God is Irrelevant!

Maprosche, first of all the ten commandments do not have a direct effect on us, because of Christ, however his law is often based upon them. And I didn't mean that countries go directly from a religion, but religion helps mold most countries usually in a good way.

Second books can prove more than one point. Just because it was originally intended to refute another book or demonstrate the violence in the world around doesn't mean it can't make another point about morals.

Thunderrunner also made a good point, great civilizations have crumbled not because of a seige on their city or whatnot, but by their morals. Rome's 'morals' declined and so did their country. There's a reason why so many Christians voted for GW Bush, because of his morals. If our country goes the wrong way with morals, the USA might not exist in the near future.

0 Replies

Guys. Listen to yourselves. Do you really want to base your deeply held beliefs on The Adventures of Ralph and Piggy?

0 Replies

M!THÂºÂ§ wrote:

...books can prove more than one point. Just because it was originally intended to refute another book or demonstrate the violence in the world around doesn't mean it can't make another point about morals.

That is true. The point that you inferred from the book, however, was wrong. The book did not say that we need a higher being to give us moral guidance. The only reference to a higher being was to the "beast," the boys' concept of which made them want to murder people. Please re-read my previous post...

Quote:

There's a reason why so many Christians voted for GW Bush, because of his morals.

That's precisely the reason why so many Americans didn't vote for George Bush: because of his morals.

0 Replies

You Christians can't even follow the ten commandments yourselves.

How many of you 'worship' the god that is money. How many more hours do you spend working for money more than you do praying to god? Did Jesus work 50 hours/week and then pray for 2 on a Sunday? No, once he heard god, he spent the entire time teaching others. Do any of you do that.

Oh and how many of you have ever worked on a Sunday? "To hell with you!", and now you want our country to lock you in jail too.

Thou shall not kill, does this mean that Bush should be locked up because he ordered the killing of innocent Iraqi's. Even if they wearn't innocent the Ten Commandments doesn't say it's ok to kill 'sometimes', it says never. Throw the president in jail.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

You Christians can't even follow the ten commandments yourselves.

You're presuming quite a bit about people that you only know through this forum.

maporsche wrote:

How many of you 'worship' the god that is money. How many more hours do you spend working for money more than you do praying to god? Did Jesus work 50 hours/week and then pray for 2 on a Sunday? No, once he heard god, he spent the entire time teaching others. Do any of you do that.

No, I do not worship the god of money. The reason we work for money is to survive in today's world. Money is as necessary as food or shelter, as it is the sole mean of acquiring these things. It's true, I don't spend 20 hours a week praying to God, but I do pray to him multiple times daily, giving thanks and asking for forgiveness.

maporsche wrote:

Oh and how many of you have ever worked on a Sunday? "To hell with you!", and now you want our country to lock you in jail too.

First of all, it's the Sabbath that you're not supposed to toil on, which is Saturday. Secondly, that is a Jewish custom. Thirdly, it never says that you can't work on Sunday. It merely commands you to worship on Sunday.

Bell rang. More later.

EDIT: I'm at home, so now I can finish my post (I would have normally replied with another post, but nobody replied to this one yet, so I'm editing this one).

maporsche wrote:

Thou shall not kill, does this mean that Bush should be locked up because he ordered the killing of innocent Iraqi's. Even if they wearn't innocent the Ten Commandments doesn't say it's ok to kill 'sometimes', it says never. Throw the president in jail.

Read that line again: "Thou shalt not murder." There is a huge difference between killing and murdering. I'm not saying that the president is a saint and that he's always right, etc., I'm saying that killing is justified as a way of punishment by the government. In times of war, death is unavoidable. Murder, on the other hand, is taking somebody's life and not having the authority to do so.

0 Replies

Religion is based on an engine of morality within our brains that has been developed through evolution (or god if you prefer, since evolution is not the question here). This is my belief.

The point is that within all of us is the ability to determine the morality of a situation, regardless of religious upbringing. If you think that religion is the only way to learn morality, you must be prepared to explain the differences in morality that each religion exhibits.

0 Replies

fredjones wrote:

Religion is based on an engine of morality within our brains that has been developed through evolution (or god if you prefer, since evolution is not the question here). This is my belief.

The point is that within all of us is the ability to determine the morality of a situation, regardless of religious upbringing. If you think that religion is the only way to learn morality, you must be prepared to explain the differences in morality that each religion exhibits.

Bertrand Russell once opined about religions that there were so many in the world with their conflicting beliefs, only one of them could possibly be right. He, of course, chose to believe they were all wrong. I believe that one of them may very well be right. Which one? That is where you must use discernment.

0 Replies

Quote:

"For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them and, between their own thoughts, they are being accused or even excused." (Romans 2: 14, 15)

So the Bible itself acknowledges that law is internally motivated, is an a priori bit of knowledge. To the theist, this means that it comes from God. To the social anthropologist, this means that we are social creatures, that we depend on the group for survival, and so that it is in our best interests to stay in the group's favor (which has developed views over the generations on what sort of behavior is and is not good for the group). No different than what Mr. Jones has posted a number of times.

* * * * * *

Quote:

Have you ever read 'The Lord of the Flies"? 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. ... 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.

Please allow me to quote the bible in response:

Deuteronomy 7:1-2: "... the seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them."

Joshua 6:21: "And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

Joshua 10:40-41: "So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon."

* * * * * * *

Quote:

Have you ever heard of "the fall of Rome"? Guess how that mighty empire fell...from the inside....from lack of moral upstanding....

Quote:

Thunderrunner also made a good point, great civilizations have crumbled not because of a seige on their city or whatnot, but by their morals. Rome's 'morals' declined and so did their country.

Um, can anyone explain how it was morality issues - and not administrative issues and political infighting - that brought about the fall of the Roman Empire? For that matter, can anyone demonstrate that the state of Rome was moral before the supposed fall (or, rather, shift of power - it's not as though the actual people of the empire were suddenly wiped away and replaced by others)?

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

Um, can anyone explain how it was morality issues - and not administrative issues and political infighting - that brought about the fall of the Roman Empire? For that matter, can anyone demonstrate that the state of Rome was moral before the supposed fall (or, rather, shift of power - it's not as though the actual people of the empire were suddenly wiped away and replaced by others)?

The Romans were not Chirstians, but they respected the physical body (both their own and of others). As the body is considered a temple for God, this was a good moral. I'm not saying that they were saints, but they had high standards for morals when they were in their prime. They respected women (for the most part), and did not indulge in eating a lot or drinking all the time.

The problem came in when they started practicing Hedonism, or extreme pleasure seeking. They ate and ate and ate, went to the vomitorium, and ate some more. They treated their bodies very poorly (all the eating, drinking, partying, etc.), and did not treat women with any dignity at all. Each of the high Roman military officials got very fat and unhealthy (interesting side note: They actually drew veins on themselves to make themselves look buff :p). As a result, Rome got conqured. This is how the lack of morals affected the downfall of Rome.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

fredjones wrote:
Religion is based on an engine of morality within our brains that has been developed through evolution (or god if you prefer, since evolution is not the question here). This is my belief.

The point is that within all of us is the ability to determine the morality of a situation, regardless of religious upbringing. If you think that religion is the only way to learn morality, you must be prepared to explain the differences in morality that each religion exhibits.

Bertrand Russell once opined about religions that there were so many in the world with their conflicting beliefs, only one of them could possibly be right. He, of course, chose to believe they were all wrong. I believe that one of them may very well be right. Which one? That is where you must use discernment.

If most people chose their religion based on the pro's and con's of each, I would have no problem with this system. The best religions would have the most members. However, this is not necessarily so.

The greatest predictor (if you want I can find a study to back this up) of religiosity in a person is whether their parents were religious. The same applies for predicting which religion a person enters. So for most people it is not a conscious choice to be religious, and many people never think about which religion is the best one. Once we recognize this inherent bias, it becomes much easier for us to separate ourselves from the equation and disseminate the problem from the outside.

In other words, this conversation is the exception to the rule. In fact I would say that this is one of the few times in my entire life that I have ever talked about the origins of morality to other people. From my perspective, regardless of whether I convince anyone of my views, I will feel satisfied with the result of this discussion. I just wanted to say that before I went any further. Smile

0 Replies

Click!

http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/cheers.gif

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

Quote:
"For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them and, between their own thoughts, they are being accused or even excused." (Romans 2: 14, 15)

So the Bible itself acknowledges that law is internally motivated, is an a priori bit of knowledge. To the theist, this means that it comes from God. To the social anthropologist, this means that we are social creatures, that we depend on the group for survival, and so that it is in our best interests to stay in the group's favor (which has developed views over the generations on what sort of behavior is and is not good for the group). No different than what Mr. Jones has posted a number of times.

Interesting analysis. I appreciate the your thoughtful arguments. What you are proposing is a little difficult to understand (this in response to the theist view).

It's almost as if you are saying that it is just a matter of perspective. Theists and non-theists are saying the same thing, only different. I don't see this as the case. If you are arguing that god works only via natural processes, then I would be forced to agree. If that is the case, then you are conceding my point. If we can live good lives without believing in god, then the whole question of god's existence is irrelevant. We do not depend on him for morality, so who cares if he exists? The power to be moral lies within ourselves, not in heaven.

For the sake of argument, I will assume this is not your claim. Smile

So...

If god motivates our morality directly, does he also motivate other social animals? Dogs/wolves are known to feel shame, and they can be taught right and wrong. They may not realize what is Right and Wrong, but they can be taught to follow rules. At some level, this is also what we do. In fact, I would argue that religions encourage the kind of rule-following that dogs are so good at. Are we no better than dogs? (cynical/half-joking).

Dogs can be taught right and wrong because they are inherently social animals. They police themselves, and they have a rigid hierarchy which promotes a kind of basal (compared to us) morality.

I am not saying we employ the same set of tools as dogs. I am not saying that dogs have the cognitive capacity to know Right from Wrong like we do. What I am asking is that if god motivates our morality, who motivates the primitive morality of other social animals?

My answer is obvious: We share behaviors similar to other social animals because we are also social animals. We have evolved the capability to be far more social than any other animal. Most of this comes from our inherent ability to create and abide by rules.

Do my explanations have obvious holes?

I don't know why you guys are arguing that morality is necessary for civilization, because I think the answer is obvious. I would take issue with the contention that Rome fell because they did not have Judeo-Christian morality, but it really does not apply to this conversation.

I don't want to know why morals in general are good (because obviously they are). I want to know how you know that your morals are the right ones. Does anyone disagree with me when I say that reason is the only way to distinguish between 'good' morality and 'bad'?

0 Replies

Crap, Neo, if brevity is the soul of wit then I must be the most humorLESS guy out here. Laughing

Nevertheless, I have more to add...

Claiming that your morality is superior because god is on your side is naive and dangerous. Better to use a method that all of us agree on and all of us can rely on.

If you base your argument on assumptions that your opponent disagrees with, you must argue the assumptions. Since I do not believe the validity of any religious text, quoting such texts will not convince me. By quoting scripture, you are preaching to the converted. With this in mind, how do you convince me that I should follow your rules? If I do not regard scripture as evidence, how do you prove anything?

Answer: with physical proof, or alternatively thought experiments (when such proof is impossible). Hence, I argue that reason is the tool which determines morality in ALL people, not just those in your particular denomination. Therefore I am forced to conclude that your particular god does not affect what others do. If you effect change in others who do not believe as you do, it is a result of logical conclusions on their part. The language of universality in the realm of morality is not your god's word, it is reason.

Maybe I should amend the title. YOUR god is irrelevant! Smile

Edit: I posted and immediately edited to reword last sentences.

0 Replies

My liege, and madam, to expostulate
What majesty should be, what duty is,
Why day is day, night night, and time is time
Were nothing but to waste night, day, and time.
Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief: your noble son is mad.
Mad call I it, for to define true madness,
What is't, but to be nothing else but mad?

(More matter, with less art)

Madam, I swear I use no art at all:
That he is mad, 'tis true. 'Tis true 'tis pity.
And pity 'tis, 'tis true. A foolish figure -
But farewell it, for I will use no art.
Mad let us grant him then. Now remains
That we find out the cause of this effect -
Or, rather, say, the cause of this defect,
For this effect defective comes by cause.
But let that go.

Or something like that. Context is everything.

0 Replies

No, I'm with you, Mr. Jones. I just picked that bit out because it seems that the bible is describing people as inherently moral beings -- as opposed to beings who are moral because of rules imposed from the outside by God.

I think it's a good description of human nature -- and one that is equally valid from an atheistic (as opposed to antitheistic) point of view. Social animals and all that -- I'm very much with you there.

(A priori, in case you haven't come across it before, basically just refers to knowledge or faculties that you're born with, as opposed to a posteriori, which refers to knowledge gained through experience or education. Philosophy 101 stuff...)

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

No, I'm with you, Mr. Jones. I just picked that bit out because it seems that the bible is describing people as inherently moral beings -- as opposed to beings who are moral because of rules imposed from the outside by God.

I think it's a good description of human nature -- and one that is equally valid from an atheistic (as opposed to antitheistic) point of view. Social animals and all that -- I'm very much with you there.

I understand you are trying to find common ground with me, and I do appreciate it.

I'm not sure--and I really dislike wading through the nearly incomprehensible language of the Bible- but I don't think that your interpretation of the quote is really what the Bible is saying. I think that the Bible is talking about how god will judge the people who are ignorant of its teachings.

It says basically that you will be judged by god based on the principles of the Bible, despite your ignorance. It still maintains the fact that the Bible is the Truth handed down by god. It only allows others who have not read the Bible to get into heaven, if they somehow manage to do what the Bible says without ever reading it.

Bottom line: I think it is less about inherent morality and more about how god does not favor his own people over others.

I could be way off, but based on the context of the previous paragraphs it makes sense. I say all this because the quote you gave goes against all of my personal experience. I really don't want to get into a Biblical discussion, but something about the quote just didn't sit right with me.

Anyway, I appreciate your attempt to temper my arguments somewhat. Sometimes it seems like I get going and don't know when to stop.

0 Replies

Oops, I forgot to say that I disagree with your interpretation of the quote only because, based on my experience, many religious people would disagree that a person could discover moral truths on their own. It seems to me that most people feel they need the Bible (or other holy text) to get into heaven.

0 Replies

God gave us a sense of wrong and right, but it is like a computer, we have all the hardware, but we get our programming from the bible. It tells us how to properly run ourselves for the maximum output. I don't even look at the bible as a rules book anymore, I look at it as an instruction manual for living on Earth....it has advice for every situation you could ever be in...that's why it's the bible.

0 Replies

I'm with you most of the way here, thunder. We should also point out that Adam and Eve had a perfect conscience which they deliberately ruined for themselves as well as for their offspring.

0 Replies

fredjones wrote:

Oops, I forgot to say that I disagree with your interpretation of the quote only because, based on my experience, many religious people would disagree that a person could discover moral truths on their own. It seems to me that most people feel they need the Bible (or other holy text) to get into heaven.

Hey everyone! Back form a long break.....

How else are you supposed to get into heaven?

0 Replies

God is Irrelevant!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know