from your beloved sky guy? If you would actually read my posts instead of listening to what those voices tell you, you would know the answer to that question: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4418130 K.

Rule -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/5/2013 11:57:05 AM)
FR I propose to distinguish between morality and ethics: morality - what is appropriate within a culture ethics - what is right in an aboslute sense

Moonhead -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/5/2013 12:17:02 PM)
I was at school with Aboslute Sense. Dreadful cunt with no more morals or ethics than a randy stoat.

mnottertail -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/5/2013 12:17:36 PM)
I drank a vodka that was named that when I was drunk.

Moonhead -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/5/2013 12:21:40 PM)
The blue stuff (Absolut Smurf) is pretty bad: when I went to take a piss, it looked like they'd just put that blue toilet cleaner on the urinal.

Kirata -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/5/2013 12:30:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule I propose to distinguish between morality and ethics: morality - what is appropriate within a culture ethics - what is right in an aboslute sense I ususally tend to think of those two in just the reverse fashion. What might be ethical in a situation can be debated. Morality seems another matter. I can consider a set of circumstances and arrive at what seems to me to be the ethical choice, but still end up confronting a visceral sense that somehow it is wrong to do it. For example, take the dilemma of having to make a choice between actions which will result in either ten people dying, or one. Barring exceptional circumstances (say, maybe, ten serial killers versus a baby) it seems a no-brainer. But when that obvious ethical choice puts you face to face with having to kill an innocent human being in cold blood, most people will balk. Even though it's arguably the ethical choice rationally, viscerally it still feels wrong to do it. Therein lies our moral sense. It is not analytical. It does not function by arithmetic. Whether or not we are wise to overcome our moral repugnance to certain acts in some situations is subject to debate. But our moral sensitivities are what they are. K.

Kirata -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/5/2013 12:50:10 PM)
.

DomKen -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/5/2013 1:11:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Not this tired crap again. You defend christianity with a fervent passion which would be surpassing odd if you weren't in that faith. You've been pushing this lie since at least 2010, and my reply to you then still stands: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3434149 I proved it then so why should I bother doing so again. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3434315

Kirata -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/5/2013 2:02:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I proved it then so why should I bother doing so again. You're listening to those voices again. I happen to know rather a good deal about religion, and not just Christianity. The subject was relevant to my area of study. But enough about me. All you're accomplishing here is to show the extent to which you'll go to defend your annoying habit of imagining facts that aren't. ~Link K.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/5/2013 2:15:55 PM)
I run into a lot of people who feel the same way. For myself, it works better to frame morality in the sense of derived from mores i.e. following the group's dictates, as opposed to ethics, derived from an internal dialogue or ethos. Shorthand: Morals is what you do when everyone is looking. Ethics is what you do when no one is looking. And from that, the idea that I don't need a church or a Good Book or a committee of neighbors to tell me right and wrong, derives. Out of that, religion just becomes another type of cloth for people to wrap their actions in... like flags. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata I ususally tend to think of those two in just the reverse fashion. What might be ethical in a situation can be debated. Morality seems another matter. I can consider a set of circumstances and arrive at what seems to me to be the ethical choice, but still end up confronting a visceral sense that somehow it is wrong to do it.

Kirata -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/5/2013 2:32:51 PM)
Well I guess it doesn't matter, as long as we both know what we mean by those terms. My own view derives from trying to go by how their definitions seem to line up. I'll admit there is overlap; they are synonyms. But I think there are definitional nuances. ethics: a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture; the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.; moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence. morals: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes; expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct; founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations. Again granting the synonymity, ethics seems to me to be the word more appropriate for denoting something culturally bound, right conduct in a cultural context, while morals seem related to something more fundamental: the nature of right and wrong, independent of cultural laws or customs. Or at least, forced to make a distinction, that's how I would parse it. K.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/5/2013 2:50:45 PM)
'Ethos' means 'character', extended to 'ethics' it can apply to an individual or to a group. A person alone on a desert island is the only arbiter of ethics there is. A group on a desert island, forms a set of standards that can be called either ethics or morals in the aggregate. In the 'alone on the island' ethical case, if he or she has the option of eating their dead shipmates, or staying drunk on the purple berries, or having sex with animals, the chosen action will not be due to fear of the group... the group isn't there. As Viktor Frankl documented, it is up to the internal character of the individual as to how they act in extreme circumstances, and that character is formed by repeatedly making internal choices, not by passivity. Morals on the other hand, means 'acquired from the group'... individuals don't create moral values, they either go along with, or don't go along with what the group has created. In group extremes, it is morality that conditions people to follow demagogues, or join riots, or panic, etc. They are acceding to the right/wrong definition of the group in the moment. Which is fine as long as someone actually does agree with the group. When the group is wrong, or the people feel the group is wrong, then problems occur.

Kirata -> RE: Does being religious mean that you are: (4/5/2013 3:02:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Morals on the other hand, means 'acquired from the group'... individuals don't create moral values, they either go along with, or don't go along with what the group has created. Now you're just making up you own faux definitions and issuing non-reality based pronouncements. K.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Spam Policy

4.492188E-02