I often see these hubs they have variation but the thrust is the same, if we get rid of religion society will collapse and morality will disappear, let's analyze that.
Crime rates are higher in US states with highest rates of religiosity.
Christians are actually more likely to be divorced than atheists.
Upon entering prison only 0.2% of prisoners describe themselves as Atheists.
Religious teenagers are more likely to engage in unprotected sex and teenage pregnancy.
Countries with higher rates of religiosity have higher murder rates.
Women in Christian marriages are more likely to suffer domestic abuse.
More secular nations are happier.
etc. etc. Given these facts the argument is baseless and ignorant.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our … d-religion
The funny thing to me is the fact that so very many people claim to be of a cetain religion but in truth they hardly even practice their said religion, at least here in the USA. Especially in Catholic and christian families the young seem to only follow along because that is what is expected of them. Meanwhile work and reality are the things that separate them from their families. Also, the more free thinking among the religiously raised often cant wait to go in the opposite direction out of childish spite for their parents and religion as a whole.
In consideration of this fact I would submit the continued enforcement of religion and the often unwavering attitudes of some Right Wing parents who will disown their children if they dont stay within the lines are much closer to the general breackdown of America's sociatal moral compass on a whole. The disenfranchised are a numberless horde now and they are making the athiests and morally sound, mildly religious folks look bad.
I know this all so well. Many young people mindlessly follow their parents' religion. However, they are "believers" in name only. They do not believe in the doctrine of said religion. They are in the said religion because they are fearful of being independent thinkers and analyzers. In other words, they feel safe but miserable doing so. That is the definition of purgatorial and/or hellish(forgive the pun) comfort. How sad!
Not me! I was raised in a Catholic home-starting rebelling against its strictures when I was sixteen and left the religion altogether at twenty-one. I subscribed to New Age principles in my twenties and adapted a non-religious view in my early to mid-thirties and returned to New Age principles in my late thirties. Currently, a New Ager! Spiritual but not religious!
"Especially in Catholic and christian families the young seem to only follow along because that is what is expected of them."
I would throw Jews in there,too. The 'non-practicing' Jew is pretty much the norm today. That doesn't mean tho, that they (particularly the liberals among them) don't oppose everything that is Christian.
When was the last time sex education was taught to everyone in a country? A clue, 1934
And people wonder why sex issues arose over the next 50+ years and why there will be a population problem in the future, the near future.
The "responsibility" of sex education should be dual (a) community and (b) family. This would be the only "responsible" way to ensure a child within society would learn what is needed.
Family values don't come from religion as it used to do. The appearance the Church refuses to see is that it's do as I say, not as I do, policy doesn't work in a society with increased awareness and knowledge.
People generally have an idea of what morality is about. Most don't give it a second thought because of other factors. The only time people truly give a damn about moral right or wrongs is when it doesn't have anything to do with them, but with a complete stranger and then sit and expect that their moral right and wrongs are the only ones to exist. I call that being egotistical.
The only religion that needs to be understood and lived is that called Life. How you understand your own life leads to understanding how to hold onto the compassion and love, while you watch as the world tears itself apart because there's a lack of mercy in the overall of the world.
The present state of things on Earth is absurdly ridiculous. And people call themselves humans. Ha!
ha is right!
It's weird thou because we are all capable of evil or good, religion or no religion. so I guess it's personal choice that chooses good or evil. whether you're inspired to do it by Jesus's example -if you believe in Jesus- or inspired on your own is fine really.
Totally concur. People who rely on religion for morality are emotionally immature. Many people inherently want to be told what to do. People are so fearful of being independent, self-motivated persons. They would rather be emotional children relying upon a paternalistic religious doctrine. All religion does is promote sexual repression, misogyny, mindless and automatonic conformity, joylessness, and fear! Religion requires human sacrifice- yes, sacrifice of our unique humanity to conform to some sadistic religious idea of morality which is death in itself!
I further believe that society is not as progressive as it should be because of organized religion. Even though America professes to have a separation of church and state, religion permeates throughout society e.g. the abortion issue, stem cell research, women's rights, and sex education issues. Organized religion still has a hold on American society which is quite unfortunate! If organized religion was elimated, this society will be a more progressive society. Out of all the industrialized nations, America is the only society that is strongly religious. Studies show that over 70% of Americans still believe in the Devil. Come on, people, this is the 21st century! Totally unbelievable!
Prohibition never did work no matter where it was of is applied. All it does is inspire criminal profit in business and keep the prisons systems going all for profit. The world is divided into two parts, one based on objective science and knowledge including psychology and the other on ignorance and blind faith. You either become responsible for your own actions, or continue to live irresponsibly.
Because people need others to tell them what to think! The highly religious apparently need an authority to tell them what is and isn't moral. Independent thought is superfluous!
Religious people subconsciously are quite immature. If you question them regarding as to the reason why they believe the way they do, they become highly indignant and defensive. In essence, they are totally incapable of offering a logical explanation regarding their "beliefs". Their "beliefs" are not well-thought out but was absorbed either through their church and/or by parents.
They are taught as children not to question things which make no logical sense. It is a form of brainwashing which some never overcome throughout their entire lives. It affects everything in their lives from education to being able to handle circumstances which go against their teachings. They then put their children through the same indoctrination and the cycle continues. Child abuse, no less.
Brainwashing can occur with almost any topic also! Economics, religion, politics, whatever the case may be.
True! Politics and religion especially go hand in hand with both being touted from the pulpit. I personally believe churches should not get tax exemptions because of their beliefs and political affiliations.
Churches have far too long been coddled by society. They should be given a tax exemption only if they spend 70% of their revenue on charitable endeavors. Anything less means taxes, regardless of whether they do or do not preach about politics from the pulpit.
Religion will never go away. Islam and the like will continue, because it is a religion that makes converts. But the kind of religion that we have benefited from has been whittled away, bit by bit. The opinions in this form would not have been mainstream 40 years ago. If you look at the monuments in DC the mention of God is on all the old ones and none of the new one. Certainly not on Martin Luther King's which is one of the most recent and he was a Baptist Minister.
Children these days are 'indoctrinated' at an early age. Some of them don't even go to a regular school. But then again religious folks will complain they are being 'indoctrinated' by the government.
There are some who break away, but the most are just followers.
Most people from stringently religious homes blindly follow, not just follow. They just do not know any better. They blindly follow because they believe that it is purgatorially(excuse, the pun again) comfortable to do so. They are too afraid to venture out of their cloistered religious environment!
I don't know if ALL religious people are immature. I wouldn't go that far.
You are correct though that many are not willing to think through the issues on their own without a strong authority figure telling them what is and isn't moral.
To disobey authority is to bring about punishment and/or curses.
I can tell you from experience...I ended up depressed, scared, tired and worn out. At one point I thought if I don't go back I'm dead...but well I'm still alive, so either the authority isn't really an authority, or I have a purpose in life. I don't know, I don't care...but I'm movin on up.
I find some of your reasoning flawed. For example, here in the USA, there has been a growing trend away from organized religion for decades. Maybe that departure from the family religious process contributes to the criminal outcome. The same holds true for prisons...even though most of them might not attend church, they still grew up in what is called "a Christian nation" therefore they consider themselves a part of that whether practiced or not. Just because a person does not actively practice Christianity does make complete the assumption that they are an atheist. Many of th countries around the world without religious freedom or a religious presence also operations on the tyrannical side of the line controlling freedoms, sustaining poverty, etc, etc...from a value standpoint there is little to rob or kill for in those countries. At the same time, the punishment for such crimes in those countries may be the cutting off of arms and legs or other cruel treatment which actually carries more psychological weight than the death penalty for many. As for unprotected sex, I tend to think the little church girl and boy might not have been planning on having sex at all until things got out of hand in the heat of the moment thus the church or the religion does not necessarily drive the sex bus...it is the human desires of people in situations of the moment...anything less than that is premeditated sex. I have no axe to grind here but that of mere logic and I just do not see the logic in your conclusions based on the evidence presented. WB
Saying you are in a christian nation just basically means they are afraid to say otherwise. They have probably grown up in 'fear' of God's wrath and judgement and not out of any real care to respect. I would think they are deists in that they think God is around but he's not involved in their daily lives.
An atheist doesn't really care about anything to do with God. And God doesn't mind it from what I can see. An atheist to me are what prophets are to the church. They are on an opposite side because not only do they abhor hypocrisy they just gave up on churches altogether!
Most of the countries without religious freedom 'are' religious in some form. They are dominated by a particular structure in their government that adheres to it.
Religions teach that suppressing desire and making you feel guilty and ashamed about it will prompt you to tell your 'spiritual' leader so he has control over the situation because if word gets out...its gossip time. But in European/American secular societies? No one gives a damn about it. So there is not much in the way of ostracizing and shunning.
Religiosity? So is this an argument about how there are so many of those dang believers that they have a higher crime rate? So if I take 10…let’s say Buddhists, and 10 atheists the atheists will be the more peace loving group? Your facts lead to a bias, because you are comparing such a minute amount of the world’s population with the largest. The reality is that Religion is too large a subject to compare to some stats about atheists. What will destroy society and the family is a lack of hope, and the continued lack of interest in the quest to become enlightened, and to be honest a bunch of heathens running around mass producing exponentially out of wedlock, breeding more leaches to society with the exception of about 1 in 100. Religion is stupid, and the root of all the world’s problems on one level or another, is a cop out for the slothful, and to try and prove such a point by these means is laughable.
Are you just one of the “in it for the money” types that is looking for traffic?
I live in a developing country and can see family life being destroyed on all sides. It has nothing to do with religion.
A generation ago, large extended families were the norm in the countryside.
Now more and more people leave to work in the factories in the big cities where wages are so much higher.
Often children are left with grandparents, all of the young adults disappear and the land is left unworked.
Working hours are long (60-100 hours a week) so husbands and wives rarely see each other. Often husband and wife take it in turns to work. Six months on six months off.
Infidelity rates have sky rocketed and marriages routinely break.
It is a shame, because I am seeing one of the last generations of people brought up in genuinely secure environments.
Soon there will be the kind of desperate underclass you find in developed nations, with alienated rootless individuals and hopelessly dysfunctional families.
I dont think it is religion that causes these problems, it's more how religion is treated. Besides, your evidence seems to focus on Christianity. there are litterally millions of religions, claiming they are all wrong and all cause extreme social problems just because one of them does is a little ethnocentric. I do agree that the Western world has a problem with it's interaction with religion and how religion is used by people. The way it is used more to enforce rules and prejudices than the love and kindness really intended is certainly not good. But religion itself is not the issue, it is merely a factor which can only be considered as a part of society as a whole, and all other aspects that society would include. surely.
I live, work and interact with some people affected by religion and must agree with Jadesmg. It's how religion is treated. Imposing one's own religion upon others and swaying disrespect and/or dismissal of other beliefs, is what causes problems. Leaves ones confused and disoriented, like a identity crisis. I get reactions of all sorts for not going to church even though I say nothing and stranger looks if I am there I've read most of the bible and think it's supposed to be used to promote 'good will for self and others' but not used in that manner except by a minor few. Ones I've met who follow 'good will towards others' are the most positive while others, well ...
Religions impose dogmas upon people limiting as a consequence the flourishing of the human being. Religions forced/are forcing wars between two different faiths. Religions are the scourge to the development of societies.
I agree with you Josak.
Wow, just can't imagine how the greatest country on the face of the earth flourished for about 200 years with all that religion so strongly in place amongst the folks - just an amazing feat no doubt with such a handicap. Now the last 30 or so years it's been in the toilet - or do some see it now as somehow majorly progressed as a society? LOL
Easily, it has absorbed close to $100 Trillion dollars to get the U.S. to this point now. If religion continues to dominate in America, then America will surely fall.
Progressed society? Nope. Still uncivilized, due the those who are religious which continue to think they possess the right to invade other people's life on a National Stage, regardless of what rights that person may or may not be entitled to.
Sexual orientation or preference, there should be no discrimination whatsoever, just like gender. Gender equality and equal rights is still being fought in this country.
You call this the greatest country in the world? You need to wake up. I wouldn't want to live anywhere else in the World, but America is far from great. It has so many problems, just like so many other countries. The problem is that no one is really paying attention to who is causing the problems of the world. I've written about it. It's those same select few who truly are powerful enough and wealthy enough to kill someone without blinking an eye or losing a nights sleep over it. Everything and anything will be done to protect their wealth, position, power and actions. If you think your life is of any value...well, don't think it is to them, because it isn't. They don't mind millions starving, they don't give a damn how many people die in a year because they have no vaccines or proper medicine.
So please, save the BS.
What a joke. Do you write scripts? Fiction? Who are you addressing? You really argue that the United States of America wasn't the greatest nation on this earth until quite recently? Who was it, was it France? Or was it Bangladesh? Did I miss something? Darn, and I hardly have time to take a nap. I'm fairly sure our great country became so great with religion being an integral factor in our society, didn't seem to hinder it one bit, and that is just a fact - and no BS.
From the 70's onward we started paying out the nose as a country for increasing 'welfare' in one form or another, I wish that was BS.
Actually, No I don't.
I am talking to you. Who did you think I was talking to when I responded to your post.
Okay, let's see if you can grasp a little history lesson before we get into what America is actually.
(a) this country was founded for "equality" and "equal rights" - BS.
(b) this country has caused more conflicts than defended - Fact.
Let's take (a) equality and equal right. Do you know what these two things are? And, please whatever you do, don't tell me they are the same thing.
Equal rights? Yeah right. Women were not allowed to vote and blacks were STILL slaves. Founded on equal right, huh? BS.
Let's take (b) caused more conflicts than defended - Fact! Why is it a fact? Because, America and it's infinite wisdom decided to play GOD with the world. These morons have caused more poverty and more homeless than they have fixed.
Your sarcasm is noted, not needed or warranted actually.
Religion? No religious people and many others made this country reach this point. Religion IS the Church and I'm sorry to say it's done more damage than it's done healing. So, you lose on that account as well.
Well, it isn't BS. It also doesn't help that the problems actually stem a little further back, which is what you're actually missing here.
The Federal Reserve Bank is not owned or operated by the U.S. Government. The Federal Reserve Bank is an independent Bank. It doesn't follow banking rules all other institutions must follow and can charge any rate of interest it deems.
You control a Country's currency. You control said Country.
Wellt he main issue here is that all other countries also had strong religious traditions, as it stands measuring how religious a country is, is a decent method of seeing how it's doing economically, the less religion the better the economy.
Every country has its great moments KFlippin. The only reason a country would go to the 'toilet' would be because of poor management by its government.
You don't seem to be informed of the fact that the original founders of said country were Masonists and Pagans, so I find it an absolute hilarity that you draw such an absent-minded conclusion that Christianity or what are considered "Traditional Religions" has anything to do with it. "In God We Trust" has nothing to do with 'God' in the traditional sense, it actually refers to humanity, or in more frank terms; "In Ourselves We Trust". The country has gone downhill because, the Military-Industrial Complex no longer has any need for it's 'serfs', so to speak. As machines for labor and monetary enslavement is much more easier to achieve, then appeasing the people who no longer serve a pragmatic purpose.
There are some pretty HUGE generalizations being made in this forum. Just sayin'
I'm feeling like a very passive-aggressive Captain Obvious right now.
I need to go hit something. Hard.
By all means, feel the need, go right ahead....just don't injure someone else or yourself while doing so.
I get that way in here often as well, Shanna. Just don't do any significant damage - and trust me - there are more like us out there than we realize.
Getting rid of Obama might restore order to the healthcare bill's chaos. Probably not, but the people may think it's worth atry!
In the earlier years there was a long time before religion established itself in a godless environment. Those who perpetuate this ideology that being without religion is better than being with religion Where then were these utopian society that functions without religion such as the Romans, Spartans and such? Killing for sport was a past time in these cultures and that is supposed to be better than having religion?
A lot of American criminals did not live their life by biblical Scripture and so we had gangland warfare with people like Al Capone, Machine Gun Kelly, Bonnie and Clyde, The Purple Gang etc.
Time and again prisoners have stated After Finding Religion They Gave Up their violent ways.
Then they get out of jail and commit the same sort of crime once again. Religion does not change desperate men, it enlightens them, forgives them and reaffirms the understanding that no matter what they do it wont matter in the end, they are forgiven. Great job, religion, great job!
Firstly those empires were not a-religious they had their own faiths, second the bible tells us to murder women for not being virgins on their wedding nights and to stone people to death for picking up sticks on Sunday.
The point here is not however if religion was good thousands of years ago but if the slow death of religion that we are experiencing is good or bad for the country, this is simply a factual statistic reply to the claim that it will cause a moral collapse. I know the subject upsets some but i am simply presenting the facts as they are.
It would appear that non-religious perspectives is doing anything.
Doing anything? WOW! You really don't put much faith in humanity, huh? To think that non-religious perspectives are about doing anything is absurd.
The world is made up 90% religious. So, you tell me who is screwing up this world?
I'm thinking you must be a pretty lonely person in the world you have created for yourself because reading your posts it seems as though you dislike everyone and everything. If your a 90% is correct it is not those of religious faith who are in America who is in control.
Sounds like you're talking about your own reflection. I don't dislike anyone and I don't dislike everything. I'm actually quietly neutral. I do however enjoy pointing out actions. And since I do it so well, it makes people stop and think, and whether or not, it makes you stop or think, is irrelevant. I'm sure you won't understand that, but it's okay. You don't have to. It's beyond your control.
The religious faith? Is fictional in America.
It is now and has become nothing more than a punchline. The true controllers of Congress, probably don't even live in America, but pull the strings of those in power.
Whether or not, those people are of a religious faith? I would say not considering they are dishonest, egotistical and prefer people bow to them and their power and wealth.
Oh wait? Some religious folk have some of the same qualities- dishonest and egotistical. They probably don't strive for power and wealth, but then again I don't need to point out the TV types that do.
It's all about power, wealth and influence. Feed you a lie, let you live the lie and demand your obedience as instructed by laws not made of choice but force.
All laws defy a person's responsibility. A person don't live a responsible life if they have to live by someone else's rules or laws.
Actually, yes I am.
This is the only forum I talk on or belong to. I talk religion nowhere else. If it comes up in conversation with people I interact with, I do what I can to contain my amusement and quietly listen. If I feel comfortable, then I will further discuss it with them.
None of my writing screams or rants or rages against religion. I do speak that people who believe they have a personal relationship with a G/god to keep it to themselves and out of my life. Meaning, it's your belief, then it applies to you and your life. I have one hub about the fear religion bestows on people.
I find it rude of Christians and other religious folk who include everyone in their belief. It's YOUR relationship. It's YOUR belief. It's YOUR life. Keep it.
Thanks for the "G/god" that was cute!
Hey, are you still on fb?
Totally concur with you Cagsil. A person can be religious all he/she wants to be. That is fine; however, many religious people want to prosletyze other people to believe in the same fashion as they do. These religious people do not know how to mind their business. They portend if they "have seen the light" so to speak, then everyone else should see the light or not, these religionists consider them to be "lost souls" who should reform or "face dire conseaquences". Many religious people do not know how to mind their own business. Do not try to prosleyyze others- they are on their individual path to the ultimate whether it is God or something else. However, many religious people believe that THEIR religious path is the ONLY TRUE path! How atavistic is that!
Many people use religion as a security blanket and insurance. They do not believe in their religious doctrine. They are just their particular religion only nominally. If you ask them if they actually believe in their particular faith, they would say no way. They use religion as a ruse to appear socially acceptable in the eyes of others. They also use religion to protect them against so-called eternal damnation. Many people confuse religion with spirituality. These components are widely different. One does not have to profess a religious belief to be spiritual. Atheists can be or are spiritual. Spirituality liberates while religion imprisons. Spiritual people are fun to be around, religious people, well........need I say more! Spirituality is welcoming while religion instills fear and human sacrifice. Yes, I said it? Fear of living one's life with juice because that is a "sin" and will lead ultimately to "perdition". Human sacrifice because adhering to religious dogma sacrifices one's basic humanity/humanness and all this entails thus making one into a joyless automaton!
he does come across as angry alot, I agree. I wonder why? Being peaceful is more fun, ey? I guess that's why I stay out of this forum....but hey....it's fun to debate once in a while?
If a lack of religion will not destroy family values and society, how is it that these values get passed from generation to generation. How do you keep morality from becoming relative? When that happens, anything goes. How do you discriminate between actions that make a more harmonious society and actions do not? Once you've decided on what increases harmony in society, are you sure that people who believe in religion are incapable of seeing the same actions that increase harmony? How do you explain the mass starvation and mass murder of millions of people at the hands of the theists in control of communist countries or the psuedo-pagans of Nazi Germany?
I hate to agree with you, but the irrational believe in the soul and the assertion of the sanctity of human life are things we cannot do without.
Western materialism has brought Christian culture to a sad low point but most Christian values have been passed on to humanists and we will have to hope for the best.
The reality is that it is capitalism that has taken such a toll on the family. The opportunities on offer to individuals often trump family loyalty.
Also, in the less advanced stages of capitalist development, long working hours destroy even that remnant of family life, the nuclear family, as I said in my earlier post.
I think you might have that the wrong way around. Modern Christianity has, over time, taken onboard humanist, secular values and not the reverse. Humanism is not based on Biblical morality.
Edited to add:
LSH did not derive from Christian structures, but from politico/philosophical ideas birthed during and after the Renaissance when Europeans were rediscovering ancient Greek and Roman texts, which held themes of beauty, reason, and the essential richness of the material world---which was in direct conflict with Christian values of humility, meekness, and eschewing this world in apprehension for the next. Very much unlike Christian thinking at the time, Humanism began to value the human being as a living creature (a value adopted from the Greeks), not as a corrupt vessel filled with sin.
http://hermetic.com/eidolons/On_Liberal … r_Humanism
I suppose you've never heard of Thomas Aquinas then? He was one of the major movers to get ancient Greek and Roman thought talked about in the West. This led directly to the Renaissance which you conveniently use as your starting point. Like most progressives (you're not a liberal no matter how much you protest) you conveniently ignore cause and effect. That track you posted was especially revolting to someone who uses the word liberal in it's original context, someone who believes liberty is the original state of humankind.
You'd see us slaves to the so-called political elite. I cannot imagine a more evil outcome.
Why is is irrational to think that something of what we are might exist after our physical body dies? Even prehistoric man would leave trinkets and tools as well as prepare the body of the deceased. That suggests that even primitive man believed something of us remains after we die.
Ugh. Another anit-captialist rant. One of the main problems with those is that it completely ignores the fact that capitalism is private ownership of goods and services, which equates to liberty. Couple that with the free market and you get a society in which the majority of people survive childhood and are able to build a life for themselves. In pre-capitalistic or pre-free market times, those "poor exploited workers" would have died or never been born. It wasn't until after things like the Corn Laws were repealed that we really started to see a population boom in the West. This also, incidentally, is the date the US really became the bread basket of the world.
Sorry, I also forgot that horrific phrase, don't believe in the sanctity of human life. So you don't have a problem with death camps then? How about harvesting people for organs. I mean if you consider the so-called "greater good" you should just harvest organs from people. Why not the useless mouths of people who don't produce while you're at it. I mean if human life has no meaning, why not?
What happens then is people can use their own minds to decide what is right and wrong rather than being brainwashed into it, we don't need to be told we will go to hell for murder to realize it's wrong, ethical systems which are fundamentally the same developed all around the world completely separately from each other, the greatest ethical anomalies we find in that growth are actually those caused by religion (ritual human sacrifice for example) exempting religious ceremonies ever culture understood that theft, murder etc. were wrong.
I also seriously question the ethical base of the established religions the bible for example instructs us to murder non virgin women on their wedding day, to stone people to death for picking up sticks on Sunday and to make up for rape by marrying the victim and paying the father a dowry.
Anyway the fact suggest there is no link between moral behavior and religious belief.
The problem is that most people are ignorant. One of the reasons that the Enlightenment was a true revolution was due to the fact that for the first time, a literate society began to question the assumptions under which they held their beliefs. Most people who argue against Christianity do so from the argument that the Bible is inherently contradictory. Well that's true. It still doesn't mean that you can't learn something from it. What you have to do is apply reason to what you find in the Bible.
What that means is for the most part you can pass on anything that doesn't follow the golden rule "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you". So immediately you ignore anything about not suffering witches to live, stoning non-virgin women, etc.
Also what you don't seem to get is that people are always free to choose. If they don't like what a religion preaches, they either go to another church or stop going altogether. The only time religion becomes a problem on a mass scale is when people try to yoke religion to government. That's where we get the religious wars of the 17th century, the destruction of the Templars, persecution of "heretics", etc. That's why we've been relatively free of the types of atrocities that goes on around the world like Irish Catholics and Protestants, Sunni and Shiite, Muslim and Indian, etc. People must be free to choose for themselves otherwise violence follows.
You also don't provide anything to back up your assertion that lack religion doesn't destroy families. You're making statements not having a discussion.
Morality is only ever relative - unless of course you think that your own version is right and others wrong. This is why intelligent people understand that Ethics is the way to go.
If you want to argue this point then maybe you can answer first why those people you denigrate so casually have what you would consider far higher moral values than western societies ?
Living here in your land of apparent mass-murderers, looking at your country mass-murdering people all over the world daily, I see stronger family values than the US ever had, and values that are undented even in the face of the new capitalism that is making more Chinese richer every day at a faster rate than any country has ever experienced in history.
So you're saying that under certain circumstances it's OK to murder, cheat, lie, steal, etc.? How do you tell when it's right to murder for example. Note I did not say kill but murder. When is it OK to steal? How do you know?
Are you really sure that morality is relative?
Secular morality is not synonymous with moral relativism...it doesn't preclude moral universalism.
You seem to be saying that moral codes can't exist without the stamp of certainty that religion provides. Or if they do, they can't be effective. Morality is 'transmitted' throughout cultures all the time without religion.
If a man is starving and has to feed his family I would say it is morally permissible to steal, if a man were to go back and murder Hitler as a young man I would classify that as moral etc. I am utilitarian and I know for a fact that morality is relative.
How is stealing ever acceptable? Never mind morally sound?
Stealing is a choice. It is apparently the only choice that particular individual sees(perceives) as an option, regardless of whether it is right or wrong.
There are always two sides to everything, choice is never limited to ONE option, otherwise it is oppression.
A person steals for many different reasons and to say that one is more meaningful than another is pretty down right dumb.
Really? And how did you arrive at that conclusion?
Stealing is acceptable in plenty of situations, to save lies, to feed people allowing others to die is the greater evil than theft, it's a simple equation, utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number, we must balance the bad of one person losing a small profit against the good of people not starving.
I know that because I have been put in the right circumstances, I have killed and stolen because the circumstances demanded it, as a guerrilla in my home country and as a kid growing up on the street and I have done things that I would never do in other circumstances, I fought to get rid of dictatorship which murdered tens of thousands of it's own citizens for having the temerity to call for democracy or be leftists, I committed plenty of small and large evils to that end and I believe every one was morally permissible to that end, just like a Jewish resistance member under the Nazis or any other similar situation.
So, give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime, doesn't apply?
Taking from someone else, robbing Peter to pay Paul is not the answer.
I have nothing against teaching people to escape poverty that does not change the given situation where people are starving and the only way to survive is to steal such situations are very common.
Really? WOW! And to think people think I have a limited understanding.
You do, you grew up privileged in a wealthy country these situations are just abject hypotheticals to you rather than the reality every day of your life, it's not your fault, you are just sheltered and ignorant.
Too bad you cannot tell the difference between a right and a privilege.
I'm sure you think driving a car is a privilege, just like the State does.
I'm sure you think it is okay for the government to oppress someone's rights because they cannot be trusted to do what's right.
I'm sure you think it is okay, considering you said it okay, to steal from others.
If you have kids, you're no role model to look up to. That's for sure.
I don't think driving a car is a right.
I don't think it's right for a government to oppress people's rights though perhaps we disagree on what those rights are.
I have two grown children, one is working in Venezuela as a volunteer doctor the other is a great man, neither has ever done anything to make me anything other than proud of them.
It's OK to steal from others in certain situations, that will never change, keeping people alive is more important than costing someone some profit, the fact is that you are sheltered from that reality, you have never experienced it and have no idea what true hardship is or what morality becomes when survival is at stake, as I said before it's not your fault you have lived your wife wrapped in cotton like a child and thus how can your views be anything other than childish?
I spent two years on the street as a child in Argentina had I not stolen occasionally I would be dead, I am sure you with your perfect moral stance would simply have died quietly
Good to know. Figures as much.
I'm sure we do considering you don't know what a right is to begin with.
Good. I would be surprised they turned out to be anything at all.
Maybe I have had a sheltered life, but the above statement is the one of the most brain-dead statement ever uttered on HubPages.
You had to steal because you were not properly raised or just plain ignorant with regards to other people. So, you apparently attempting to tell me I'm ignorant, has now just been revealed as nothing more than your reflection.
As I said you know nothing about the circumstances I am talking about, I was an orphan on the street and the options were steal or starve, I am sure you would have starved right?
You even talking about this is just ridiculous because you don't understand what you are commenting on, my guess is you have never been so hungry that your vision starts spinning, or spent every night hiding in rubbish containers under bags of trash for years or begged on a curb being kicked and shooed by store owners all day, never desperately tried to find work but be turned away because you are too young to work legally, never been so hungry you eat kitchen scraps from rubbish bags. But of course you can look down from your high horse and say "it's always wrong to steal".
Josak, of course, there are circumstances which you have relayed. Yes, stealing is wrong in many circumstances. Even in concentration camps under horrendous conditions, many prisoners did not steal because the other prisoners were suffering as they were. For those who stole, other prisoners meted out justice to them. It was considered dishonorable to steal even in the concentration camps.
Agreed, it's usually wrong to steal and stealing from those who have almost nothing themselves is even more wrong but as ever there are circumstances, moral absolutes always fall apart because thy are not designed for the real world, do not lie is fine until you are hiding Jews from the Nazis and they knock on your door asking if you are, it's the sort of zealotry brought about lack of experience of desperate situations, I would bet everything I have that five or six days into starvation Cagsil would have been stealing alongside all the other street kids.
Steal or starve? I've never had to make that decision and I certainly wasn't brought up to do either neither. So, I guess I won't have to worry about the experience. However, it still boils down to the choices you had available and the choices you didn't know you had. The latter is one you apparently didn't bother doing anything about until after you've already commit the theft.
And you're right I haven't ever been in that position. My parents had enough knowledge to teach me not be that way and to do something about it, other than steal from someone.
At least I know, stealing is wrong regardless of why it's done. And btw- you're the one that took this conversation down this road, NOT me. You want to blame me for something I haven't experience, yet you want to tell me how moral stealing is, which I already know is wrong, but you using an extreme ignorance to defend a position which isn't civilized to begin with.
And you call me childish? You call me the ignorant one?
What a joke.
So wait suddenly the person who knows nothing about the subject is telling me there were other options? There were not but please feel free to tell me what you would have done. The only reason I got out of that situation is because I was eventually adopted by some wonderful people, sometimes there are no other options.
As someone who does know the situation let me tell you it was steal or starve so which would you have done?
I don't know NOTHING about the subject. I haven't had the experience myself. Get real. And YES, options = other choices which you were unable or refused to look for. Either way it doesn't matter at this particular point.
I cannot tell you what I would have done if I was in the position, since I haven't been in that position. So far, I've been able to manage not to get into that situation/circumstance because I choose not to.
Choice under duality is always multiple. There's never always one choice.
Well you have already told me what you did and since I've already admitted that I wouldn't let that situation/circumstance happen in my life, I cannot honestly tell you what I would do.
What I have learned during that last 40 years of my life is that there are always more than one choice in every decision made. If you don't want to accept that, then you will be the only one who has deluded themselves into thinking within a limited view.
It was nice that you were adopted. And it's nice that you've managed to do okay for yourself since then. But, you living in the past and living in the present, isn't health for you. I would suggest you drop the unhealthy thinking of your childhood and stick to the present problems. You're not helping, you're only causing more conflict than needed, warranted, desired or ever wanted.
"Well you have already told me what you did and since I've already admitted that I wouldn't let that situation/circumstance happen in my life, I cannot honestly tell you what I would do."
There was nothing I could do to prevent the situation I was in as a child, i could not have prevented myself becoming and orphan or prevented the storm damage that closed the orphanage I lived in. I do live in the present but I remember what I learned about people and about morality, that people will do anything to survive and that it is the duty of every person to help those who have nothing.
Agreed. It's understood. You have no need to go into deeper details.
Help? Yes. Provide help. You don't provide a lifestyle.
You help them to get out of the situation/circumstance if possible. If you cannot, then finding someone who might be able to would be the next best thing.
You don't just give because that doesn't teach them anything except to how to take handouts. Which leads to them having no motivation to do anything because things are handed to them.
It's almost as bad as a silver-spooned rich child, spoiled and thinks things should be given to them.
Cagsil, you are always on target! The worst thing a person can do to a poor person is to always give. I should know. My maternal great aunt always donated clothes and monies to my maternal grandparents and their growing brood. Guess what? It made my maternal grandparents even more comfortable and dependent. They keep reproducing and reproducing until they had 10 kids. If my maternal grandmother was more independent and self-supporting she would not have time to have such a large brood of kids. My late father put it more succinctly, giving to the poor creates parasites. His motto teach them to do on their own-they can do it!
I am confused?
You posted this to me on another thread, is it OK to break the Law when you are the one doing it?
No it's not legal to break the law which is what that discussion was about but sometimes it is moral (that was covered in that thread too) I think I gave as an example Muhammad Ali refusing to go to Vietnam it was illegal but moral.
That thread was someone claiming that a person should not be punished for breaking the law, that has nothing to do with whether it is moral or not.
To deal with that issue for example say someone murdered a fathers child and the father then beat the person who did it to a pulp, I would say the father should still be punished because it creates a dangerous double standard to not do so but equally I would probably not consider it morally wrong.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed,
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
The Declaration of Independence
This is morally correct as well!
Sure but it's a tough decision to decide when that line is crossed.
If morality is relative then I suspect that when I disagree with you on what is moral then I am the one that is wrong.
If we're talking Christianity, Jesus certainly didn't seem to place a high value on family values.
Matthew 10:35-36: I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother…and one’s enemies will be those of his household.
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters yes, even his own life he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26, 33)
Many traditionally religious people are some of the most inhumane people around. They are the parents who routinely disown their children if they dare to go on their own individual/spiritual paths. How many traditionally religious people throw their children out of the family home because of unplanned, unwed pregnancy, and/or being LBGT. Religion being analogous to moral and humane values. Please, religious people have been guilty of some of the most insidious crimes throughout history. Think about the so-called witchcraft trials which were subterfuges of executing women who did not conform to the strictly religious society of the day. Also think about almost every progressive movement e.g. the birth control movement by Margaret Sanger by religionists because they feared that women's reproductive freedom would "destroy family values." It is the traditionally religious people who praise AIDS as a punishment for homosexuals. Religious people have morality and humanity- oh come on, now! Many wars and massacres were done in the name of religion.
You know I worked with kids from "disadvantaged backgrounds" is the current buzzword I think. It was rare that I'd see a kid from a religious background. Mostly what I saw were kids from single parent homes, parents who did not meet the responsibility of raising a child, etc. Ten years I cleaned up other people's messes. Did a pretty good job too as quite a number of those kids went on to become productive members of society. What separated those kids from the ones who did not succeed was something as simple as belief. Most times they couldn't articulate why they had faith, but they believed in something more than themselves, their condition, their background. That gave them the power to change their circumstances.
Many so-called disadvantaged children do have religious backgrounds. Quite a few of them come from extremist religious backgrounds. As I have reiterated, many religious people disown and throw their children out because their children's beliefs, morality, and philosophical views do not correspond with that of the former. Many religious parents are quite authoritarian in their views. They portend that their religious views are the only acceptable views. Their philosophy regarding different belief and philosophical systems is quite unaccepting and intolerant. If their children disagree with their premise, the parents either coerce their children to believe in the family religion or they entirely disown them or throw them out!
People do reform without religion. In fact, people have better lives without religion. Religion is just a crux to make people give their power and individuality away to an authority figure who is no more than anyone else is. Religion is for those who are not courageous enough to fearlessly live their lives on their own terms. A person needs religion like a fish needs a bicycle! Many crimes have been created in the name of religion than anything else!
Religion creates prejudice against those who do not conform to the religious consensus e.g. many people were burned and hanged throughout the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times because they refused to adhere to the prevailing religious consensus of the time. Religion further inculcates the idea that women are inherently evil and inferior to men hence the misogynic attitude towards women's reproductive rights and other advancements e.g. the debate regarding abortion and contraceptive technologies.
Religion has archaic philosphies regarding almost every aspect of life. Society has progressed to the 21st century while organized Western religion has remained in the early medieval stages. Religious premises are certainly nonapplicable to the postmodern era. More and more people are becoming spiritual without religion. Religion will eventually be dissolved because of its authoritarian emphasis on conformity and adhering to one set of morality. As people become more educated, they will hopefully become less religious!
Religion has gotten out of hand since the fall of the Roman Empire. Religions like Judaism, Christianity, and yes, Islam were invented to promote faith hot historical accuracy or science since modern science didn’t show up till the Renaissance. But in this day and age some believers try desperately, and very poorly, to disprove evolution and the Big Bang. Yet they forget, or conveniently forget that these ancient stories were that, stories to promote faith and that’s all.
This thread in regard to the morality, or "right and wrong" of stealing, nicely illustrates how morals are totally subjective and why they should be dumped - and ethics used to replace them.
Josak, as a child on the streets of Argentina, stole to survive and is being told he was wrong. To tell him he is wrong is patently absurd and naive, and stretches the position of morality past breaking point. Any number of instances can be put up to show this break point in applying moral values, if any of the commentators to this thread had their own child starving to death in front of them they would steal to feed it if necessary, or they would be themselves morally wrong and bankrupt of humanity.
The rather stupid comment that stealing in concentration camps was condemned by the inmates is about a totally different situation, that was stealing from other inmates from a shared, limited and tiny source of food.
Using morals in an argument only creates clashes with other 'morals', Josak was on the streets in Argentina because of the immoral actions of others, the right wing government of that country at that time could be seen as immoral in its actions and disregard for any responsibilities it might have toward its citizens.
If anyone wants to argue that morals are absolute, then the whole issue of anyone being poor in a world with so much more than enough to go around is immoral, that Josak was starving on the streets as a child is immoral, and if Josak had behaved 'morally' (within that whole immoral situation) he would have died.
I haven't read through all these posts but here is an interesting question as relates:
How are you proposing to"get rid of religion"?
Wow it's amazing. Thought I asked a question. I guess atheist communists are all deaf.
Still throwing around labels and then whining about your side being called racist huh? I am not a communist as you well know and I didn't see the question.
I am not actually proposing getting rid of religion at all, I don't mind people having faith, besides education is doing that all by itself, religion is fading, it does not need to be gotten rid of. What I do want to get rid of is this assumption that religiosity implies morality.
Well I was just wondering how someone was going to go about getting rid of religion. I'm very interested in hearing all about that.
Btw I think you are wanted back on the thread you started about France. As I said I don't think religion is a positive thing most of the time but I certainly don't presume to tell other people what they can and can't believe as long as no one forces their faith or it's beliefs on me then I won't attempt to force atheism on them.
But your title implies it would be an actively sought thing. i mean even more so than the intolerant people hear rant about.
It's intolerance unless you are talking about Jews and Christians and then it's sport.
Not at all as it says under the title it is simply in response to all those hubs claiming that the decline of religion will bring about a moral collapse, which is an incredibly arrogant claim. I don't believe in change by force anyway, all that is required to get rid of religion is education. Also I regard most religions with equal distrust I was raised in a Catholic orphanage which rather put me off that flavor but that's besides the point, the religions I respect are those like Buddhism that don't advocate evangelizing or forced conversions and which keep to themselves (in the main) faiths that fail to do that are all the same in my book.
Episode: Heaven: Where Is It? How Do We Get There?
People from around the world and of different religious beliefs share their views on heaven.
9:01 - 11:00 PM KABC (7)
West Coast. If elsewhere, you've missed it.
Did it ever occur to you that it is possible that because American religious values are so watered down and filled with happy warm and fuzzy feelings and promises of salvation from church leaders who are looking to build the next mega church that yes, what you stated in your article may have SOME truth to it? Christians who live in other countries see the U.S. as a warehouse for all the souls waiting to go to hell. We do what makes us feel good most the time, Christians and non-believers alike. Because religion has been pushed aside IS exactly the reason why American society is the way it is.
You mean all those semi-intelligent threads with interesting commentaries by interesting people, well they have all been banned for calling windbags windbags, fools fools, and those foul moralising christians bigots.
I note that the snake is banned again for asking about cheating in an HP contest and calling somebody or other what they are.
I wondered why I hadn't seen him around again. I wonder how long this time.
I found the thread. Never saw this message by a moderator before. "This thread is now closed due to a large number of accurate personal attack flags." Yep, HP really does need more religion threads.
Ya know. If we had thread filters so that the religion threads weren't in our face all the time, I bet a lot fewer people would be banned around here.
No Para, I don't think it would do any good whatsoever because it requires participating in the forum thread for which will get you banned, depending on the context of sentence.
My theory is that out of sight, out of mind. For me, if I don't see the religion threads unless I make an overt act to access them, I'm pretty sure I would access them less often. Thus less opportunity to get in trouble.
Religion is a built in phenomenon. From Latin, religare, meaning to bind together... people are going to bind together because we have an innate drive toward being social, as we are social creatures - the human race.
Now, Christ would like us to bind together in love and fellowship with one another, but recognize his role as loving God, compassionate savior of all of our individual malice, deceit, ego and hate - the human race.
The only thing that will destroy society is when the time to do the latter runs out for the human race.
by Christin Sander 8 years ago
Why do religious people often insist that religion is what creates moral behavior?As an agnostic/atheist who works hard to do the right thing every day I find this insulting and ridiculous. After all, if prayer and religious beliefs equaled morals there would be no controversy with priests...
by karl 8 years ago
I must admit I have heard this said for sometime but those with their allegiance towards the left leaning politics of the UK have always resisted such suggestions.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic … truth.htmlShould we face up to the facts or sweep them under the carpet in the name of...
by TahoeDoc 11 years ago
Do you believe religion is needed for morality? Is the bible the only guide to morality?If you believe these things, do you really think you would go around commiting crimes and immoral acts if the bible didn't tell you not to? I actually give (most) people more credit than that, don't you? If this...
by lanablackmoor 9 years ago
Do you think religion compels morality, or does morality determine religion?Obviously the relationship is somewhat multi-directional for most people, but I'm wondering which you think is more powerful. Do people usually choose a religion that aligns with their preexisting morality? Or do they...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 4 years ago
I believe that the oldest child in a family have the toughest and roughest path to go. He/she was automatically dethroned upon the birth/births of a successive sibling/siblings. He/she is often held to a higher and stricter standard than his/her younger siblings, ...
by pisean282311 12 years ago
I was reading an blog in which a person made interesting statement that every person is born without religion and parents induce religion in him...what are your views with it?..are parents only reason to believe in particular version of god or is seeking brain trying to find understand with easily...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|