God is Irrelevant!

fredjones wrote:

fredjones wrote:
What I am saying is that morality cannot be based on any religion. It must be based on rationality and reason.

Do we have morals? Where did they come from?

If you say, "from God," then here more questions come up.
Why is individual morality so varied? Why are there so many views on what god is?

If god was sent down from heaven to give us the gift of morality, wouldn't you expect all morals to be the same? If at some point we had proof that god existed, wouldn't you think that everyone would be, say, Christian? Are you saying that anyone who isn't (insert your religion) is stupid? What do you think those other religions would say about you?

**People are moral for proximal, not ultimate, reasons. **

I've heard only affirmation on this statement. God is irrelevant!

First of all Fred, for informational reasons, nothing in the bible points to the fact that god came down form heaven to give us the gift of morality. By way of reason, i would say be all are born with a sense of morality; however, (according to the bible, since we are on this topic) at the beginning of the world Adam and Eve corrupted that sense of morality when they ate the forbidden fruit, and thus, let sin enter the world. The only reason God came down to the world (and agian, according to the bible, not necessarily my belief) was to restore forgive the sins of man thourgh the death of Jesus.

As for your "broken record" statement, what is meant by proximal and why would you say that?

Becuase if you can answer this, i should be able to prove to you that man is not moral at all.

0 Replies

Quote:

Reason is a gift that always works. The bible is in some ways a curse, because it allowed people to stop thinking for themselves.

Of course, god does favor the sheep, does he not?

This reminds me of a quote I once read:

"The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive- a definition that invalidates man's consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence...Man's mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God... Man's standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man's power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith....The purpose of man's life...is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question."

0 Replies

nice big post Fred... i like it! ( i just need some time to respond to it since i will be gone for the next 24-48 hrs. I hope i won't miss too much of the debate :-(

0 Replies

I'm glad you are engaged in this conversation, nate. I appreciate the opposition.

nategarvey wrote:

First of all Fred, for informational reasons, nothing in the bible points to the fact that god came down form heaven to give us the gift of morality. By way of reason, i would say be all are born with a sense of morality; however, (according to the bible, since we are on this topic) at the beginning of the world Adam and Eve corrupted that sense of morality when they ate the forbidden fruit, and thus, let sin enter the world. The only reason God came down to the world (and agian, according to the bible, not necessarily my belief) was to restore forgive the sins of man thourgh the death of Jesus.

As for your "broken record" statement, what is meant by proximal and why would you say that?

Becuase if you can answer this, i should be able to prove to you that man is not moral at all.

I did explain it before, but maybe you need a rewording. I can do that.

We are moral for proximal reasons (subject heading only Smile

)

Proximal, by definition, means "nearest." In this context I am referring to that which occurs during life. I contend that we are moral people despite our independence from god. We are so detached from god that it is as if he does not exist at all. For evidence of this, I point to the lack of people on this earth that can walk on water, or turn water into wine, or any number of supernatural occurrences (water stains of the virgin Mary don't count Wink

)

We are not judged by god until our lives are over. We are, however, judged by people all of the time. People decide if we are being immoral, not god. He might have the ultimate say, but only after it is too late to change things. People act morally because it matters to other people. We are social animals, and therefore we are hardwired to create and abide by social rules. Without morality there would be no civilization ( I think we agree). Where we differ is whether or not morality depends on god for its existence.

My answer starts with a question:
Why would a person, who does not believe in god, want to be a moral being?

0 Replies

SN95 wrote:

This reminds me of a quote I once read:

"The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive- a definition that invalidates man's consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence...Man's mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God... Man's standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man's power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith....The purpose of man's life...is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question."

I will stop questioning when I'm dead.

Where did this come from? It is depressing but I'm interested in reading it in full, if possible.

0 Replies

The above quote was from the work Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

0 Replies

fredjones wrote:

I have to work on making shorter posts. (whew!)

"Brevity is the soul of wit."

0 Replies

Thanks, SN. I'll have to look into that.

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Hmmm...let me think of a good example...oh yeah, Hitler!

Think harder, that example wasn't good, it was poor.

Hitler was yours.

If you knew history a bit better you'd have said Stalin. He was ours.

Quote:

His principles were based on the ideas of survival of the fittest.

Or possibly they were based on anti-semitism... which is (guess what boys and girls), a christian invention. YAY!

Don't make me quote the bible at you, that'll make both of us look bad.

0 Replies

M!THÂºÂ§ wrote:

Well, the law is probably holding you back, and most laws were based on religion.

As for countries without god's, name one. Then we'll talk, of course there are ones who ban the practice, but that doesn't mean there are people who believe in some sort of religion.

I call BS....see below.
__________________________________________________
http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/10command.htm

Moses trying to accommodate
the American Constitution

The 10 commandments are everything the United States are not
by Marc Berard

There are many different battles across the United States of America concerning the posting of the 10 Commandments in public buildings/grounds. The posting is illegal as it violates the First Amendment's establishment of religion clause. This does not deter those seeking to have it posted on any available surface. To sneak around the First Amendment many have adopted the tactic of calling it an "historical document" and "the basis for our system of law", often trying to post it as part of a larger display with historical documents. To me, this is like trying to make a marijuana plant legally acceptable by planting daisies and gardenias around it and calling it a botanical display.

But does their main argument hold any water? Is American law based upon the 10 Commandments? Let us examine them.

1. You shall have no other gods before me

This runs directly counter to the first amendment. This commandment demands obedience to a single, specific god. The first amendment gives the right for worshiping any or none.

2. You shall not make yourself a graven image, nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Once again, this runs directly against the freedom of religion in the First Amendment. There is also some dispute as to what counts as a graven image. The catholic church has statues and stained glass windows, while other christian denominations consider these iconography, and therefore in violation of this commandment. Some religious orders even go so far as to be against non-religious images and photographs. If the law prohibited non-religious images that would then be a violation of freedom of speech/expression.

3. You shall not take the name of Jehovah your God in vain

Now this commandment is directly counter to the freedom of speech. For being the 'basis for our laws' about one third of the commandments run directly counter to constitutional rights.

4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God.

While there is a tradition of seven day week, there is no law mandating that anyone keep the sabbath. People are free to work on any day they wish. Also the tradition here is for a 5 day work week, with two days off on the weekend. Does that mean we are in violation of the commandment? Should we now give up our Saturdays and report to work?

5. Honor your father and your mother

Frankly, some parents might not be all that worthy of honor. There is no law requiring a person to honor their parents. In fact there are laws to protect children from abusive parents, and children can be taken away from unfit parents.

6. You shall not kill

A good commandment, but hardly original. Laws against murder existed in pretty much all cultures long before hearing about the 10 commandments. Therefore claiming such laws are based on the 10 commandments are unfounded.

7. You shall not commit adultery

A very good suggestion, if you define adultery as between a married person and someone who is not their spouse. However, there is no federal law against it. State laws will vary on the subject. If you define adultery as between any couple not married to one another, even if they are both single, then there are even fewer laws against it, and the state laws can probably be challenged. There was not too long ago a case in California: A man and a woman were brought up on charges for living together. The charges were brought up by his ex-girlfriend who found religion, ignoring that they lived together for a while. The district attorney went to the court to have the law stricken from the books.

8. You shall not steal

Like #6, good but hardly original.

9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor

like #6 and #8 good but not original.

10. You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male slave, or his female slave, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's

Isn't that what capitalism is all about? There are no laws against thoughts or desires. Any such law would run counter to civil liberties.

Postlude

Out of the 10 commandments, 4 (1, 2, 3, 10) are counter to American laws. 3 (6, 8, 9) are part of our legal system, but are part of just about every legal system in history. 2 (4, 5) are not a part of our laws. And 1 (7) may or may not be a part of state or local laws. Even in a state that has laws concerning #7, that still means less than half of the 10 commandments carry any legal weight, and an equal number are illegal to enforce.

Those that claim the 10 commandments are our basis for law apparently do not know the law very well. The only thing funnier is those that want it posted illegally in schools "to teach children respect for the law".

0 Replies

That the laws and practices of any country should conflict with God's law should come as no surprise.

0 Replies

M!THÂºÂ§ wrote:

Have you ever read 'The Lord of the Flies"? That is a prime example of what happens when there are no morals. There is nothing to base rules on or anything but by what the kids make up. Everyone did what they thought was right, and look how it turned out. I don't mean to ruin the book for you if you haven't read it, but the book can prove a good point. These kids had no morals and eventually were trying to kill each other off. One 'tribe' resorted to burning down the entire island to get one person. Maybe I'm getting a little off the point, but my point is without moral things definitely go wrong. And I bet yah, If one of them had a religious background or had a bible or whatnot that book(lord of the flies) could have ended up much differently.

This book proves that when a bunch of people do whatever they think is right and set up their own morals, it doesn't work out. We NEED that higher being to govern us, who knows what's right and wrong.

This book is fiction.

0 Replies

NewSoul wrote:

Myth I agree with on that point

This is just silly Laughing

0 Replies

M!THÂºÂ§ wrote:

Have you ever read 'The Lord of the Flies"? That is a prime example of what happens when there are no morals. There is nothing to base rules on or anything but by what the kids make up. Everyone did what they thought was right, and look how it turned out. I don't mean to ruin the book for you if you haven't read it, but the book can prove a good point. These kids had no morals and eventually were trying to kill each other off. One 'tribe' resorted to burning down the entire island to get one person. Maybe I'm getting a little off the point, but my point is without moral things definitely go wrong. And I bet yah, If one of them had a religious background or had a bible or whatnot that book(lord of the flies) could have ended up much differently.

This book proves that when a bunch of people do whatever they think is right and set up their own morals, it doesn't work out. We NEED that higher being to govern us, who knows what's right and wrong.

Absolute rubbish. The point of that book is that the voilent world that the boys create on the island is no different to the world that the adults have created. In the 'moral' society they have left, there is war and death and destruction, just as there is on the island. The book is about loss of innocence, and the boys have lost the guidance of their parents. But there's nothing about a lack of guidance from God causing them to behave as they do. The boys presumably did have a religious background - they were private school boys from England in the first half of the 20th Century - they will have spent their lives singing, "All God's creatures great and small..."

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Quote:
The bible is a dangerous and stupid foundation for morals.

What is better, the ten commandments, or billions of people's different opinions?

Easy: billions of peoples different opinions.

Around these parts we like to refer to it as "Democracy"

0 Replies

Have you ever heard of "the fall of Rome"? Guess how that mighty empire fell...from the inside....from lack of moral upstanding, many people see America as the new Rome....

Quote:

Easy: billions of peoples different opinions.

Great, my opinion has now become the law...awesome!

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

M!THÂºÂ§ wrote:
Have you ever read 'The Lord of the Flies"? That is a prime example of what happens when there are no morals. There is nothing to base rules on or anything but by what the kids make up. Everyone did what they thought was right, and look how it turned out. I don't mean to ruin the book for you if you haven't read it, but the book can prove a good point. These kids had no morals and eventually were trying to kill each other off. One 'tribe' resorted to burning down the entire island to get one person. Maybe I'm getting a little off the point, but my point is without moral things definitely go wrong. And I bet yah, If one of them had a religious background or had a bible or whatnot that book(lord of the flies) could have ended up much differently.

This book proves that when a bunch of people do whatever they think is right and set up their own morals, it doesn't work out. We NEED that higher being to govern us, who knows what's right and wrong.

This book is fiction.

Uncle Tom's Cabin was a fictional book, yet it revealed to the people that didn't know (or chose to ignore) of the cruelty of slave owners and how slaves were treated. Thomas More's Utopia was of a fictional perfect society that was really ridiculing the French government. Just because a book is fiction does not mean that it was written purely for entertainment. You don't have to write non-fiction to prove a point. Many authors over time have written fiction to prove their point.

William Golding (author of Lord of the Flies)'s goal was to refute the premise of another book (whose name I cannot recall at the moment) where a bunch of kids get stranded on an island, yet act with morals and are happy, etc. Golding points out that morals don't come from nowhere. There was no authoritative figure to govern the children, so they relied on an instinct to survive. This shows that without a solid foundation, a moral society could not exist.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

thunder_runner32 wrote:
Quote:
The bible is a dangerous and stupid foundation for morals.

What is better, the ten commandments, or billions of people's different opinions?

Easy: billions of peoples different opinions.

Around these parts we like to refer to it as "Democracy"

Democracy is the majority opinion of the people (with respect to minority rights). It's not "everyone has their opinion and adhere only to the rules they set upon themselves." Major difference.

Additionally, would you rather have a house built on a foundation of billions of weak structures, or rather have ten strong, unyielding structues. I don't know about you, but the latter choice is much more appealing to me.

0 Replies

00 Agent Kid wrote:

Eorl wrote:
thunder_runner32 wrote:
Quote:
The bible is a dangerous and stupid foundation for morals.

What is better, the ten commandments, or billions of people's different opinions?

Easy: billions of peoples different opinions.

Around these parts we like to refer to it as "Democracy"

Democracy is the majority opinion of the people (with respect to minority rights). It's not "everyone has their opinion and adhere only to the rules they set upon themselves." Major difference.

Additionally, would you rather have a house built on a foundation of billions of weak structures, or rather have ten strong, unyielding structues. I don't know about you, but the latter choice is much more appealing to me.

I would rather have a house built on ten strong unyeilding structures. (Although billions of weak structures such as a concrete slab would work just as well). My housing code preferences have no bearing on the situation at hand.

Just make sure you keep that ridiculous bible of yours away from the laws of my society, and away from my morality.

0 Replies

00 Agent Kid wrote:

William Golding (author of Lord of the Flies)'s goal was to refute the premise of another book (whose name I cannot recall at the moment) where a bunch of kids get stranded on an island, yet act with morals and are happy, etc.

I think it was Coral Island or something.

0 Replies

God is Irrelevant!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know