Let's say that Religion and the concept of the existence of God was erased from the Earth. How would humans, institutions, and ultimately, societies, determine "moral law" if you will? How would it be determined what is right or wrong? What would that process look like--is it possible? I'm really interested in serious answers please. The more description you can give, the better. A simple "It would be great" or "It wouldn't work" doesn't tell me why/how, etc. Thank you!
We would notice that the actions of others could hurt others, we do not religion to see this, only empathy towards those being hurt.
Our current moral belief systems are not based on religions. It's a fallacy to assume so!
The human has been proven to understand equality and fairness . That is what all morality is based upon, equality. That is how secularist countries like the USA and Europe decide how to make laws. Secularist countries, being the most successful of course, in terms of both morality and economy.
Looking at non-secular countries, you'll see widespread inequality because of laws based on the Bible, Qu'ran and Torah.
The obvious once again will come up:
Homosexuality is looked upon as a sin and murder arises under God's name. This isn't moral.
Punishment for leaving Islamic beliefs. Not moral.
Stoning. Not moral.
Mandatory circumcision of both males and females. Not moral.
Banning condoms. Not moral.
Banning Abortion. Not moral.
The list goes on for a long time,
So in answer to your question, if the concept of God was erased from the Earth, humans would use their natural social understanding of equality to deduce morality just as they do today in secular countries where most people haven't read the bible or other scriptures to be tainted with its concepts of morality.
Life would be much better and much fairer.
The concept of morality is not quite as straightforward as that. The opinion about what is moral varies between people.
Which is why we argue about what is more fair in a rational and secular way.
Is it more fair to pay £40,000 a year to keep a prisoner alive when you could keep 500 children in Africa alive?
Morality is not an easy yes or no, granted.
But do you know what doesn't help?
Some uneducated chump saying "In exodus... it says that ....God says that ... so we should ..."
If we limit our morality to a book, it means that we can never develop on our morality. It is confined to an antiquated text.
If we limit our morality to the Bible, we are saying that the bible's morality is absolute and perfect.
And look where that leads to?
I didn't say we should limit our morality to the Bible or that it is derived from the Bible. I in fact denied that in my post further below.
I simply said it is not straightforward.
therefore, for you to say that something is absolutely moral or not (e.g. banning abortions) is somewhat presumptuous.
I never said you said that morality is limited to the Bible. I was making my response a response to this thread. I answered your comment in the first sentence.
IMO, banning abortions in all situations is immoral.The only arguments against abortion in rape cases are those of religious and therefore moot ones.
"Banning abortions in all situations is immoral. The only arguments against abortion in rape cases are those of religious and therefore moot ones."
False. I know many non-religious people who think that.
Also. That is your opinion.
"I never said you said that morality is limited to the Bible. I was making my response a response to this thread. I answered your comment in the first sentence. "
The majority of your comment to me was devoted to the Bible issues. I therefore logically assumed you were addressing it to me and not the original comment, since you did not post it as a response to the original comment but to mine.
Oh no Ashton Firefly, that's journalism. You misquoted me. The 'b' on "banning" is not capitalised, and neither is it the start of the sentence.
In order to quote me you would have had to write "...banning" etc. because what I actually said was 'IMO, banning..."
In my opinion, I said. So thank you for clarifying that it is both 'False. I know many non-religious people who think that" and "Also. That is your opinion.
" which I was quite aware of.
But please, reveal to me the reasoning for why abortion is wrong in rape victims that the people you know are using?
And no, I apologise, it wasn't in response to the original post but because the first post of this is, I wanted to continue my argument through all of my responses. I try to keep on topic.
In retrospect I should have made two replies. One just to you, and the latter part in another reply. I once again apologise for that
"Oh no Ashton Firefly, that's journalism. You misquoted me. The 'b' on "banning" is not capitalised, and neither is it the start of the sentence.
In order to quote me you would have had to write "...banning" etc. because what I actually said was 'IMO, banning..."
In my opinion, I said. So thank you for clarifying that it is both 'False. I know many non-religious people who think that" and "Also. That is your opinion.
" which I was quite aware of."
hahaha. that made me smile regardless of whether or not you meant it antagonistically...i didn't take it to be so
To clarify, I was directing the "I know many non-religoius people who think that" towards this statement: (and note, I put in ellipses here and therefore am quoting you correctly ) "...the only arguments against abortion in rape cases are those of religious and therefore moot ones." Therefore the insertion of "IMO" was not necessary because that wasn't part of the concept which I was responding to. Unless the IMO also applied to the comment about the arguments against abortion in rape cases. I should have made that more clear. In which case, my bad!
"But please, would you reveal to me the reasoning for why abortion is wrong in rape victims that the people you know are using?"
I am a rape victim. I still don't agree with the reasoning.
I base the issue of whether or not one should have the choice of abortion based on whether or not that “fetus” inside me is alive. If it is, then to stop the abortion would be killing. I personally believe it IS alive. Some disagree and that is where the difference in opinion lies. Whether or not I liked the fact that my baby was created by the bastard who raped me wouldn’t change the fact that the baby was alive and I shouldn’t kill it. Yes, it would be psychologically hard. Yes, the baby might not have the bright, sunny, ideal family situation. But do I have a right to determine what a life is worth or if it’s worth living. Hell no. IMO. Deciding Whether or not the child “may” or “may not” have a good life makes me the ultimate judge of determining if a life is worth living. I really don’t think I have that authority. And I’m certainly not going to end the child’s life because I don’t want it. I could not in good conscience abort my child.
That's my reasoning why I wouldn't abort my child. I already addressed the reasonings of the others in a different thread and would rather not start it up again here.
I know it's a sensitive subject, and I'm sorry to hear that.
But consider this, vegetables were living cells before too, but I can only imagine you have no problem with them being killed for your nourishment because they do not feel pain. Neither does a fetus when aborted (on time). In both cases they are just groups of living cells.
You might argue that "the fetus could grow into a human" but so could an ovum, and women get rid of at least one of those every month without weeping or feeling sorry for the life that could have been. Men don't cry when they ejaculate billions of potential humans either.
And okay, you say things like "yes it would be psychologically hard", that means you're in a better position than a lot of people.
What about in cases when for example, the women has an 99% chance of dying if she would have a baby. This does happen. With the ban, you allow these woman to die, for a group of cells that cannot feel pain, nor have consciousness. In what way is that moral? You talk about not having the right to end life, the ban ends lives by simply existing.
Another scenario it is difficult for you to argue is one that happens very often. In Africa, where rape is very common (1 in 2 in Cape Town) I hear, and so is poverty, is it moral to reject an abortion for a woman who is struggling to feed herself, let alone another being? When it is more than likely that this woman will abandon her baby (this happens a lot) because she cannot look after it?
At that point, not only did you endanger these impoverished womens lives and put them through the pain of labour, you allow the fetus to grow into something that does feel pain and let it die.
Cases like these you might argue are rare, but they do happen. So a total ban on abortion by no means is moral.
“But consider this, vegetables were living cells before too, but I can only imagine you have no problem with them being killed for your nourishment because they do not feel pain. Neither does a fetus when aborted (on time). In both cases they are just groups of living cells.”
No. But I feel a fetus is alive in a sense different than a vegetable.
“You might argue that "the fetus could grow into a human" but so could an ovum, and women get rid of at least one of those every month without weeping or feeling sorry for the life that could have been. Men don't cry when they ejaculate billions of potential humans either.”
No I would not argue that. I would argue that the fetus is a human, not “could grow into a human.”
“And okay, you say things like "yes it would be psychologically hard", that means you're in a better position than a lot of people.”
I’m not sure what you mean by that.
“What about in cases when for example, the women has an 99% chance of dying if she would have a baby. This does happen. With the ban, you allow these woman to die, for a group of cells that cannot feel pain, nor have consciousness. In what way is that moral? You talk about not having the right to end life, the ban ends lives by simply existing.”
In this situation, I don’t know.
That’s a unique situation. You say the ban ends lives by simply existing. So would abortion. Each allows for loss of life. The difference is, one allows intentional death. The other allows natural death caused by the birth process. The fact that the fetus feel s no pain and may have no consciousness doesn’t change the fact that they’re alive, nor does it make them any less human. If I was paralyzed and could feel nothing and was in a vegetative state, would that make my life any less valuable or me leses human? (but then that opens another can of worms…) But that’s assuming one views the fetus as a human. You do not agree. So any deductions from that premise will be false to someone who does not agree with the original premise and so the argument can really go no further than that.
But like I said, that it a more unique situation. I’m not going to pretend I have a good answer for that. And perhaps in this case, there should be allowance. I don’t know.
“Another scenario it is difficult for you to argue is one that happens very often. In Africa, where rape is very common (1 in 2 in Cape Town) I hear, and so is poverty, is it moral to reject an abortion for a woman who is struggling to feed herself, let alone another being? When it is more than likely that this woman will abandon her baby (this happens a lot) because she cannot look after it?”
Again, that would be to make assumptions about the child’s future which may or may not come true. This does not change the fact that I feel this child is in fact human and its life should not be ended. We are not going to agree on this because we are not arguing from the same initial position and our ideas about the fetus itself are not the same.
I am basing my argument on one thing: the value of the child’s life; not whether or not that child’s life is considered by any human to be worth living after it is born. I believe the child is human as a fetus. You do not. Anything from that point is pointless to argue about because we do not agree on this concept. Basically the fact that this child “may” die or have a miserable life is the position you’re arguing from. I’m arguing from the point of, there’s no way you can know that, for every single specific child that is born. If you could, then maybe it would be able to be considered. My argument is also, the fetus is human and has value, and it is not moral to attempt to make a judgement call on whether or not someone’s life is worth living. Circumstances in life do not change the fact that that fetus is human nor does not change the value of their life and therefore should not be considered in the act. If the act itself is immoral, then everything else is irrelevant. However, I know you don’t agree that the child is an actual human or anything more than a fetus to any conclusions I draw from that conclusion are pointless to you.
You are arguing it is immoral to bring a child to live in that environment. I am arguing is immoral to assume that one knows if their child’s life will be worth living. You obviously feel it would not, in this case. I just don’t like the idea of making judgements about the value of someone else’s life.
“At that point, not only did you endanger these impoverished womens lives and put them through the pain of labour, you allow the fetus to grow into something that does feel pain and let it die. “
So abortion is kind of like mercy killing.
Assuming the child will indeed die. But that’s what it is: an assumption.
But we don’t even know. That’s my point. We can’t make judgements on someone else’s life value after they’re born. We can’t see into the future.
“Cases like these you might argue are rare, but they do happen. So a total ban on abortion by no means is moral.”
Here we have common ground. It becomes a question of morality. You are however, arguing for morality on the basis of will that child’s life be worth living? I am arguing for morality on the basis of is the child inherently valuable? We are both moral people. We just feel that morality means two different things in this particular case. And because you are arguing for your point in defense of morality, I do respect your opinions. I just don’t agree. And I know you will disagree with me. The point is: I respect you as a moral person and you are making decisions which you feel are in the best interest of all involved. As am I.
It is assumption yes, but when it is almost certain that both the mother will die due to malnutrition or from them both having HIV, it is irrational to suggest that we should not abort the child on the basis that there is a 0.000001% chance that the baby will survive due to some sort of financial miracle that the mother, who is not currently working and is sickly and emotionally unstable would have.
We live on assumption. Should we stop giving out vaccinations because there is a minuscule chance of them not working? Matter of fact, should we give free education to all of our children when there is a 0.1% chance that they will not benefit from it?
And you say that "in this case I don't know" and "that’s a unique situation. You say the ban ends lives by simply existing. So would abortion" but these unique situations do happen. I am not suggesting that everyone deserves the right. But even you seem to agree that in these situations, and perhaps these situations alone, abortion should be allowed? (So a total ban is immoral)
on to the more pressing matter
"The fact that the fetus feels no pain and may have no consciousness doesn’t change the fact that they’re alive, nor does it make them any less human"
But pain and consciousness are specifically what makes us human. Otherwise, what else is it?
At this point, there is no difference between the group of living cells we call a fetus and the group of living cells we call a vegetable.
To that point then, what makes a sperm not a human being? What makes a vegetable not a human being (other than the fact that they're not produced by a human)?
If not for consciousness and pain, you just have a mass of cells. If you call that mass of cells human because it is produced by a human, then mothers milk is also humans, so are ovums, and so are sperm!
“It is assumption yes, but when it is almost certain that both the mother will die due to malnutrition or from them both having HIV, it is irrational to suggest that we should not abort the child on the basis that there is a 0.000001% chance that the baby will survive due to some sort of financial miracle that the mother, who is not currently working and is sickly and emotionally unstable would have.”
If that is an actual percentage. That’s not an accurate percentage. You have to include all people. What are the chances that a woman would be raped. And having been raped, get pregnant. And having been pregnant, not be able to care for the child very well. And not being able to care for the child, the chance that it will die. It’s an arbitrary percentage, from which you conclude that there would have to be a miracle. And as I said, these arguments are irrelevant to what I’m saying because I am coming from the position of: the fetus is human; to kill it is therefore immoral; therefore don’t do it. You’re coming from the position of the fetus is not human; to kill it is not immoral; therefore, whether or not we should should be determined by it’s life when it IS human. Because we differ in our initial premise, everything else is irrelevant.
“We live on assumption. Should we stop giving out vaccinations because there is a minuscule chance of them not working? Matter of fact, should we give free education to all of our children when there is a 0.1% chance that they will not benefit from it?”
Assumption about someone’s life and assumption about something working or not are on a much different scale. I’m a little more cautious to make assumptions about someone’s life.
“And you say that "in this case I don't know" and "that’s a unique situation. You say the ban ends lives by simply existing. So would abortion" but these unique situations do happen. I am not suggesting that everyone deserves the right. But even you seem to agree that in these situations, and perhaps these situations alone, abortion should be allowed? (So a total ban is immoral)”
Yes these unique situations do happen. But the fact that they are rare and unique does not warrant not putting a ban into effect which will address the unrare and ununique situations where abortion should NOT be allowed. These are rare, minority situations.
on to the more pressing matter
“But pain and consciousness are specifically what makes us human. Otherwise, what else is it?”
That is your opinion about what makes us human. I disagree.
“At this point, there is no difference between the group of living cells we call a fetus and the group of living cells we call a vegetable. “
Deduced from your premise of what makes us human, which I do not agree with.
“To that point then, what makes a sperm not a human being? What makes a vegetable not a human being (other than the fact that they're not produced by a human)?”
What makes a tree not a human being? The fact that it does not meet the criteria for what makes one human, which is something we disagree on…
“If not for consciousness and pain, you just have a mass of cells. If you call that mass of cells human because it is produced by a human, then mothers milk is also humans, so are ovums, and so are sperm!”
Animals are also conscious and feel pain. Does this make them human? You’re arguing from the premise of, “if not for consciousness and pain, you just have a mass of cells” which I do not agree with. Therefore your statement about the mother’s milk, etc. would not apply.
As I’ve said throughout my earlier posts, we do not agree on what makes someone human and that a fetus is a human. So any other arguments are going to be irrelevant unless we somehow agree on this one, which I know we won’t…
so I'm not sure how much further we're going to be able to really discuss if that one issue is not resolved
"What makes a tree not a human being? The fact that it does not meet the criteria for what makes one human, which is something we disagree on…"
And what might these criteria be?
Also just to clear something up:
I don't think that killing a fetus is wrong because it is not a human, because I don't think killing a human is always wrong. To say that it is wrong outright is immoral and that's one of the reasons that the Bible's morality is flawed.
Please continue the conversation on to my hub on the topic:
http://philanthropy2012.hubpages.com/hu … r-debunked
Where others have already commented some very interesting points
"so I'm not sure how much further we're going to be able to really discuss if that one issue is not resolved "
Well how can we continue the discussion when you won't tell me what it is you think makes something a human being and not just a human growing!!
And I feel that you've misunderstood here: “If not for consciousness and pain, you just have a mass of cells. If you call that mass of cells human because it is produced by a human, then mothers milk is also humans, so are ovums, and so are sperm!”
"Animals are also conscious and feel pain. Does this make them human?" That's not what I've said at all, I haven't limited my definition of a human to being conscious and feeling pain but have said that these two things certainly make up what one is.
A comatose patient who cannot think or feel at all in my eyes stop being a human and rather becomes a human shaped mass of cells. As is in the case of a fetus.
“And what might these criteria be?”
Exactly. I am saying that you were basing your conclusions on your own individual criteria for what makes one human, and attempting to apply that conclusion towards what I said; you couldn’t do that because I did not agree on the initial criteria. The criteria is a hotly debated topic and drags us into many fields of philosophy…
“I don't think that killing a fetus is wrong because it is not a human, because I don't think killing a human is always wrong. To say that it is wrong outright is immoral and that's one of the reasons that the Bible's morality is flawed.”
You in essence said that a fetus is simply a mass of cells, not a human; abortion is therefore not the killing of a human. Am I understanding you correctly?
“Well how can we continue the discussion when you won't tell me what it is you think makes something a human being and not just a human growing!!”
Because I know already that what you think makes something human is different than what I think makes something human, and I wasn't sure you wanted to hear my opinion on it. Sorry for the assumption.
In my opinion, the zygote is a human because the second conception occurs, the egg is developing as a human being. The fact that it is nine months away from being fully developed doesn’t make the fetus any less human because humanity is not dependent upon physical attributes. But I base that opinion on the idea that there is something more than physical about us. A soul, a spirit, mind, whatever it is. Whatever it is that makes us able to communicate and feel emotion and relate to other people…to have intuition and instinct. Whatever it is that makes us alive, which I find difficult to think is simply physical.
“And I feel that you've misunderstood here: “If not for consciousness and pain, you just have a mass of cells. If you call that mass of cells human because it is produced by a human, then mothers milk is also humans, so are ovums, and so are sperm!” ‘Animals are also conscious and feel pain. Does this make them human?’ That's not what I've said at all, I haven't limited my definition of a human to being conscious and feeling pain but have said that these two things certainly make up what one is.”
Your statement was this: ‘But pain and consciousness are specifically what makes us human. Otherwise, what else is it?’ If this is not what you meant, then what do you think qualifies as making one human?
“A comatose patient who cannot think or feel at all in my eyes stop being a human and rather becomes a human shaped mass of cells. As is in the case of a fetus.”
Ahh okay. I disagree with you; I feel that they would be human but simply a human in a coma.
Religion renewed the caste system. If you do not follow this, that will happen and because you are this type of person, this will happen. Religion just opened up another way for people to sling judgements at one another.
So you consider abortion moral? Then in your world, anyone that is a inconvience to you can be exterminated morally. After you are done killing babies, maybe next the elderly will become an inconvience because they cost the system money and contribute little. Let's see maybe we can assume that by 40 you may be a burden to society. Any mentally deficient persons. On and on.
It is part of the dehumanization process to not consider the murder of a fetus the vial act that it is, but rather a good and merciful thing. The Nazis used to kill people in mass quantity when running their death camps, and the only way not to go insane during the process was to psychologically convince themselves that their victims were neither human or subhuman, just a mass of flesh to be disposed of. Compare this quote to some abortionist quotes;
"To tell the truth, one did become used to it...they were cargo. I think it started the day I first saw the Totenlager [extermination area] in Treblinka. I remember Wirth standing there, next to the pits full of black-blue corpses. It had nothing to do with humanity — it could not have. It was a mass — a mass of rotting flesh. Wirth said 'What shall we do with this garbage?' I think unconsciously that started me thinking of them as cargo....I rarely saw them as individuals. It was always a huge mass. I sometimes stood on the wall and saw them in the "tube" — they were naked, packed together, running, being driven with whips." -Franz Stangl head of the Treblinka death camp, murdered over 900,000 people.
Here are a few quotes from abortionists who's job it was to lie to expectant mothers. Note how obvious it is that the abortionists were dehumanizing the fetuses by lying about their stage of development and refering to it as an "it" or a "mass", or a "blood clot".
"We tried to avoid the women seeing them [the fetuses] They always wanted to know the sex, but we lied and said it was too early to tell. It's better for the women to think of the fetus as an 'it.'
--Abortion clinic worker Norma Eidelman quoted in Rachel Weeping
"Sometimes we lied. A girl might ask what her baby was like at a certain point in the pregnancy: Was it a baby yet? Even as early as 12 weeks a baby is totally formed, he has fingerprints, turns his head, fans his toes, feels pain. But we would say 'It's not a baby yet. It's just tissue, like a clot.'"
Now lets see a little humanizing;
"Saline abortions have to be done in the hospital because of the complications that can arise. Not that they can't arise during other times, but more so now. The saline, a salt solution, is injected into the woman's sac, and the baby starts dying a slow, violent death. The mother feels everything, and many times it is at this point when she realizes that she really has a live baby inside her, because the baby starts fighting violently, for his or her life. He's just fighting inside because he's burning."
"One night a lady delivered and I was called to come and see her because she was 'uncontrollable.' I went into the room, and she was going to pieces; she was having a nervous breakdown, screaming and thrashing. The other patients were upset because this lady was screaming. I walked in, and here was this little saline abortion baby kicking. It had been born alive, and was kicking and moving for a little while before it finally died of those terrible burns, because the salt solution gets into the lungs and burns the lungs too. I'll tell you one thing about D & E. You never have to worry about a baby's being born alive. I won't describe D & E other than to say that, as a doctor, you are sitting there tearing, and I mean tearing- you need a lot of strength to do it- arms and legs off of babies and putting them in a stack on top of the table."
--Dr. David Brewer of Glen Ellyn Illinois
here's the rest, too much progressive "morality" for me to look at without vomiting.
Morality can exist apart from religion, can it not?
some of the most moral people I know, are not Christian and hold no religious belief system.
We all have conscience.
People define what is morally acceptable and what isnt. The bible tells us that god commands we kill anyone who leads us away from god, it commands that we stone rape victims to death and other barbaric acts.
However, christians choose not to follow those laws and then look for any reason they can to make the bible say what they want it to hear.
Morals are not from religion. They are from people. This can be seen since different sects even of the same religion disagree on what is moral and what is not moral. Both sides take different verses from the bible to try and back up their claim but the truth is, the bible claims that opposite acts are both moral, people choose which ones to follow.
So in answer to what life would be like without the concept of religion or god, it would be the same.
And to conclude that excellent point with a statistic, there are over 40,000 sects of christianity each with their own belief system.
If the bible was a reliable source of morality, these differences would simply not be.
Well let's see now? I could walk down the streets naked as the day I was born and it wouldn't bother anyone. I could have any woman I so chose to enjoy having sex with any where any time. I could have anything I wanted without paying for it or earning it. If I didn't like the way you dressed or spoke, or looked, I could just stab you or shoot you. If I wanted my neighbor's wife or car, or child, or money or jewels, I could just help myself. If I was driving my car, and someone annoyed me I could simply run them off the road or crash into them maybe killing them. And best of all, I could lie about doing anything wrong.
But with religion you get to sell your daughter as a sex slave
Invade and destroy other countries
Persecute gay people
Fly planes into buildings
Ohhh and also, touch children inappropriately.
And what you just said Mr.Mathews, is that without a book telling you not to, you personally would commit crimes like rape women and steal children.
I cannot believe that you need someone or something to tell you that all those things are wrong.
I have written quite a few hubs on this.
Essentially, all morals and ethics were the outcomes that early man devised as a result of the consequences of behavior.
Example. If there was a village and people were murdering each other in the village and nobody knew who was doing the murdering, then there would be state of distrust and fear in the village., As there would be lions, elephants, snakes, and other dangers, outside, it would divide the village and people wouldn't work as well together to defend themselves from the real dangers.
Therefore, over a period of time, it would be realized that murdering people wasn't good for the community. In addition, to enforce it, those in power would threaten that the Gods would be displeased.This is a way of controlling people.
Working out ethical rules is not possible for some because, socially unpopular as it is, their brains dont work that way. One has to take into consideration mass psychology, neurology, sociology, and other environmental factors. Right now, we're about to go extinct as a species because most people don't see the end result of the excesses of capitalism and consumerism.They don't have the ability to work it out.
Scientists, sociologists, etc. could work out outcomes and design a new set of rules for humanity with relative ease.
There are 7 billion (and counting) people on this planet and you think we are on the verge of extinction. You might be jumping the gun somewhat on that prediction.
Actually, virtually every single scientist and academic thinks the same thing - across all nations.
What do you think is going to happen with WWIII? What's going to happen when terrorists finally get hold of 40 or 50 nuclear devises. What do you think is going to happen when terrorist or a couple of insane people finally releases a virus that will wipe out humanity (and plenty of these biological warfare weapons exist)? It's precisely because there are 7 billion people on this planet that we are going to wipe ourselves out. The more people there are, the less food, and the more tempers and anger flares... Start reading... Jared Diamond might be a start.
Religion is a manifestation of man, based on the fact that he is moral. The fact that we needed something to answer questions of the unknown and create a civilized society. Morals are manmade, not god made. Without god or religion is not possible due to the fact that we fear the unknown and need answers for that fear. Now we are far more intelligent and enlightened, do we still need religion and/or god to help us along. Some yes, some no. Morals are established by society not religion. Society is influenced by religion, but both are morals and religion are manifested by man. You DO NOT have to be religious in any right to be moral. And not all religious people are moral. Good and Bad are also relative to the circumstance and point of view.
Morality does not exist without the presence of religion, and it has been proven in the secular teachings of modern day progressives. The proponents of humanism and secularism adapt to ideology such as moral relativism, which means that there is no such thing as objective truth. So based on the circumstances a person can act immorally and still be socially acceptable.
What has been deemed as morally correct by secularists such as John Dewey, Oliver Wendel Holms, Margaret Sanger, Saul Alinsky, George Barnard Shaw, etc. is the betterment of society through elitism and more often than not it leads to the denial of life due to inconvenience, laziness, or the ever popular fallacious connotation, the argument for the 1.5 million abortions a year which occur in America, that a baby that might suffer some abuse in it's life is better off dead.
More over the ever increasing ideology of political correctness which stifles the average individual from open discussion in public on the topic of religion is a testament in of it's self that advocating morality based on the dictates of a supreme creator is offensive and intolerant. This mentality shows undeniably that objective religious morality is not only in opposition to secularist morality, but it is a threat to it. And it, [secular morality], is an ever changing, man made ideal which blows in the wind, devoid of stability and reason.
Religion isn't require for a single individual to understand their own conscience.
So you think that killing anyone who tries to lead you away from god, and killing 42 children for simply mocking a bald man is moral?
Well first, yes I think it is immoral to lead people away from God.
Secondly do you believe it was Elisha who sent the bears or God?
So it's immoral to inform(lead) people so they can understand their own life, because their actions are uninformed.
So keeping people more ignorant and stupid is okay? compared to educating them.
So you are saying that religious people are ignorant and stupid? That is quite a contemptuous and presumptive assertion.
I'm saying that people who don't understand their own life are ignorant and stupid, and need to be informed.
So you are saying that religion is opposed to education? I'll have to inform the folks at the thousands of religious colleges around the country.
Hahaha how funny.
This is probably why American schools, although some of the richest and most funded, are only 25th in the world for math and only 17th in the world for science.
But the bible bashers are a mighty 14th in reading!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog … ce-reading
And poor religious Mexico got 34th (last) in every subject
That wasn't the question though was it?
Well that's just irrelevant. WHO sent the bears doesn't matter at all.
My mistake, you are saying that I think it's ok to kill someone who leads others away from God. No. Who says that?
And I think it makes a big difference as to who sent the bears. So have you ever seen a person send bears after a bunch of children in the name of God?
Apparently god says that to moses as one of his commandments.
Since you claim that morals come from religion, well I guess you might be saying that the bible gives morals?
Forgive me if I have the wrong religion?
As for the bears, why do you care WHO sent them? Unless you are going to claim that it is moral when one person does it and immoral when another does it?
Surely you cant be claiming that morals come from religion and you haven't even read the bible?
Sure I have, I just don't have it memorized. I'm pretty sure the ten commandments came from the same book and it is universally agreed upon that the ten commandments hold the most basic fundamental standard for a moral compass in the world. Plus there is this sermon that Jesus gave on a mount'. You should check that out and tell me if there is any other speech in history that matches it along the lines of the advocating of morality and virtue.
Again that is totally irrelevant. Your claim was that morals only come from religion.
I countered your claim with the clearly immoral laws of the bible.
You countered again that PEOPLE CHOOSE what parts of the bible to follow so I rest my case.
Morals dont come from religion, they come from people. You even said it yourself that people choose morals.
Oh please It is completely relevant to the subject. I don't remember saying that people choose what morals to follow although of course it is a choice weather or not to follow those morals.
You are using a history of the progression of morality to debunk religion, when in fact religion is the factor that has set the standard for morality in the world. It is historically evident that the lack of religion in a society usually ends up destroying themselves. In recent history atheistic communist countries have killed over 100 million of their own people in only a short time.
The agenda of anti religious organizations is to oppress and vilify the religious. To base laws on ever changing progressive ideology is fallacious and dangerous.
The ACLU has a history of promoting its agenda of immorality, In the Supreme Court case New York vs Ferber, the ACLU argued that child pornography was protected by the First Amendment. In the United States vs American Library Association, the ACLU fought against the filtering of pornography when children are using computers in Public Libraries arguing that libraries should, "make that knowledge available to young and old alike."
filed lawsuits to block legislation requiring Parental Notification before a minor child has an abortion. They believe girls age 12 should be taken for abortions without their parents knowledge. They say Parental Notification Law “diminishes a minor woman’s constitutional right of privacy.”
They have also declared an ongoing war on religion, they have sued to have religious displays removed from public view during various holiday celebrations and the ten commandments removed from court houses. they have attempted to ban all forms of prayer in schools, and they have even litigated to have the crosses removed from the headstones at Arlington national cemetery.
If you think that religion is bad then maybe you should compare the sermon on the mount to George Barnard Shaw's "Justify your existence" speech. It pretty much follows thee same assertions of his predicessors, Mao, Stalin, Lennin, Pol Pot, and every other monster who believes that the betterment of society in tales the destruction of life and the exploitation of the basic family unit.
Yes it would survive and do quite well without "G/god" or Religion.
It would work based on understanding one's own life and self. Which requires them to understand their self awareness and individual conscience.
I have written a hub that outlines the perfect world society and it's morality. It's the most strict description of the conscience and however it's flawed due to individual rights of gender and race.
There is NO perfect world society that which could possibly be obtained. Humans are flawed.
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him" - Voltaire
And that quote is one of the most ignorant quotes to ever have been said. It's solely based on the fact that a human being must be made to answer to a higher authority, which is a flawed philosophy.
In every person's mind, a philosophy that contradicts their own is ignorance.
Not true, a philosophy that contradicts their own is a contradiction.
Ignorance to you, would be their philosophy being uneducated and lacking knowledge in what you have seen in comparison.
You misunderstood my comment. I do not mean a philosophy that contradicts itself. I mean two different philosophies that contradict each other.
Reread it and you will see what I mean.
I'll rephrase my comment because my wording may have seemed vague. "In every man's point of view, any philosophy that contradicts his..he would consider ignorant."
And the point being is that it didn't contradict anything. It's a stupid quote and you protecting it isn't helpful.
That quote is based on "humans must be forced(made) to answer to a higher authority". And, it's wrong.
I see what you are saying, but your interpretation, I believe, is flawed because it is too amply stated. Perhaps I should take some of the responsibility because I did not include Voltaire's entire argument of why a Higher Being is necessary. I posted the quote because I hold the same philosophy as Voltaire over the necessity of God. Also, I did not expect anybody to challenge it so adamantly. Here is Voltaire's entire argument, and one that I happen to agree completely with:
He wrote this to challenge an Atheist writer.
"Insipid writer, you pretend to draw for your readers
The portraits of your 3 impostors;
How is it that, witlessly, you have become the fourth?
Why, poor enemy of the supreme essence,
Do you confuse Mohammed and the Creator,
And the deeds of man with God, his author?...
Criticize the servant, but respect the master.
God should not suffer for the stupidity of the priest:
Let us recognize this God, although he is poorly served.
My lodging is filled with lizards and rats;
But the architect exists, and anyone who denies it
Is touched with madness under the guise of wisdom.
Consult Zoroaster, and Minos, and Solon,
And the martyr Socrates, and the great Cicero:
They all adored a master, a judge, a father.
This sublime system is necessary to man.
It is the sacred tie that binds society,
The first foundation of holy equity,
The bridle to the wicked, the hope of the just.
If the heavens, stripped of his noble imprint,
Could ever cease to attest to his being,
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
Let the wise man announce him and kings fear him.
Kings, if you oppress me, if your eminencies disdain
The tears of the innocent that you cause to flow,
My avenger is in the heavens: learn to tremble.
Such, at least, is the fruit of a useful creed."
- Voltaire (Defending why God is necessary)
It is important for people to respect each other's opinions. I understand your position and believe me, I am not trying to change your mind or make you look stupid, I only wish to defend my own position.
Are you attempting to sound profound? If so, you're failing miserably.
Cagsil, you sir should learn to respect other people, and please if you are going to argue do it correctly. Attack the propostion not the person.
Really? And you are who exactly? I respect people who deserve respect and my statement wasn't rude. It might have been to YOU, but it wasn't. I was only asking a question and then I stated the obvious.
If you don't like, too bad.
I didn't attack the person, it's your bad perception of what was said.
Oh, this is the new silencing tactic of the religious. If we don't bow down and praise their beliefs, we are being disrespectful and it is a "personal attack" for which they will attempt to have us banned.
It's just another way to muzzle speech.
You can attack my beliefs, just do it respectfully.
Tell me how I can tell you that you are in the grips of a delusion "respectfully"?
LOL! You're joking, right?
When ones beliefs are far-fetched, fantasy laden myths that are so out of touch with reality, how can one respect them? They are insulting to the intellect and to everything man has achieved, at the very least.
You are so convinced yet you have no proof either way. And still there is a majority that believes in a Higher Power so you may well in fact be the one delusioned.
LOL! Appeal to Popularity Belief.
Yes, I have no proof whatsoever that reality is what is shows us to be but is instead a facade for a magical kingdom.
Without proof you cannot be sure yourself what is true or not. It is only a belief and you cannot say if God is real or not. In other words He could very well be there, so why so much of the righteous attitude. You don't sound any different than the people who come to convert.
Take a look at the least religious, and least God-driven societies on earth today. These include: Australia, Denmark, Germany, Canada, France. Law is determined and enforced by a secular process. They have the lowest crime rates, the most prosperity and stability. Even "religious" people there lead thoroughly secular or secularized lives.
So clearly it is possible. How? Morality and ethics in these places revolves around personal safety and happiness. There is a secular tradition called "humanism": a nonreligious philosophy where human well being is the highest goal.
Rather than serving God, these cultures and governments seek to serve the human. This can be a more collectivist approach (Japan) or an individualist one (the US).
The true basis of morality is the happiness, material wealth, health, safety, opportunity and freedom of human beings.
In short, in the absence of God, the human is the center of concern. I could talk on how a God-based morality is actually a flawed morality, but I will stop there.
Morality and religion are two separate and independent issues. Morality is more an innate sense of right and wrong. While it may be a sin to kill, there is a moral issue with sinning as well.
I am not a follower of religion. I believe humans crave a higher meaning to everything, therefore religion and the concept of God or Gods was created. Despite the fact that I do not subscribe to religion, I do have a sense of morality. My morals may not be those of some religious peoples, but they are on par with many morals common to vast diversities of peoples.
Religious beliefs, such as the Commandments, are loosely based upon long held morals of right and wrong than span many religions and groups of people.
Let's put it this way: Do children love their parents because they understand the concept of God?
But they will ask someday this question: "What is the source of this love? Where does this goodness of heart come from?"
Any answers? ..
You seek something that humans cannot answer for their societies. We live in a moral society with moral codes based on moral beliefs. Any and all religions have this. Even atheists have moral codes. Is there honor amongst thieves? You will ultimately go around in circles trying to figure out how to get out of your genes.
Take a lesson from the animal kingdom. They profess no gods, nor moral conduct as we know it. Instead, they are in a literal dog-eat-dog society, based solely on survival. Granted, some of them have an almost ritualistic air in certain instances, but their minds do not conceive any god. Many will not eat their own, so dast we call that moral? Our species was similar until we saw one we loved die, and our minds tried to figure out why. That is the difference. Fish will eat fish. Animals will eat animals. When we go to the mountains like the Donner Party, we eat each other. It is the perennial philosophy---you MUST survive and feed the fire in the belly. At that point, god and morality take second place. When you are hungry enough you may well rob a 7 Eleven or equivalent. You revert to the animal kingdom from which you are in the most primitive way attached. Those who are over stuffed with morality may choose to take their own lives instead.
Morality brings peace and stability, and ironically the greatest wars the world has ever seen. My god is better than your god and my morality is more righteous than yours. How pompous we can be.
Pay closer attention to the wolves, gators and snakes, and you will find your answer in living and dead color.
"Morality brings peace and stability, and ironically the greatest wars the world has ever seen"
I love that.
Very true, if lower life forms can manage to live peaceably with each other without God, why can't we.
Because as Sartre says, I think ,therefore I am. Since 1800, all the sheep followed the philosophy and it is still prevailing today. I can't believe that John Lennon at the tender age of 30 could sing to the world that god is a concept, then turn around and tell them to give peace a chance.
We are a lower form than our egos admit.
Before I attempt to answer your question, we should first realize that such a question already reveals our deep attachment to a western sense of not only morality, but metaphysics in general. Whenever we envision what is just and what is not, we cannot help but think purely in western (greek) terms. Moreover, our conceptions of morality have been conditioned into us as human subjects. Therefore, morality, if we are bracketing it off from western metaphyscis(morality as stemming from religion), is not a universal concept and one could even say does not exist outside of its social construct. Morality moreover, is no more than a sign operating within a specific chain of signification. However, if morality remains a part of religion or God, we obviously cannot examine morality as such, since we are dealing with metaphysics. I suggest reading Heidegger and Foucault to better visualize the malleability of morality.
How about examining one's own form of morallity? I would rather see how my actions affect others, than to see a secondhand view of it. I do not need religion to see myself, I only need a mirror and a deep conscience. Thus, I must also be conscious of what and how my doings affect the outcome of my life. For this, no philosophy or religion is neccesary.
While that is a valid point, you presuppose that those ideas you have just stated exist come directly from you. Moreover, your statement seems to prove my point about our groundedness to western metaphysics. We are constantly condition, whether by law, religion, philosophy, mass media, etc. by them, and as such our identity is developed through them. Additionally, if we are shaped by language, which we are, for one could not think without the use of language, and language is a system in which we live, which itself exists within the systems of religion, god, metaphysics, etc. than we are constantly being molded by them.
But why can one break free of the constraints of society? I can take what I have learned and live my own life, I just take the things I have learned and use them as they apply to me. It has nothing to do with belief or religion, yet I may have been conditioned to believe so at one time or another. I am not a religious man, though I am very spiritual in nature and it is my own venture. I cannot tell you how to live your life, I can only make suggestions, hence it is your choice on how to live it from that point on. So eventually, what I have learned becomes totally autonimous to me and has nothing to do with conditioning, as long as I can keep it original to my self.
I hope you don't think I am trying to attack you or anything. What I am trying to point out is that the question asked by the OP is itself based in western tradition. Your notion of originality though, because it is so rooted in the western tradition, will never be truly original. At every moment our bodies are molded according to some construct. I really advise reading Foucault.
I have found no place in religion and I have no place in social circles, for my thoughts are so different. I cannot agree with anyone, but that is how I am and I may see the world differently as well. My parents let me do whatever I wanted and it was up to me to learn how to live. I have never had the guidance of anyone shape my views, I only took the example and how I am now is the result.
Regardless what the Athiests say. Religion plays a major role in a moral society. Every country in the world's laws are based on religion. There are good and bad religions, just as there are good and bad people. Likewise there are extremes in all. Good Christians are not persecuters. Nowhere in the Gospels does it say murder, kill, hate, or stone anyone. Jesus' total message to humanity was "love one another." Contrary to what Secularists preach, the country was founded on Christian principals. The 10 commandments adorn the walls of the Supreme Court. The forefathers referenced God many times in their documents. Just because this country's government trys to stay religious neutral, doesn't mean it's Godless. Just means the laws don't recognize any religion to control the government laws.
The exact same way we do it now. We use our brains to reason.
We use our brains to reason what is right and what is wrong.
The process is called thinking and reasoning. It is possible to think and reason.
Perhaps, the question you should be asking is how are believers going to begin using the process of thinking and reasoning if their beliefs were suddenly erased?
Is it possible for a believer to reason for themselves that stealing or killing is wrong? Is it possible for a believer to to reason for themselves what is moral and ethical?
Obviously not, if they have to make threads like this one.
Rather you believe in a God or not. There are consequences for your actions. These consequences are based on moral principles that have been carried down from "religious" principles, by generations of mankind. If it wasn't for the consequences, mankind would have no moral obligation to anyone except for maybe his own family. If you look at history, you will find that the most barbarous people did not believe or follow any religion. They generally proclaimed themselves as Gods and therefore can do what they want.
You will find many of your answers in the hub “A Rational Code of Ethics” by paraglider.
It would probably look a lot like Communist USSR and Communist China. Whoever is the big bully wins and what they say goes. It's a more elaborate version of what happens in the school grounds.
What a sickening statement. The most moral countries in the world are all secular.
Well you being sickened goes to show that you live in an upside down world. I don't live in your world so deal with it.
Not true. Your speaking out of the back of your behind. Show me what countries you say are moral without God.
USA, UK, France, Spain, Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Netherlands, Switzerland....
What you said actually worries me. In fact, it leads me to believe that if you didnt have a book or a leading authority to tell you what is moral, then you wouldnt be able to decide for yourself.
Basically, it implies that you are amoral. A truyly worrying thought in todays day and age.
Well I wouldn't lose sleep over it. I haven't been paying any attention to what you've been posting.
The nature of man after his downfall is to be immoral. He fell because he thought he knew more than God. He thought he could lie to God and get away with it. He thought he could do what he wanted without consequences. Sound familiar? That's what you Athiests, homosexuals, transvestites, transgender and lesbians think you can do today. Well guess what? You can run but you can't hide. God sees everything you do and hears everything you say. I can not judge you but he will.
there are moral codes based on philosophy or culture of a group of people, not based only on religion
almost the same, I mean yes it is possible to live in a society like that (a moral society w/o religion) and it can work
And society with religion has worked out how? LOL
Morals are common sense and already dictated by law. You are essentially asking about something that already exists in most parts of the world. For example, even the United States is not really a religious nation anymore. Are you somehow confused about that?
Religion has certainly played an important role in shaping morals, but the "God" aspect of religion is not necessary to have a society based on what is right and wrong. Let's face it. We all know what is right and wrong whether or not we grew up in the church. You really think the idea of morals started with religion? Please give your source for that if that is what you think.
People who are only good because god tells them to be are no more moral than a prisoner who doesn't kill people because he is in jail.
Ultimately we help people and don't hurt them through empathy and an understanding of the fundamental moral equality of all people.
Religious corollaries entirely optional.
"People who are only good because god tells them to be are no more moral than a prisoner who doesn't kill people because he is in jail."
Absolutely. Well said.
"People who are only good because god tells them to be are no more moral than a prisoner who doesn't kill people because he is in jail."
There are innumerable criminals who were not in that religious-jail when they wiped out millions of human beings from the face of earth. Mao, Stalin, Hitler- the list goes on. Which one is preferable?
there is a gap between peoples knowledge, attitude, behavior and practices so even if there is an unwritten moral code to a group of people, they don't actualize it, there are many hypocrites - as Cagsil said humans are not flawless, they are imperfect
We're still here. Science and religion were born simoultaneously, from the same mother. Maybe they were Jacob and Esau...who knows? Even Cain and Abel. That would be a kick in the ? Both have evolved over the millenia, taking different, opposite paths. We can't run the risk of losing our own humanity. That is the danger in destroying all spiritual perception. Don't take my word for it....ask around. Morals didn't sprout up spontaneously. They too, evolved, more connected to the spiritual self than the logical, scientific self. Compassion isn't logical under many circumstances, neither is love or monogamy. Adultery can seem logical, but it really isn't. Same with killing your own kind, which we do well. Covered a few of those commandments, but here is another aspect. Is it logical or not, if it is possible to invent an invisible Big Brother or Father figure and convince others of your tribe that they're gonna get clobbered if they don't obey the law, to do so. Cuts down on the need for a police state. Which is what HELL is REALLY about.
Wow--lots of responses to read through here! Thanks for your input everyone. I should add one more thing for clarification. I'm trying to see where people believe morals come from--as in the origins of morality.
So I guess I'm trying to see where people would say morals and the understanding of right/wrong come from in the absence of a God or Religion. Like if we had a "restart" button and there was no God and no Religion and we ended up with people having moral beliefs of right/wrong, etc...where did that come from? How did it originate? Thanks for your many diverse and interesting answers everyone!
those who first wrote about philosophy, some philosophers like Plato, his teacher written philosophy during those times. Those are written ones only, how about those small tribes during those times who has a written codes already like in caves
Then as societies (group of people, community) emerged, they have different agreed upon moral codes, as world expands it become diverse, many philosophers and set of morals developed, diff branches of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism etc
Moral codes become complex when the world becomes complex, groups expand. We can be affected by a dominant culture in some other places, thus the morality in different culture continuous to evolve
is morality innate? you mean?? it is agreed upon by a group of people, although of course there are certain goodness in all of us
Seek n find, I too contemplated this, from a where did religion start perspective, I concluded that to evolve man had to work as groups as we are too weak individualy. To enable us to work together we need emotions and morals, so to exist we need to have morals from an evolutionary point of view.
If the group is controlled by 'it's morals' we have a dilema as where could this guidance be coming from? As a race I believe it is named religion, and our guide has been named god, as mentally a supreme being is easier to visualise, although the description, he is all around, within us all etc. is surprisingly acurate for my theory. It also explains the diversity in gods and religions as they would have started in different regions. I have looked but cant find why 'region, religion' are so close in spelling?
Higher authority runs the world and most people are subjects.
The simple answer is that we'd do it exactly as we do now, but with less complaint from the godsoaked.
Your question ask how would it work, I submit to you that it would not work. In every human there are innate and affixed moral standards. As an example have you ever said to someone, "Hey! That is not fair" or "That is my seat, i was there first!" Those statements alone appeal purely to the innate moral standards that are affixed within us. In other words when someone uses a statement to project their feelings they are appealing to an absolutive moral standard within each and every one of us. That standard is called the law of nature, morality, or however you wish to define it. But question arises where does that come from? Since it is affixed within every human from conception we must say that it has come from somewhere else outside of and beyond the first entities of the human race. This in fact would lead to an absolute necessary being, one beyond time and matter. So if morals are transfixed into man from conception and they come from an absolute necessary being, it is necessary for the being to exist for morals to exist or to have come into existence, by cause and effect. So your question is null and void because morals cannot exist without God.
"In every human there are innate and affixed moral standards." You have to prove this before you can use it for a case for God. I suggest you can't.
Religion is a manmade idealogy to serve manmade earthly purposes in the guise of afterlife rewards. History recycles the events of wars brought on by religion. The more "religious" people are, the more the world is teetering on the brink of implosion. I'm not a doomsday sayer. Just look at current events or look back at the very first time you learned about history. I, for one, find more order in the animal species and they don't have any religion.
I agree somewhat with what daisynicolas is saying except i would add that there is no morality without God, but there can be without religion. Religion is something that can be and is sometimes skewed, misused, and abused, where as God is the never changing standard for what is right and moral.
"In every human there are fixed and moral standards."
"Concerning my statement, to what would that appeal be made if it were not to a innate and affixed moral standard?"
If there is fixed moral standard why is there so much evil in the world? As to your motive I have already said, to prove the existence of god.
You must understand this. The law of nature is different than any other law. As an example, a rock must "submit" to the law of gravity it has no "choice" but when the law of nature is spotlighted we see that it is different in that it is a law by which we should behave not by how we behave. You see the law of gravity dictates what a falling object does, but the law of nature dictates what a human should do. The existence of evil is not contrary with the law of nature. The reason for this is that the law of nature is what we ought to do for which we do not. So when evil is present it is merely subsiding the critics of the law of nature and also establishing a more firm foundation. My motive was no to prove God, although that is a good thing, but it was to show that morality cannot be without God but religion can. Religion and morality differ, religion is made and morality is innate and affixed.
A Moral Society Without God or Religion--How Would It Work?
It wil be immoral; not a moral society.
There is no profit in nature. Non-profit socialism would then be the true morality.
So your morality is not of the physical world but of some other dimension.
IMHO. If the only reason one has morals is because of a belief in God or religion...Then they don't really have morals, they are only following the rules out of fear of "punishment".
Maybe you are saying humankind is naturally good
and possesses no original sin of which I would agree.
Actually I am completely opposed to those views. I am saying morality or the law of nature means what humans ought to do in which they do not, that is what makes the law of nature so different from other laws, say scientific laws, such as gravity.
I never understand the notion that for morality to exist, it is necessary to believe in God. The moment a person loses their faith and decides to describe themselves as an atheist, they do not suddenly acquire an urge to do immoral things. For instance, they don't suddenly say, "Now I don't believe in God, I shall go around murdering everyone I meet."
Conversely, there have been many acts of evil committed in the name of religion. The crusades, the wars between Roman Catholics and Protestants, the troubels in Northern Ireland, the 9/11 attacks, the 7/7 attacks on London, the wars between Muslims and Christians, the persecution of Jews - the list is endless. So, it simply is not the case that believing in God makes someone morally superior, whilst being an atheist turns them into killers. In fact, as an atheist does not believe in an eternal reward or punishment in some future afterlife, and believes that the here and now is all there is, it would make them less likely to want to kill or die, because death is the end.
"ought to do in which they do not". Where is the ought, where is the standard, what is it?
K - I gotta go. I have strict office hours. That is innate to my human.
A Moral Society Without God or Religion--How Would It Work? ...well, that's an easy one. Just take a look at this world...people living like there is no God, no laws, no rules, no standards for living...religions doing the very same thing...and what do you have??? An immoral society in confusion and chaos and full of sin and its curses with leaders that are like silly children who know not or care not how to lead, curses which are multiplying faster than we can say 1, 2, 3. A Moral Society Without God or Religion--How Would It Work? ...Just look around, anyone who can't see must be blind. This is the answer, isn't it?
René Descartes made the statement "I think therefore I am" originally, although Sartre may
have said the same thing.
Seen Time Changer? Definitely worth watching if interested in this topic.
Here's the official trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzdeLDeU9w0
Ask a four year old to take a smaller piece of cake than his five year brother. See how it goes.
Ideas of right and wrong, fairness and justice start early without any divine intervention.
All morality is rooted in the conditions of being individuals in societies. Individuals can only act in ways that don't harm significant others. Or face sanctions that are inner (guilt) or outer (some kind of sanction).
Strange that such people are endowed with such a power of discretion: what is the source of this discretion? What is the source of love? What is the source of goodness?
You keep asking the same question and it is the same answer every time. There is no source.
What source created the blind spot we all have in our eyes? It's not a requirement - no engineer would make such a mistake. Squid and Octopi don't have that, by the way. Their eyes are designed better,
Why do humans, who don't lay eggs, produce an empty yolk sack during development? There are dozens of other examples in humans and animals that show that evolution produced us, not some "designer".
Goodness and love are with us because individuals without it tend not to survive as well as those who have those qualities. That's the answer to every one of your questions that you apparently think are wise and insightful. All they actually indicate is a lack of scientific knowledge.
Why don't we just save some time? From now on, you just say "Why?" and we'll answer "Same reason".
The thing is- you don't have answers. Because, seemingly, the theory of evolution created everything in the universe.
Sorry, I don't do this much in forums, but right now I must
Again, you plainly don't understand the theory. Evolution isn't responsible for the Universe - that's physics.
Again. I'd suggest you use the internet to educate yourself, but I suspect that you really don't want to. You think some god did this and that's the only answer your mind is going to accept, right?
I know better. So does most of the world, including most of the religious people. Intelligent Design is not a useful construct and is rightfully ignored by all but a few.
Maybe that pleases you? Some people like it when their ideas are scorned by the majority - perhaps you think this is just a "test" of your faith. It isn't - it's reality, but my suspicion is that you'll never be able to see that.
So be it. Be happy with your "god did it" non-theory. You won't ever add anything to human knowledge with that misconception, but it's a harmless enough error in itself and it probably gives you comfort. It's certainly easy: no need to figure out the whys and hows, no puzzles to solve, it's just "god did it" and close the book. Over and done, just like that.
You are making predictions about a person whom you have never met in real life; and thus, your mouth is providing you the courage to speak nice words which might have driven you to a nice reaction in real life setting.
There are some who worship totems; and there are some folks who worship science. I am not sure where you belong.
From now on, stay out of my face.
I'm not making predictions. I'm guessing. i don't see what "courage" is needed for that - are you threatening me?
I don't "worship" science. That's a silly conjunction of words, actually. Knowledge is not something you "worship", it's something you value.
As to "stay out of your face", no: if you make comments that imply Intelligent Design, I'm going to counter them with actual reality whenever I feel like it.
"Again. I'd suggest you use the internet to educate yourself, but I suspect that you really don't want to. You think some god did this and that's the only answer your mind is going to accept, right?"
-What kind of guess is that Pcunix? Have you ever heard me pushing you in the name of a god? How and why, are you making such filthy guesses around me? I will not guess that you are pretty uncivilized and uneducated to begin with.
When did you hear me implying Intelligent Design? Check the sanity of your brain- there is a disease called 'hallucination'. There is another, more severe, called paranoia.
Ok, why don't you enlighten us then? If you aren't pushing Intelligent Design, then what are you pushing? Is this some silly game where you try to mislead us so you can feign righteous anger and complain that the nasty atheists have once again attacked you viciously?
Or do you think you posses some wisdom that is different from both evolutionary theory and the Intelligent Design arguments? If so, spit it out: I'm sure we'd all love to hear it!
What do you do, when you don't have answer to a question? Do you try to find the answer, or do you make the answer? There are questions that science could not answer. Perhaps it will never be able to answer.
Accept that inability. But don't make science another creed. It makes you as subjective as religion is.
Science DOES have the answer. That's the part you don't understand.
If science could answer those questions, you had never had so many religions in the history of the world. Because you then possessed truth. Do you possess that, when you falter before this question or that?
One is enough- Where does the laws of physics come from?
If you can't answer this question, then please grow some shame and some humility of character.
It didn't "come from". It "is".
You can't "shame" science. There is no faltering here.
For your comprehension, what is the origin of those laws?
I am sure there is no faltering here, only making of answers.
It's funny to watch believers continue a line of irrelevant questioning and only do so in order to substantiate their own faith based fantasy laden beliefs.
A Troubled Man, your newest belief is that I am religious, apart from your belief in science.
We can still have morals because of philosophy, and religion isn't necessary. Some are confuse with philosophy and religion and they often mix their definitions up.
That's amazing, because there are many millions of us without religion and yet just about all of us manage to stay out of prisons and ethical morasses. On the other hand, prisons are chock full of devoutly religious people.
But they usually convert once they are in jail not before. However I do agree we are a moral and conscience being.
Nonsense. They don't suddenly become religious when they enter prison. They may ACT more religious in hopes of early release, but the belief was always there.
Nonsense? And you know this for a fact? Get real.
Maybe it's only true for you. I see how some may do this for early release. However you first stated that prison is full of "devoutly religious people". So which is it...fakes or real religious people?
Who knows? You plainly didn't understand what I wrote and I'm not someone with a lot of patience, but I'll try once more:
Most of our society is religious, yet people still commit crimes and go to prison. Some of those people then profess even greater religious fervor in hopes of clemency.
It is also simple fact that unintelligent people are more likely to be extremely religious. I'm not saying that religious people are unintelligent - the fervor of the lower percentiles is simply because they don't have enough rational ability to counteract superstition. Most intelligent people don't take the Christian Bible literally, for example, because their rational minds know that it can't be true in that sense.
This same class of people is also more likely to commit crimes and far more likely to get caught. Not because they are religious, but because they aren't bright enough to think through the consequences of their actions.
So, yes, our prisons are chock-full of religious people. Not BECAUSE of religion, but because of stupidity, abuse, mental problems, and bad luck.
Ya I'm sure Oprah Winfrey, who declares her belief, is unintelligent.
Again, you willfully misinterpreted what I said.
I did NOT say that intelligent people can't have religious belief.
It's similar to me saying people who don't believe are generally people of less depth. Too much generalizing for me. I like to stick to what I believe and not generalizations.
I however will say it.
Existential intelligence is recognised as one of the 9 intelligences.
Therefore, whatever you say, they are not intelligent in existential intelligence.
They might be great mathematicians or musicians, sportsmen or even chess players. Though they're clearly lacking in 1 of the 9 intelligences.
If you buy into that 9 intelligences. It's a stretch from Emotional Intelligence. My point was only to say that it might be best to stick with what you believe or feel is right instead of generalizating about a certain group of people. Because individuals will varry.
You are incorrect in your proposition. The idea of right and wrong is innate to humans and is molded even stronger through life into the conscience. That way humans could stay moral because of their conscience and affixed morality.
It would probably work pretty much the same as it does not. One doesn't need religion or God to have ethics or morality.
I think of it this way:
If you do something you know is morally wrong and it hurts another person and you feel bad about it, do you feel bad because you are afraid of what God thinks of your actions? I would answer "no", and so would a lot of other people. We can feel bad about our behavior without bringing a judgmental god into the equation.
Those bad feelings can deter us from immoral behavior, which in turn creates a society behaving morally. There would still be bad apples, but those bad apples exist now -- even among God-fearing religious leaders.
The question is not whether religion is entwined with the morality of Western countries, but whether the removal of religion would necessitate the removal of morality. And given the number of countries and culture, now and historically, that had moral code without Christianity and/or with an explicit non-religious basis--I would say yes.
My morality is religious, thus all morality is religious = my dog is white, therefore all dogs are white (the consequentialist fallacy).
A Moral Society Without God or Religion--How Would It Work?
It will result into chaos
You don't think that little things like our own sense of fairness, fear of censure from family and friends and of course our law enforcement folks would keep us from chaos?
Really? You think we need fear of some divine punishment to keep us in check?
Why aren't our jails stuffed with atheists?
Just think how much more corrupt and merciless our society would be if no-one had any fear of repercussion for their actions? Those in prison may say they are religious, but since they didn't practice it, that's probably a good reason why they are in jail. I feel sorry for those that don't believe in a Devine Intelligence guiding them. To think that my only hope is to live this miserable life here and then die and get eaten by the bugs and worms with no hope of an afterlife? Then based on that theory, I should do anything to get all I can get here and now, regardless who or what tries to stand in my way. What would I care? I wouldn't have to face any ultimate punishment. I'm sure with enough money and power, I could bribe or eliminate any opposition on this earth.
It is fear that has created our "corrupt and merciless" society. Perhaps, we should start using reason and logic instead of fear?
Practicing religion has nothing to do with morals and ethics.
Feeling sorry for those who can reason morals and ethics themselves without the need of a mythical holy book telling them how to live makes perfect sense. That would make the Crusades and Inquisitions good things. LOL!
At least you have admitted to believing in an afterlife simply because you want to.
Wow! In other words, you're saying you haven't the capacity to think and reason on your own any morals or ethics whatsoever, and without the fear of an "ultimate punishment" you would actually choose to do bad things.
And, you feel sorry for people who can reason morals and ethics?
There's an absolute fib and a rather disgusting one at that.
@Pcunix - Paarsurrey was referring to Islamic State Prisons.
My Dear Sweet Friend,
The answer you are seeking will be found in the FREE DAY REVOLUTION and the FREE DAY REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT.
It calls for all things to be free unto all mankind
It envision the end of all religions
It states that the Creator is Love, and that we were created from that, therefore we all are Love as well.
It uses tenets of all the major religions of the world to bring about the MOVEMENT to destroy the false god money, allowing us to worship each others as Children of the Creator, Love.
It also has a view of what the world will look like when FREE DAY is established throughout.
Sounds just like another cult on the rise. Wouldn't even give it a second thought. Some kind of Socialist cult.
My Dear Sweet Friend,
You could not be farther from the truth. We Love everyone everyday with as pure a heart as is within us. We teach Love as the solution to all the world social problems. We believe that what the Bible says when it says that God is Love. We try to Love just like the Creator, with purity of heart and completely unconditionally.
We call for all things to be free unto all mankind, and we shall not stop seeking this until it is done or we are no longer here.
We know, without a thread of doubt that Love is the Key, the Way, and the Truth that exists in all mankind.
And, we call for the opening of all prisons, releasing those who are encaged for the sake of money and the things money buys.
Even so, enough about . If you like we will send you our solicitation packet, The Call For Angels. Just contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org
We are a church, the Universal Church In Search Of Christ. We believe that the Christ Spirit is in every and we look for That in all we come in contact with.
We are an Illinois Not-for-Profit 501 c 3 tax exempt organization.
In the final analysis, we are revolutionaries and radicals, not cultist.
Oh no, another dangerous cult that wants to destroy us all.
We know that kind of belief system causes conflict and wars.
We'll need to build more if your cult gets off the ground.
Thanks, but the world does not need more religious fanatics, we need less.
My Dear Sweet Friend,
We seek the end to all religion. We believe in the "worship" of each man, woman, and child as gods. We know that seniors must come first in every aspect of human inteaction if the world is ever to reach its full galactic potential.
We believe in letting the computors, robotics, and other machinery do as much of the labor man now does, as possible.
We seek the end of all unions, whether labor unions or unions of marriage.
We see the world in a "Star Trek" existence where money does not exist, and replication of many things is easily accomplished. Remember the "replicator" on the Star ships?
We believe in the equality of all people, sexes, and economic levels.
We know how to achieve worldwide peace through making all things free unto all mankind.
The simple fact of the matter is that we are not religious whatsoever, it is an insult to us. We are Spiritual, nothing more, nothing less!
And, finally, the Spirit is Love! It is in opposition to the world as it is, being filled with hate. Thus, we expect hate-filled responses.
WHOA! Hold the phone just one minute. Ending religion means ending the worshiping of anything or anyone as well.
I would hope you're able to explain the difference?
Really? I find it deeply puzzling and somewhat disturbing people would start an organization in which they expected hate-filled responses.
That's certainly a deal breaker there.
My Dear Sweet Friend,
Since the age of 5 our life has yearned to work in establishing world peace. Even at that age we saw the cruelty of the word.
The worship of the Creator is done in our daily life. Unlike many other people, we practice worship as a daily living habit. That worship, as should be any other worship, is the daily expressions of Love, seeking to Love everyone everyday, in every way. We seek perfection in Love for all mankind
Worship is not ended, but expanded to include the worshipping of every person on Earth as gods.
You find it puzzling and disturbing that we expect hate-filled responses. Well, it is not easy serving Love, and the purpose of Love. The world is filled with hate. People love and worship the things we make with our hands. They bow down and pray to the dollar symbol. They love money and the things money buys, but they hate their neighbor because of money.
We know that we walk straight into the lions mouth, but we do so knowing that in the end, Love will prevail. No one will take our life, but we lay it down that the world might find Love, peace, forgiveness, and the desire to be charitable.
Who is "we"? Have you got multiple personalities?
Then, you will accomplish nothing but conflict and wars with your new religion.
That doesn't explain why you expect hate-filled responses. All you have done is created a false reality for yourself and are acting upon it. You will accomplish nothing but conflict and wars by doing so, hence the hate-filled responses must be coming your way because YOU are causing them in the first place.
My Dear Sweet Friend,
The opposite of Love is hate. If we live in a world that is RULED by hate, and we enter herein representing Love to the highest degree, what elsen might we expect? Tell us, what else?
If Christ Jesus was hated, what make any one thing that true followers of Christ wouldn receive less?
And, we try not to use "I" , and "Me" or "Mine". This is an expression of Love unto all we encounter. Even more, the FREE DAY REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT, which is what we always represent, is that same MOVEMENT of which the world has ever awaited. So, we represent a multitude of people.
And, in addition, we have many of our immediate family elders telling us we represent the hope of all the world. So, though some misconstrue, and even sometimes get offended, we cannot, or shall we say wI desire not to ever speak of ourself in the singular.
As far as war is concerned, we represent LOVE, PEACE, CHARITY and FORGIVENESS. How might there be was in our presence? The war is with those whose hate-filled acts become glaringly apparent due to the light that Love shines when it enters the world in the Christ Way. Some become angry wanting to put the "do gooder" or "goody two shoe" away from them.
When Light enters the world, darkness is offended.
We hope we answered clearly.
Really? In this case though, the opposite of Love is 'not evangelizing your religion'
We don't live in a world RULED by hate, that is just an irrational belief. We aren't interested in your "Love"
No, the world is not awaiting your movement, quite the contrary in fact.
Your immediate family elders are lying to you.
That's very disturbing.
What you believe is where the war will start as you take action on your movement.
YOU are obviously causing the hate filled acts to originate.
Yes, your movement needs to stop, immediately.
My Dear Sweet Friend,
No. In this case though, the opposite of Love is not evangelizing our Love! Love is not a religion.
My Dear Sweet Friend,
We watch and see what men worship in their daily lives. What they live and die for is that which they worship. And, those things are money and the things money buys. To us, this is hateful. To kill or to give one's life for a thing made by the hands of man is an expression of hate toward life, and all creation. And, this is the "rule of life" for man today. Therefore, indeed, the world is ruled by hate. Whatever else could the continual killing, maiming, torture, encagement, kidnapping, robbery, rape, and murder, including war, why else does it continue unabated throughout time?
Then, you are admitting to having created the hate even though you claimed you were receiving hateful responses. YOU are the ones responsible for the hate and the hateful responses.
You claim to live in a hateful world, but instead are telling us that it is instead YOU how are hating the world around you.
I see little more than paranoia and hatred in your post. Very disturbing. Please seek professional help.
From this point forward, I would appreciate you no longer refer to me as your "Dear Sweet Friend"
My Dear Sweet Friend,
Of course the world and the creatures herein cry out for a change, for salvation from a place, from a world constantly killing without cause. The world has ever awaited, with anticipation, the coming of one who is so close to the Creator.
I am deeply disturbed by that post. I trust you're not in control of any nuclear weapons?
Yes, and we'd hate for the Christian cult to have to compete with yet another cult. How ridiculous their beliefs are, founded on nothing, contradictions galore! Not like Christianity, no, that's perfect!
My Dear Sweet Friend,
We are not sure of the meaning of you comment. Unsure of how to respond.
It was a satirical and sarcastic comment about Christianity, christians, who will readily call something a cult and ridicule their beliefs, but will not understand that the same can apply to them
My Dear Sweet Friend, Of course it will. We bet out life on it!!!
So did Jesus, Mohammed, Methuselah and every other person who ever lived on the face of the Earth....they didn't make it, did they??? Bet anything you like.
My Dear Sweet Friend,
An excellent observation! Indeed, it is our every intention to follow. What do you mean they didn't it? To where?
The final goal of the FREE DAY REVOLUTION is the lifting up of mankind into a higher, more perfect place of living. And, in this lifting up, all the Earth will reap the benefits of mankind finally being at peace with himself, and with the plants, animals, and minerals.
Indeed, we seek to be the second advent of the Christ!
Standard theist argument with standard theist evidence.
My Dear Sweet Friend,
Truly, we believe in a Creator. However, we believe that creation is still occurring. In other words, we believe, too, in evolution. How else might we seek to express Love for plant, animal, and mineral?
In fact, we might be labelled theist only so far as our recognition of all mankind as gods, yourself included. Thus our salutation, "My Dear Sweet Friend".
As far as the Creator is concerned, that Creator is not just God, but is The Great Unknowable That, or the First Principle, or The Infinite Invisible. In other words, we can not know the Creator as One with whom we can place in a box, or in a book. We only know the Creator from what we feel within our very being. Feeling that is strong, and seemingly forever. That, my dear sweet Friend is the feeling of Love that has lighted ever single day of my life!
Since I could not express a better answer I have attached a clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOJeseNJ … ce=message
It is possible to live a moral life without religion, without god; all that is required is a knowledge of right and wrong. Right and wrong can be determined based on lessons from personal and past experiences of others.
By nature, we are born selfish and want to have the best conditions for ourselves. Eventually, we learn that a life in society is the best way to give us that (since each person's strengths can be used to compensate for other people's weaknesses, etc etc), and that makes us want to do everything we can to make it work for everyone, because it's the only way it can work for ourselves. I think it's a pretty logical thought process and faith doesn't have to play a part in it.
Finally--I'm ready to reply! Thanks for the many opportunities to get a glimpse into your beliefs/opinions on the matter. I've taken what I've heard and done my own research and thinking on the matter and created a Hub. If you are interested in my conclusions, please visit. Thanks!
A Moral Society Without God or Religion--How Would It Work?
There cannot be any high morals without the Creator God or the truthful Religion. It will be a selfish society.
Without God, Man would be in an even nastier deeper pile of shit then the one we currently exist within.
Look what the Moral Equivalists, and Atheist Secular Humanists, have done to the moral fiber of our society even today, and the state of decay and degeneration which has resulted in ignoring Gods laws and Moral guidance, and embracing abominations.
Plain to see that Man would kill ourselves, one another, and the world , soon after we killed God.
by SilentReed20 months ago
Can one live a moral life without religion?
by Julie Grimes7 years ago
As written by, and believed by- British philosopher Bertrand Russell. Who wrote the 1927 pamphlet, Why I Am Not A Christian."He writes;"Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is...
by Md. Aseer Jubair Khan Majlish.3 years ago
Can Human live in society without politics?
by pisean2823114 years ago
Many christians claim that bible taught moral values to the world and paved way for civilized world...Do you agree to it or disagree ?
by James Smith5 years ago
http://lewrockwell.com/spl4/improve-soc … itics.htmlAs some of you may know, I'm a libertarian, and naturally believe that politics can only affect change in a limited way. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are rays of...
by lanablackmoor5 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...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.