Would the world be better off without religion?

If religion was truth then there would be unity between religions. God is not the author of confusion.

real life wrote:

Your statement is a moral judgement because it seeks to define whence moral judgements arise, and hence attempt to define on what basis something is or is not moral.

Nonsense, the statement is not at all concerned with whether or not any given judgment is moral, it simply points out that any judgment which is claimed to be a moral judgment is subjective. Absolutely no valuation of morality is entailed in the statement that moral judgments are subjective.

Quote:

It is quite a sweeping moral judgement, encompassing all of morality and stated in absolute terms ('All' moral judgements are.........) How can you deny that your statement is absolute in it's terms?

I don't deny that the statement is absolute. I do deny that the statement is a moral judgment, which you only assert in the attempt to prop up your feeble and unconvincing argument that i have contradicted myself. The statement that all moral judgments are subjective is not of itself a moral judgment, because it does not assert (or "seek" to assert) that the subjectivity of moral judgments is "good" or "bad," nor "right" or "wrong." Continuing to assert that the statement is a moral judgment itself, in the face of a definition of morality which clearly states that morality concerns itself with "right" and "wrong," only provides evidence that you don't reason well. It also shows how desperate you are to prop up a failing argument in which you ave involved yourself. Continuing to assert that the statement is a "moral judgment," while not even offering an explanation as to why this were so, not only does not make it so, it makes you look the fool.

Quote:

You propose a moral absolute, but deny the existence of moral absolutes.

This is a lie--the statement i made does not have the character of a moral statement, it does not assert that the subjectivity of morality is either good or bad, or right or wrong.

Quote:

Moreover it seeks to prove a negative, i.e. there are no moral absolutes, which it utterly fails to do. Omniscience would be required to prove a negative such as this one.

It does not "seek" to prove anything. It is a statement about the nature of morality, and the "proof," if one were as obsessed with "proof" as you are in this case, is offered in the basis upon which i make the observation, which is that there is no moral statement upon which all people agree. The statement itself does not "seek" anything.

You're not very good at this sort of thing.

The undeniable scope of your statement is that all actions are neither inherently 'moral' nor 'immoral', but only matters of opinion.

A sweeping pronouncement such as this, by definition seeks to define what is and is not moral.

real life,

Setanta is making a judgment about morality.
He is not making a moral judgment.

(...doesn't mean he's right, of course.)

The undeniable scope of your statement is that all actions are neither inherently 'moral' nor 'immoral', but only matters of opinion.

A sweeping pronouncement such as this, by definition seeks to define what is and is not moral, indeed the basis for all morality.

Thus, you cannot claim that such a statement is not a moral judgement.

mor·al adj.

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

Indeed , it sets itself up as THE moral judgement defining all other moral judgements.

As to whether you denied your statement was an absolute, anyone checking back a few pages can see that attempted to do just that.

You stated an absolute moral judgement denying the existence of moral absolutes. It is an inherently contradictory position.

RexRed wrote:

If religion was truth then there would be unity between religions. God is not the author of confusion.

If God is the author of the Bible than he has created a massive amount of confusion. So if what you say is true; that God is not the author of confusion, than we can safely assume God had nothing to do with the Bible or its God.

real life wrote:

The undeniable scope of your statement is that all actions are neither inherently 'moral' nor 'immoral', but only matters of opinion.

This is absolutely false. At no time have i said or even implied that all actions are either moral or immoral. I have simply pointed out that what is or is not considered "moral" is a matter of opinion (to put it in the snotty terms by which you intend to denigrate the idea), which is to say, subjective. There is nothing in the statement that morality is subjective which even remotely implies that all actions are either moral or immoral. In fact, if one considers all "morality" to be subjective, one immediately recognizes that no actions are either moral or immoral, but only that people arbitrarily (subjectively) apply such a judgment to the any action under consideration.

Quote:

A sweeping pronouncement such as this, by definition seeks to define what is and is not moral, indeed the basis for all morality.

Nonsense--the statement only takes notice of the fact that "morality" is a subjective judgment by people, who do not universally agree upon what is or is not moral, which is precisely why i say that "morality" is a subjective judgment.

Quote:

Thus, you cannot claim that such a statement is not a moral judgement.

As i said before, you're not very good at this. I guess we need to go back to the well, since it did not sink in the first time. You claim that the statement that moral judgments are subjective is in itself a moral judgment. That is false:

[url=http://www.answers.com/topic/moral][b]Answers-dot-com[/b][/url] wrote:

mor·al adj.

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

The statement that moral judgments are subjective does not assert that this has either the character of "goodness" or "badness." The statement is "value neutral" on the topic of whether or not the subjective character of moral judgments is good or bad, right or wrong. Therefore, the statement that moral judgments are subjective is not itself a moral judgment.

You continually, and falsely, stating that it is a moral judgment does not make that so.

Quote:

Indeed , it sets itself up as THE moral judgement defining all other moral judgements.

No, it does not judge moral judgments, it simply takes note of the fact that they are subjective. Tediously (because you're being pig-headed about this), i will repeat that noting that moral judgments are subjective does not claim that this is either good or bad, right or wrong, and is not itself a moral judgment.

Quote:

As to whether you denied your statement was an absolute, anyone checking back a few pages can see that attempted to do just that.

You stated an absolute moral judgement denying the existence of moral absolutes. It is an inherently contradictory position.

This is a glaring example of your inability to argue rationally. You are desperately making this claim because your position is becoming so eroded. I only denied that stating that moral judgments are subjective is a moral absolute--it's not a moral judgment at all. Certainly the statement is absolute, but it is not a moral absolute, because it is not a moral statement at all--it is just a statement about moral judgment. There is no contradiction, because you are attempting to compare apples to oranges--you are comparing the un-moral statement that all moral judgment is subjective to moral judgments themselves.

I have never claimed that the subjective nature of moral judgment is either good or bad. Therefore, that statement itself is not a moral judgment, therefore it does not constitute a moral absolute--and therefore, you are full of poop.

real life wrote:

The undeniable scope of your statement is that all actions are neither inherently 'moral' nor 'immoral', but only matters of opinion.

This is absolutely false. At no time have i said or even implied that all actions are either moral or immoral.

Getting back to PQ's original question:

Would the world be better off without religion?

Now playing my broken record: the book of Revelation, in chapters 17 and 18, describes the destruction of the world's religions.

Attempting to define the basis for moral judgements is to define morality itself, and hence what is and is not moral.

You can't attempt to set the ground rules and claim it has no effect on the outcome. Nice try though. (childish emoticon removed in the interest of good taste)[/i]

I haven't set any ground rules--you are free to declare to your heart's content what is or is not moral. And, in so doing, you will have made a subjective judgment.

Quote:

Also you might want to note that the word I used was 'neither' , not 'either' when you responded:

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:

The undeniable scope of your statement is that all actions are neither inherently 'moral' nor 'immoral', but only matters of opinion.

This is absolutely false. At no time have i said or even implied that all actions are either moral or immoral.

That's OK, that does not alter that my statement is that all moral judgments are subjective, and it does not alter that such a statement is not itself a moral judgment. Finally, it does not follow from that statement that i deny that any action may or may not be moral--it simply points out that saying that any given action is moral or immoral is making a subjective judgment. My statement simply points out that there is no absolute standard of morality--i don't stipulate that people aren't free to declare this moral and that immoral, i'm just pointing out the subjective nature of such declarations.

No where in that post have I said anything that should be interpreted as an affirmative to the question.

neologist wrote:

Getting back to PQ's original question:

Would the world be better off without religion?

Now playing my broken record: the book of Revelation, in chapters 17 and 18, describes the destruction of the world's religions.

Is that because God hates all other religions except the one that praises him?

xingu wrote:

neologist wrote:

Getting back to PQ's original question:

Would the world be better off without religion?

Now playing my broken record: the book of Revelation, in chapters 17 and 18, describes the destruction of the world's religions.

Is that because God hates all other religions except the one that praises him?

Perhaps, but more so those who despoil in his name.