Religion and morals

[Bane]

I know this is a fairly heavy subject, and I should point out I haven't formed this thread to slag off people who believe in religion, but this question arose during a debate I was having on another site. According to some Christians if you don't have religious beliefs you will allow anyone to do anything, and have no morals. This is made more bizarre by them claiming the moral high ground while supporting discrimination against anyone who isn't "normal" in my eyes.

Am I alone in finding this position ridiculous?

As I said, this isn't intended to be used to abuse those who believe in God or those who don't, I'm just curious to know what people think.

 

[BulbaRaith]

It comes from a believe that the bible is the direct word of god, and that Moses was basically told the ten commandments which were the principles of morality. Without these presumably man wouldn't know that walking around stealing is wrong, and you shouldn't just kill someone. The fact that this is one of the most important teachings of morality it,s interesting to note the first 3 commandments cover theocracy, apparently god thinks worshipping him is more important than how we treat each other.

Basically whether you believe the bible is the ineffable word of god (which given the translations and reinterpretations since it was written I personally find laughable) or whether you believe it was the work of man. If the former you believe that man can't learn right and wrong by himself (despite the fact that "lower" animals can operate in packs without killing each other, and can share resources) if you believe the latter then you can accept that man can develop moral guidelines on his own, and that the writing of the commandments were merely setting social norms down in stone.

 

[Delrihuzz]

I think, personally, that religion is and always has been an institution that thrives on gullible people. I have morals, but I have no need for a bible to stick to them.

That's what annoys me most with Christians (the fundamentalists anyway). They simply cannot believe (pun not intended) that someone who refuses to believe in a superior being can have morals as well.

As such, I live without religion, but I go by many morals.

 

[White Len]

Christians thinking that non-Christians have no morals are like people who point out specks of sawdust in other people's eyes without noticing the plank in their own. Yes, that last part is from the Bible. Just because someone is not Christian it doesn't mean OMGIGOAROUNDKILLINGPEOPLE. If that was the case, then my country wouldn't have a certain CHRISTIAN versus Muslim riot in the 1980s (please don't take offense to this even though I have no idea why you would).

 

[RavenKingSage]

Just because someone doesn't have a religion doesn't mean they're bad people. There are such thing as atheists with good morals, as there are "Christians" who go around persecuting others, claiming to do so because "God" told them to.

 

[Dorothy LaRouge]

I've always found the belief that all non-Christians are eeeeevil little beasts or that they'll all go to hell is a load of bullshit. If that was true, then by that same logic, Moses and Solomon are in hell, amirite?

I respect people who believe differently. Remember the golden rule? Yeah, that.

 

[H-con]

About religion...
Well, if giving people a good, written moral to live after and creating a community that cares about each-other and takes care of people, then religion is a good thing indeed. Religion has spawned many great works of art and structures, but also war and hate, but today, the society we live in should try to forget about that and instead focusing on how to make the world a better place.

If you'd rather think of religion as definite truth, saying your religion is the only true one and generally using religion as an excuse to behave bad, then I have a problem with religion, but that stems from the person that uses it as a reason to behave bad. If you use an old book for "the truth" of how the world was created then I would treat those opinions with just as little respect as I would treat a person using religion to bash gays. Thus, none at all (marked, I said opinions, not the person).

For me, it doesn't really matter if Jesus was the son of God or not, I don't really find that all that important. I do think that many of the things written in the Bible (or any other holy text, I haven't just read too many of those to make an opinion about those), and I think that it's way more important to actually try to live as a good person, whether you believe in a superhuman deity or not. I'm perhaps more Christian than many other that says they're Christian, although I wouldn't actually call myself one. I would never mix religion with science. I firmly believe in science, and their way to explain the world.

 

[evkl]

From the standpoint of philosophy you don't need a god to have a moral system. Morality, good, and evil can exist without a god.

 

[Eredar Warlock]

All I see here is a bunch of stereotyping, and frankly, I'm sick of it.

I'll only say this: If there is no such thing as a definite truth, then all we have are lies. Truth by its own rule isn't tolerant.

Without belief in God, life itself becomes a lie and a mistake. And I find that to be a very depressing way to live. But beyond that, I have plenty of reasons to believe in God, starting with the beauty of creation.

 

[H-con]

Without belief in God, life itself becomes a lie and a mistake. And I find that to be a very depressing way to live. But beyond that, I have plenty of reasons to believe in God, starting with the beauty of creation.

A lie and a mistake? What are you talking about? I don't consider living without a god/gods would be a mistake, that's just your narrow mind, because it would not. You're not lying to yourself if you don't believe in a gos or some kind of deity. You can have a perfectly fine sense of what's right and wrong without no higher being telling you what to do/not do.

The problem with "the beauty of creation" is that people look differently at the case, and no-one (not me, not you, not anyone) can say what's the best explanation, although science can try to disprove religion and try to explain it in a way that doesn't involve faith. I don't view the world as gods work, that is the work of nature.

Many are blinded by their faith (to use an example this might make you understand what I mean), and especially when you're forcing the views on others, or trying to make kids learn that as a fact. I cannot be tolerant to that. I can be tolerant to people believing in a god that I might not believe in, but as long as they're not forcing it on me, or doing something the society or I find bad, then I have no problem with it.

 

[evkl]

Without belief in God, life itself becomes a lie and a mistake. And I find that to be a very depressing way to live. But beyond that, I have plenty of reasons to believe in God, starting with the beauty of creation.

So you'd rather have someone live by perverting the word of God -- a cult leader or a religious fanatic -- than live by being atheistic? You think that given this choice God is the better of the two?

I'd say that in general truth is more tolerant than religion. Because at the end of the day morals from God become morals from "my God," and that at its core lacks tolerance. You can't have tolerance without liberal, enlightened thought.

 

[Zeta]

Morality derives from empathy, a quality/emotion that nearly all humans (sociopaths and severe autistic excepted) possess naturally as part of an evolutionary drive to preserve the species through social cooperation.

 

[Eredar Warlock]

A lie and a mistake? What are you talking about? I don't consider living without a god/gods would be a mistake, that's just your narrow mind, because it would not. You're not lying to yourself if you don't believe in a gos or some kind of deity. You can have a perfectly fine sense of what's right and wrong without no higher being telling you what to do/not do.

The problem with "the beauty of creation" is that people look differently at the case, and no-one (not me, not you, not anyone) can say what's the best explanation, although science can try to disprove religion and try to explain it in a way that doesn't involve faith. I don't view the world as gods work, that is the work of nature.

If the Big Bang/Billion Years theories are true, then the fact that we can even chat on the Internet is entirely a mistake.

Evolution scientists attempt to account for the beginning of the world while ignoring that the world is simply too perfectly complex to have been an accident.

So you'd rather have someone live by perverting the word of God -- a cult leader or a religious fanatic -- than live by being atheistic? You think that given this choice God is the better of the two?

We aren't limited to that choice.

 

[Kthleen]

mistake.

How are you defining "mistake"?

I suppose if you define it as "an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc.," then you might be right if you: 1. use "error" as "a deficiency or imperfection in structure or function" or even "a moral offense; wrongdoing; sin"; 2. specify "action" instead of the rest (unless you think singularities can calculate, opine, or judge); and 3. specify "carelessness" (because singularities can't care).

If you mean "accident" ("any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause" or, if you're as cynical as I am some people are, "an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss"), then say "accident."

 

[evkl]

We aren't limited to that choice.

But given a choice between the two of them, your framework mandates we select the cultist as the more virtuous. And that's obviously wrong, which means your framework is obviously broken.

 

[H-con]

If the Big Bang/Billion Years theories are true, then the fact that we can even chat on the Internet is entirely a mistake.

I hope you're not referring to the view that the earth is just some thousand years old, because that's slightly what I'm getting when I'm reading the /billion years, although correct me if I'm wrong on that one. As for big bang, isn't it the most recognized scientific way to explain the origins of the universe? I haven't researched these things, so I don't know what's reasonable or not, but when a majority of those that do just that says so, I don't have anything to say against that, as I don't have anything of value to add. I'd rather believe that than a story that's very old and probably inspired by the Egyptians... That's mere belief, and has nothing to do with science, as there's no way anyone can prove it happens. They have to believe it did happen (although you pretty much have to believe the big bang happened too, it's got a lot more evidence that it actually did than the creation). Also, who am I to judge between all these stories of creation in-between the religions? Should I just pick one? They can't all be correct, and saying one is more correct than any other is just arguing over belief.

Also, having this conversation? Please, do elaborate on that, because I see no reason to question that.

We aren't limited to that choice.

No, but isn't it better to choose to live good as an atheist than to live as a total asshole and believing in some god? That's not the choice I'd like to make.
Also, I doubt evkl meant that all follow some crazy leader of a cult, but that those who do in the example have little right to criticize the moral of the atheists if they're abusing the word of god.

 

[Archaic]

Evolution scientists attempt to account for the beginning of the world while ignoring that the world is simply too perfectly complex to have been an accident.

Evolution science has nothing to do with the beginnings of the universe, the beginnings of this world, or the beginnings of life on this world. Evolution is only concerned with the development of and changes in species over time.

Really now, how complex something is doesn't mean it can't be created entirely by accident. Some of humanity's most commonly used inventions (penicillin and post-it notes being two of the most popular examples) were complete accidents, and complete failures for what the inventors were actually trying to do.

 

[TTEchidna]

Now you're just thinking you're special.

If it's too awesome to have been an accident, what do you call all the kids who were born because their parents' condom fucked up, who go on to produce wonderful things. They certainly weren't made on purpose.

And of course then, if you come back with "will of God" or some crap, does that then mean we have no free will? You're caught here in a belief that an accident is a terrible, ugly thing. And it is, if it involves cars. But the fact that the universe came about, whether through a creator or not, is simply astounding.

Look at it. The planets orbiting the Sun. So many millions of tons of rock and gas, congealed into spheres, being flung around a ball of hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion, all based on the same thing that causes an apple to fall? It's incredible, whether something made it, intending for it to be this way, or just because it fell into place. Say our universe didn't turn out the way it happened to, say different things happened in the past of humanity. Say Bulbagarden never happened to be an idea. Say Pokémon itself had never been thought of. Would the world be any less beautiful? No. The universe is just fine without intelligent creators.

Chaos itself is a thing of beauty. Do you not enjoy fireworks? Things blowing up? That looks cool, does it not? You need to look closer at what your existence is about. Focus on how what happened is awesome, and not on whether or not there was a person to light the fuse. Something blows up and is awesome, you don't congratulate and kiss the ass of the guy who blew it up. You look at it for what it is, an explosion, and think it's pretty cool.


AND NOW FOR THE MORALS ISSUE.


Personally, I don't think morals are any more than common sense. If I decide I wanna kill someone and am allowed to, anyone can decide to do the same to me. I don't exactly wanna die, so there you go. Morals are all about a sense of balance. Don't have sex before you get married is really all about balancing. Usually when you're ready for a kid, you've got your life under control. Sex makes babies. Having sex before your life is under control could result in severe consequences. Therefore don't. Ta dah. Alternatively, hey, don't screw around with everyone you can because that one person you're gonna have a connection with might not wanna screw around with you if you've been screwing around with everyone.

 

[Our Wasted Years]

All I see here is a bunch of stereotyping, and frankly, I'm sick of it.

I'll only say this: If there is no such thing as a definite truth, then all we have are lies. Truth by its own rule isn't tolerant.

Without belief in God, life itself becomes a lie and a mistake. And I find that to be a very depressing way to live. But beyond that, I have plenty of reasons to believe in God, starting with the beauty of creation.

Your statement makes me think that you depend on a "God" for all your life's happiness. And if that may be true, then to me that is a depressing way to live, not the other way around. Why would my life be depressing because I chose not to "believe" in a "God" and follow "His rules" to have a better, happier life, while I may do as I chose as long as I abide by the laws of the state and government. So far I've had numerous moments in my life which were miserable while being a Catholic and an Atheist so I have no idea where you came up with that.

 

[boop]

Without belief in God, life itself becomes a lie and a mistake. And I find that to be a very depressing way to live.

I find the idea of living with a god similar to the one in the Christian Bible depressing. In the same sense that I would find living under a jealous, petty, vengeful, bastard of a dictator (but he loves us) depressing. I find nothing more warped than the idea that we are low, dirty, unsavory fools who should be ashamed of ourselves, but we should also be prideful, reassured, and joyous in that we are precious enough treasures for the entire universe to be made with each of us in mind.

I was much more depressed as a Christian than I am now as an Atheist. I never liked the idea of my life being a test, or a shell-game of sorts, but I never knew any better, as I had been indoctrinated with Christian ideology from birth. Then I did some research myself, and came to my own conclusion; that there is no proof of, and no reason for there to be a deity of any kind.

If the Big Bang/Billion Years theories are true, then the fact that we can even chat on the Internet is entirely a mistake.

Evolution scientists attempt to account for the beginning of the world while ignoring that the world is simply too perfectly complex to have been an accident.

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the universe.

Earth is only 'perfect' for our brand of life. We evolved on this planet to live on this planet. Of course it is 'perfect' for us.

As for the morals thing; the typical religious idea of morals constitutes that they are set-in-stone, and aren't up for interpretation. My idea of morals allows for others to have their own ideas of what is right and wrong. The difference being one side is saying "Follow our way. It's the only right way." and the other is saying "I really dig my way of life, but as long as you don't get all forceful with your morals, I'm cool with you." I'd rather be the latter.