On Rejecting Religious Morals (long post)
-
Chris Austin wrote: implies that only religious instructions have static morals values. Having many non-religious friends and family members I know this is not the case. Then you can show me a static basis for morality that is not based on religious principles. As I said with Paul, we are likely to not come to an agreement here and I have no hard feelings with that. I just do not believe it is possible. Chris Austin wrote: Strong convictions are not the sole property of the religious. I do not believe I said that they were. Just not a static or absolute base. "I will find a new sig someday."
Nor is there a static or absolute base of morals in religion as a whole. There are way too many variants, so [edit]greatest[/edit] common denominator of all of them is probably very close to zero. Chris Richardson Programmers find all sorts of ingenious ways to screw ourselves over. - Tim Smith
-
Paul Watson wrote: Why do we need other powers to make us do well, to make us fear if we don't do well? Why do we need other powers to be rewarded? Assuming there is a God, we need to believe him. God is a moral compass and without him, we will not make it to the final destination. If there were no God, I understand your point.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism *Jason Henderson wrote: we will not make it to the final destination. nothing will stop me from reaching my hole in the ground. :) -c
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: If this was at all easy to accomplish (or learn) we would not have "evil regime" after "evil regime" popping up. Just look at the 20th century alone Indeed I agree it is not easy and from the looks of things the 20th and present centuries are humans taking some terrible blind alleys in their exploration of for one thing morals. Because I do not believe in God(s) I do not have a heirarchacal view of humanity. I see it driving itself forward with a multitude of forks. The forks represent everything from the USA to North Korea to China to Europe to Africa. Each one is a subset of humanity exploring, probing and defining paths. Many of our current forks are quite scary and seemingly dead ends. Hopefully they will merge with the better forks or divert to an entirely new, and better, direction. To me, this is a more rewarding and ultimately better model than being led by a greater power. It is like the difference between being told the results of an expirement in school, or finding out yourself. The latter being more beneficial, instilling better things in oneself. Those experiments I did myself in school have stuck with me far longer than the ones only the teacher told us the results of. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: We are very unlikely to sway one another here but it is the basis for my disagreement with what I take to be "your view". On the whole religious theme I am very open as I often envy people with faith. So any logical, well thought out and provable (though I don't need physical evidence) part you can explain to me I will be more than happy to accept.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: "The Labia [cinema]... ...was opened by Princess Labia in May 1949..." Christian Graus wrote: See, I told you it was a nice name for a girl...
Paul Watson wrote: I see it driving itself forward with a multitude of forks. The forks represent everything from the USA to North Korea to China to Europe to Africa. Each one is a subset of humanity exploring, probing and defining paths. Many of our current forks are quite scary and seemingly dead ends. Hopefully they will merge with the better forks or divert to an entirely new, and better, direction. I believe this can be agreed upon independantly of any religious convictions. Paul Watson wrote: So any logical, well thought out and provable And back to our impass. What I call faith, what ever I consider logical and well thought out will at some point not meet your provable claus. "I will find a new sig someday."
-
Nor is there a static or absolute base of morals in religion as a whole. There are way too many variants, so [edit]greatest[/edit] common denominator of all of them is probably very close to zero. Chris Richardson Programmers find all sorts of ingenious ways to screw ourselves over. - Tim Smith
Chris Richardson wrote: Nor is there a static or absolute base of morals in religion as a whole. It is pretty obvious that we disagree with that statement. "I will find a new sig someday."
-
Chris Richardson wrote: Nor is there a static or absolute base of morals in religion as a whole. It is pretty obvious that we disagree with that statement. "I will find a new sig someday."
I'm confused. Did you mean that you and I disagree on that point or somebody else does? Or did you mean that I was just stating the obvious? If the latter, then sorry. Chris Richardson Programmers find all sorts of ingenious ways to screw ourselves over. - Tim Smith
-
I'm confused. Did you mean that you and I disagree on that point or somebody else does? Or did you mean that I was just stating the obvious? If the latter, then sorry. Chris Richardson Programmers find all sorts of ingenious ways to screw ourselves over. - Tim Smith
Sorry, The we is just you and me. I should have said I. "I will find a new sig someday."
-
Fazlul Kabir wrote: Be they Muslims, Jews, Christians, or Sabaeans, Those who believe in God and the Last Day And who do well Have their reward with their Lord. They have nothing to fear, And they will not sorrow. (Qur'an: 2:62 and 5:69) That AND clause is just infuriating. Why should I fear anything if I do well in life but do not believe in "God and the Last Day"? It should be: Be they Muslims, Jews, Christians, or anyone, Those who do well Have their reward with themselves. They have nothing to fear, And they will not sorrow. Why do we need other powers to make us do well, to make us fear if we don't do well? Why do we need other powers to be rewarded? Be true to yourself.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: "The Labia [cinema]... ...was opened by Princess Labia in May 1949..." Christian Graus wrote: See, I told you it was a nice name for a girl...
Paul Watson wrote: Why should I fear anything if I do well in life but do not believe in "God and the Last Day"? You don't need to fear anything to do well. We're given the conscience to do good and stay away from the evil. Will we get any reward for doing good in the life hereafter even if we don’t believe in God? I don’t have the authority to set the fate of someone in that part of our lives, but only thing I can say for sure that God almighty is merciful. Please read the following saying of Muhammad (sorry, it’s a bit long). "While a man was walking along a road, he became very thirsty and found a well. He lowered himself into the well, drank, and came out. Then [he saw] a dog protruding its tongue out with thirst. The man said: 'This dog has become exhausted from thirst in the same way as I.' He lowered himself into the well again and filled his shoe with water. He gave the dog some water to drink. He thanked God, and [his sins were] forgiven.' The Prophet was then asked: 'Is there a reward for us in our animals?' He said: 'There is a reward in every living thing.' " Fiqh-us-Sunnah, Vol. 3 #104.
-
Chris Austin wrote: implies that only religious instructions have static morals values. Having many non-religious friends and family members I know this is not the case. Then you can show me a static basis for morality that is not based on religious principles. As I said with Paul, we are likely to not come to an agreement here and I have no hard feelings with that. I just do not believe it is possible. Chris Austin wrote: Strong convictions are not the sole property of the religious. I do not believe I said that they were. Just not a static or absolute base. "I will find a new sig someday."
Sorry for the late reply...just got back from the smeggin dentist. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Then you can show me a static basis for morality that is not based on religious principles Sure.... How about all of Fables we learn as children to teach us morality...The three wolves. The Boy how cried wolf. The little prince....The princess and the pee....I can name several more. Not to mention some heavier stuff like Shakesphere: Hamlet, McBeth, Othello, The Tempest...alll of these were tales of morality..or the lack there of. I am assuming that you won't see it the same as I do :). But, we should also look at how non-static the chrurch has been over time. For example: The church (Protestant and Catholic) used to allow slavery. Now it has changed it's view. The Church used to say women can't be Ministers or Preachers, Now they can. The Church used to say people can't get divorced, now they can. Some Churches used to allow bigimoy, now most don't. .... I can go on and on. These are examples of the church Changing with / due to social pressues. One could argue that this is man's flawed implementation of religion. And of course there are lots of counters to that. But hey, life is too short to figt over it....we can keep beliving that the other is wrong and no one gets hurt. Best Regards Fill me with your knowledge, your wisdom, your coffee.
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Just because Paul Watson doesn't believe, does that mean there isn't one? Indeed and I would be very disapointed in anyone who thought "Paul Watson does not think there is a God, so I don't either." I was just showing you were I am coming from with all of this. That my arguements are from someone who does not believe in God(s). Jason Henderson wrote: Remember that most religious people are probably just concerned about your wellbeing I should know, my sister is very concerned. I appreciate her, and others, concern. But oft times it becomes overbearing, almost to the point of saying that I am a lost soul who is damned forever. In my heart and mind I am quite content and so take mild offence when others put me in the Lost Soul bin. I do not need anybodies concerns on the matter and have made it clear to those who are. If they continue being concerned then I get a bit annoyed, perfectly normal. :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: "The Labia [cinema]... ...was opened by Princess Labia in May 1949..." Christian Graus wrote: See, I told you it was a nice name for a girl...
Paul Watson wrote: In my heart and mind I am quite content and so take mild offence when others put me in the Lost Soul bin. I freely admit my ignorance on the existance of God. I cannot deny the (im)possibility of the existance of a singular Creator (or group of them for that matter). I am quite happy with my ignorance, as I fully understand it can be no different until I have undeniable evidence (in my mind) one way or the other. I say all that for no apparent reason... I used to be offended at anyone who stated their beliefs as fact, and believed that I was wrong. But I have come to understand it cannot be otherwise. If I believe something with all my heart and mind, I cannot discuss the point with anyone who feels differently without coming across as though I believe they are wrong. If I didn't believe they were wrong, then I really wouldn't have strong beliefs. I suppose we could all be courteous and accept our differences and not argue our positions with conviction, but how boring would that be? BW "If you enjoy what you do, you'll never work another day in your life." - Confucius
-
“You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ” –Galatians 5:13-14
There has been much debate in the holiday season the past few years about the removal of Christ and Christian themes from Christmas celebrations, and from society as a whole the rest of the year. As a Christian I can't say that I am entirely offended. I am grateful to be living in a free and democratic society where people of all faiths can celebrate whatever holidays they desire, without having other faiths thrust upon them. I doubt very much that people living in fundamentalist Islamic countries have such freedoms. If we Christians expect to have the freedom to practice our faith as we chose, we must also extend this freedom to others who don't follow our particular brand of faith. Though we don't agree, we must still respect others who have different understandings of God, and religion. To do otherwise is essentially shoving our faith down other people's throats, and I don't think Jesus would want that. We would become no better in the end than the Taliban of Afganistan. God always offers the freedom of choice. Who are we to remove that choice from others? Special interest groups tend to throw the baby out with the bath water, however, in rejecting universal laws of goodness and morality just because they happen to be religiously based teachings. Pure love, giving, sharing, forgiveness, kindness, humility, self-control, honesty, and faithfulness. These values, if adhered to, will lead one toward a more peaceful and happy life in the end. They are "religious values" however, and public schools are discouraged from enforcing them, or even suggesting that these traditional notions of morality are still right and good. They are at most, encouraged to tone them down to vague, bland, and inoffensive shadows of the original teachings, lest they be accused of "indoctrinating children with religion". In the exaltation of freedom of choice, the tendency is to remove any kind of moral absolute. In place of the self-evident laws of goodness and kindness that ought to be cardinal rules of humanity, the pursuit of freedom has led us down the path of self-interest. "If it feels good for me, it's okay, as long as no one is hurt." That seems like a good rule of thumb at first, but eventually when the lines between good and evil are blurred, peop
Well I believe that its not something that is forced apon everyone.. Yes it is well known. I don't see any problem with Christ/Christian themes in Christmas, yes I am a Christian, but what would be in place of it? A Godless celebration.. supporting atheism, which would be supporting one religion over another. Kevnar wrote: Doing right by one another usually requires self-denial. People are lazy and ignorant. There are many youth that are taught religious teachings in one demnomination in NC (United Methodist), this past youth event Pilgrimage there was an attendance of 5770 youth. -Steven
By reading this message you are held fully responsible for any of the mispelln's or grammer, issues, found on, codeproject.com.
For those who were wondering, actual (Linux) Penguins were harmed in creating this message.
Visit Ltpb.8m.com
404Browser (Efficient, Fast, Secure Web Browser): 404Browser.com -
Kevnar wrote: Special interest groups ?? you mean the NRA, ACLU, NOW ? you are obviously assuming that the only place to learn morailty is from a Christian upbringing. this is a mistake. it implies that 3/4 of the world is immoral; but it's easy to find people who are "moral" who aren't Christian; morality can come from a non-christian source, too. to me, this implies that either all religions inherit from a common base class (CMorality), or that morality itself is independent of religion. i'm betting on the latter. -c
Chris Losinger wrote: you are obviously assuming that the only place to learn morailty is from a Christian upbringing. Maybe you should re-read the thing. You missed the point entirely. My point was that people sometimes reject *universal* laws of morality just because they are endorsed by certain religions. I believe that God created man with an inate sense of right and wrong, a conscience. This would constitute these universal laws of morality, regardless of what faith one attests to.
"My brother says 'Hello'... So hurray for speech therapy!" -Emo Phillips
-
Paul Watson wrote: I no longer believe in God(s). Just because Paul Watson doesn't believe, does that mean there isn't one? Remember that most religious people are probably just concerned about your wellbeing. They aren't trying to make you feel uncomfortable or shameful, they just want you to know what they think everyone should know.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
Chris Losinger wrote: you are obviously assuming that the only place to learn morailty is from a Christian upbringing. Maybe you should re-read the thing. You missed the point entirely. My point was that people sometimes reject *universal* laws of morality just because they are endorsed by certain religions. I believe that God created man with an inate sense of right and wrong, a conscience. This would constitute these universal laws of morality, regardless of what faith one attests to.
"My brother says 'Hello'... So hurray for speech therapy!" -Emo Phillips
"Special interest groups tend to throw the baby out with the bath water, however, in rejecting universal laws of goodness and morality just because they happen to be religiously based teachings. " your words, not mine. and, if you haven't noticed, i'm not the only one in this thread who got got the impression that you were advocating a "morailty comes from religion (only)" point of view. -c
-
Kevnar wrote: It needs refinment. I am rather coarse so the essay seemed very fine to me :) However one feeling I came away with was that you were just encouraging the concept that only religious people have morals to teach and live by. You don't seem to be saying that explicitly, but neither are you denying it. Frankly I find that just puts me off totally. I feel one can have very good morals without any religion in ones life and I get quite irate when religious people look down their noses at me in pity because they assume I have no morals. That I am a rutting wild beast. So if you want the essay to reach a wider audience then maybe decouple moral sense from religion.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: "The Labia [cinema]... ...was opened by Princess Labia in May 1949..." Christian Graus wrote: See, I told you it was a nice name for a girl...
Paul Watson wrote: I feel one can have very good morals without any religion in ones life I agree. As I said above, man was created with an inate sense of right and wrong, regardless of what faith he attests to. Anyone can know and do good. Anyone can know and do evil. It's their choice. My belief is that judgement day will be more about matching one's deeds up with one's conscience. If you know what is right, and didn't do it, you have sinned. This would be true whether there is a God or not. (Of course I also believe that if it wasn't for God, we'd still be single-celled organisms swimming in a primordial soup, if that. Our design is too perfect to be accidental. That's a whole other debate though.)
"My brother says 'Hello'... So hurray for speech therapy!" -Emo Phillips
-
"Special interest groups tend to throw the baby out with the bath water, however, in rejecting universal laws of goodness and morality just because they happen to be religiously based teachings. " your words, not mine. and, if you haven't noticed, i'm not the only one in this thread who got got the impression that you were advocating a "morailty comes from religion (only)" point of view. -c
Well perhaps it was just poorly phrased. The overall message of the writing seemed pretty obvious to me. I thought I was being overly explicit, but I suppose all things can be bent to match up with the individual reader's desired perception. I have stated what my intent was. If you still disagree, what can I say?
"My brother says 'Hello'... So hurray for speech therapy!" -Emo Phillips
-
Paul Watson wrote: However one feeling I came away with was that you were just encouraging the concept that only religious people have morals to teach and live by. You don't seem to be saying that explicitly, but neither are you denying it. Paul, Can you clarify why you feel his statement implies morals are only found in religous people. I did not take it that way. What I read was if you are not religous please base your morals on religious principles. I personally do not feel this is stuffing religion down your throat. It is just asking to have moral values based on something static rather than relativist judgments. Which if the latter is your basis anything that feels good to the people in charge no matter what it does to others is OK. "I will find a new sig someday."
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I did not take it that way. What I read was if you are not religous please base your morals on religious principles. I personally do not feel this is stuffing religion down your throat. It is just asking to have moral values based on something static rather than relativist judgments. See, Chris? This guy got it.
"My brother says 'Hello'... So hurray for speech therapy!" -Emo Phillips
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Paul, Can you clarify why you feel his statement implies morals are only found in religous people I think it is more a case of that is what I am used to from religious people and his statement does not deny it. From that I felt that if he made it clearer that he was not saying only religious people have morals then his message will be more widely accepted. Peoples defenses quickly go up at the slightest provocation or hint of holier than thou attitude. Once they are up though, they are much slower to come down and by then the rest of the message would have been lost or jaded by the conception. Even if it is a misconception. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: What I read was if you are not religous please base your morals on religious principles That brings the defenses up. :) I don't like to be told to base my morals on something I have rejected (though not wholly of course.) This is all very complex and requires a lot more discussion. Essentially though I feel my morals are, as someone else mentioned, based on millenia of communal living. Cause and effect, trial and error. I am not keen on the idea that we need a higher power to hand down morals or tell us what is right and wrong. We are capable of figuring that out ourselves. So when a religious person tells me that I have no morals then I get irate. Also when a religious person says that I should base my morals on their "system" I feel as if they are being patronising, condescending to us poor non-believers. I base my morals on what I see and experience. I put faith in my own capabilities to discern what is right and wrong. I do my best to learn from history and those who are wiser, but also without being totally bound by them for both history and even the wisest are fallible.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: "The Labia [cinema]... ...was opened by Princess Labia in May 1949..." Christian Graus wrote: See, I told you it was a nice name for a girl...
Paul Watson wrote: I don't like to be told to base my morals on something I have rejected (though not wholly of course.) You have just demonstrated my point. Non-religious people don't like having religious morals shoved down their throat, even if they are good morals. "Thou shalt not kill? I don't believe in God, so it's okay for me to kill." Somewhat of an exageration, but you see the point behind it.
"My brother says 'Hello'... So hurray for speech therapy!" -Emo Phillips
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Now how do others claim you are forcing Christianity down their throats from this? You are just asking to have moral values based on something other than relativist judgments. Because "retain the fundamental moral values of right and wrong that they [Christianity] teach." sounds like you are saying that without Christianity or other religions we would not have anything to discern our morals from. Maybe that is not what you intend to mean, but to those of us who are "outside" it certainly does sound like that. You must be careful, we have endured much tongue-lashing from religious people for our choices and so our defenses spring up quickly, sometimes unjustly. Just as your defenses spring up when we tongue-lash your choices.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: "The Labia [cinema]... ...was opened by Princess Labia in May 1949..." Christian Graus wrote: See, I told you it was a nice name for a girl...
Paul Watson wrote: Because "retain the fundamental moral values of right and wrong that they [Christianity] teach." sounds like you are saying that without Christianity or other religions we would not have anything to discern our morals from. I guess the misunderstanding is that I was specifically refering to people who reject Christian morals just because they are Christian. I was not referring to those who retain morality outside of religious instruction. If you're already doing the right thing, you don't need any external teaching, but if you're specifically going out of your way to reject Christian morals, even though their beneficial, you've got problems bigger than this debate. "Love your neighboor. Do good to those in need." "Hey! Quit shoving your religion down my throat!" as opposed to "I was doing that anyway. What does Christianity have to do with it?"
"My brother says 'Hello'... So hurray for speech therapy!" -Emo Phillips
-
Kevnar wrote: Special interest groups tend to throw the baby out with the bath water, however, in rejecting universal laws of goodness and morality just because they happen to be religiously based teachings. Pure love, giving, sharing, forgiveness, kindness, humility, self-control, honesty, and faithfulness How are these religion-based? If there were no religion, could there not still be all these things? I don't think that's the case at all. Kevnar wrote: These values, if adhered to, will lead one toward a more peaceful and happy life in the end I don't disagree that these things can contribute to happiness and peacefulness, but who are you to tell all of us what will make our lives happy and peaceful? Kevnar wrote: In the exaltation of freedom of choice, the tendency is to remove any kind of moral absolute. I think you need to separate morality from religious beliefs. Nobody says the teacher can't tell the children it's wrong to steal, or hurt other children, or to do "bad things". The separation here, is that the teacher isn't supposed to teach the children things to do with religion, because it's not their place. Kevnar wrote: Reject religion if you must for the sake of freedom, but please, for the sake of humanity, retain the fundamental moral values of right and wrong that they teach. Now, you say you don't want to shove anything down my throat, but that sentence sure seems to be doing just that. I think I can find my own reasons to teach goodness, without referring to religion. I think that saying the reason you have morals is because you are religious, is a little bit funny. Would it not be possible to be un-religious, and still have good morals, or still be a "good person"?? Or do I, being a mere person, not have enough intelligence to derive my own sense of good morals and apply that to my life? I also think you are assuming that people don't care about these good things anymore, and while it may be true for some, it's not true for all of us, so please let us all make our own decisions. Chris Richardson Programmers find all sorts of ingenious ways to screw ourselves over. - Tim Smith
Chris Richardson wrote: I don't disagree that these things can contribute to happiness and peacefulness, but who are you to tell all of us what will make our lives happy and peaceful? As I said, there are universal laws of morality that all people can adhere to regardless of their faith that would make the world a better place. Love, honesty, faithfulness, kindness, humility, patience, etc. I'd like to see you live like this and not have a peaceful and happy life.
"My brother says 'Hello'... So hurray for speech therapy!" -Emo Phillips
-
“You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ” –Galatians 5:13-14
There has been much debate in the holiday season the past few years about the removal of Christ and Christian themes from Christmas celebrations, and from society as a whole the rest of the year. As a Christian I can't say that I am entirely offended. I am grateful to be living in a free and democratic society where people of all faiths can celebrate whatever holidays they desire, without having other faiths thrust upon them. I doubt very much that people living in fundamentalist Islamic countries have such freedoms. If we Christians expect to have the freedom to practice our faith as we chose, we must also extend this freedom to others who don't follow our particular brand of faith. Though we don't agree, we must still respect others who have different understandings of God, and religion. To do otherwise is essentially shoving our faith down other people's throats, and I don't think Jesus would want that. We would become no better in the end than the Taliban of Afganistan. God always offers the freedom of choice. Who are we to remove that choice from others? Special interest groups tend to throw the baby out with the bath water, however, in rejecting universal laws of goodness and morality just because they happen to be religiously based teachings. Pure love, giving, sharing, forgiveness, kindness, humility, self-control, honesty, and faithfulness. These values, if adhered to, will lead one toward a more peaceful and happy life in the end. They are "religious values" however, and public schools are discouraged from enforcing them, or even suggesting that these traditional notions of morality are still right and good. They are at most, encouraged to tone them down to vague, bland, and inoffensive shadows of the original teachings, lest they be accused of "indoctrinating children with religion". In the exaltation of freedom of choice, the tendency is to remove any kind of moral absolute. In place of the self-evident laws of goodness and kindness that ought to be cardinal rules of humanity, the pursuit of freedom has led us down the path of self-interest. "If it feels good for me, it's okay, as long as no one is hurt." That seems like a good rule of thumb at first, but eventually when the lines between good and evil are blurred, peop
So the general consensus is, that this essay is trying to say that only religious people know right from wrong, and everyone else is lost and in need of guidance. Though that was not my intent, that's how it was interpretted. I'll have to rewrite it with greater clarity. Thanks for your comments. PS. I don't entirely believe the message of this essay, I was just fleshing out a certain train of thought. I tend to be more biblical in my convictions than this humanistic essay would suggest.
"My brother says 'Hello'... So hurray for speech therapy!" -Emo Phillips