Originally Posted by JayStar
It isn't exactly that the world would fall into anarchy but I've heard them say that no one would teach their kids right from wrong. Little kids think it's okay to take from other kids, although harmless, it is a start. They need to be guided on a moral path. Should that path come from religion, does it need to? No... not at all.
Sorry, I'm just playing devil's advocate. I agree with you, there would be essentially no change to the world with religion gone. Actually, I see a more productive, intelligent, and aware world.
It's pointless to try and start a thread expecting logical arguments from religious folk, they are by definition illogical people...
Given that religions predates most known human history, I'm not really sure how debatable this topic is. There's not really any frame of reference for comparison, and while many of us can give our own theories, (most of which will disregard all other contributing factors) there's really no way to qualify how logical any particular view is. All that said, I can't sleep, and there's enough stupid responses here to spur some level of temporary interest.
Before I start, this is the last religion-based debate I'll most likely ever participate in. Aside from nitpicking at inaccurate statements, and outright insulting people for lacking any objectivity in their stance, I've never really had all that much to offer this subject. Due to the finality, and partly as a result of my optimistic views of humanity, I do feel the need to make one last appeal for reason and understanding when dealing with the abstract beliefs of others. (Let's just pretend that this is due to some level of benevolence, rather than the undeniable self-infactuation) It goes without saying, however, that this applies to religion in the sense of personal belief, and not in any particular "organized religion". I suppose I understand some level of conformance for the sake of tradition, and perhaps it's a bit arrogant for me to say, but I just don't see a being that powerful concerning itself with the over-inflated importance we give to human rituals established hundreds or thousands of years ago. (Keeping in mind that if there was a divine presence existent since the dawn of time, hundred or thousands of years would become meaningless by comparison)
Personally, I tend to identify as a deist when prompted, not because of any need for a higher power to validate the meaning of my existence, but because of my rejection that time is infinite. I reject the notion due to the fact that it's one of those theories that has the advantage of "proven true only if it happens to be true". Humans have a natural expiration date, and as a result, there is nothing that we could ever observe as having "existed forever": without a start or end. This is significant to the topic of religion, because without the assumption that time is infinite, a start to existence becomes a requirement. Based on the fact that existence itself is too complex for humans to ever fully grasp, the only plausible assumption I can really make is that a force outside of our grasp of understanding was the motivating factor. Whether or not you want to take that to mean, "a higher being" or "God" is up to you, but I thought I should let you in on the fact that my belief in something greater is completely based in my own personal logic.
Now, given that my beliefs subsequently reject any divine intervention, or afterlife, it'd probably be pretty accurate to say that my views fall a bit closer to atheism than theism. Even so, I find it a bit silly that you have this retarded notion of superiority against a group people who believe in something you don't based upon their own life experiences and personal logic. Given your apparent authority on the realm of logic, I thought that you might like to explain how your stance is somehow more logical than theirs. That said, please logically explain to me how your belief in atheism (and subsequently, in time being infinite) isn't based in complete faith in the theories established by a group of physicists who's understanding of some of the more minute details of time somehow gave them unwarranted authority in the subject.
As much fun as skewing statistics and withholding complementary data can be, let's try taking a look at the whole picture real quick. I didn't spend much time reading through your source, mostly because I find no intrinsic value in a biased article that does away with any hint of objectivity. Nonetheless, I'm guessing that it didn't bother mentioning or going into much detail on the regions where "immorality" thrives. It should be noted, however, that the devoutly religious tend to be found in much higher numbers in places where the majority of citizens live well below the poverty line. Interestingly enough, these also happen to be places where the tragedies noted tend the occur in the highest numbers. While I suppose it could be argued that religion is the toxic element involved, I tend to think of it more as an escape from the tragedies of daily living than anything inherently evil.
I did notice that you narrowed the article's argument down to "democracies" near the end, so perhaps you decided to disregard rate of occurrence in your argument. Still, nothing much changes: Religion and "immorality" both thrive as poverty increases. (Prefixing "democracies" with "prosperous" excludes pretty much every existing democracy on this planet, unless you mean "prosperous" by comparison. The problem with that, though, is that it doesn't eliminate the fact that poverty and human rights violations as a result of devaluing human life still exist in these "prosperous" countries) The article you referenced becomes even more inaccurate when you factor in the rate of occurrence of "immorality" as you venture towards more urban environments where economic conditions can vary on a block-by-block basis. For instance, I live in Southern California, which tends to be much more secular and apathetic towards religion than the rest of the country. (A majority, anyways) Despite that fact, you'll probably still find much higher rates of murder, teen pregnancy, rape, and STDs in just the 3 cities neighboring mine than you will in your average Bible-belt state. While most of that is a reflection of the difference in population density, the drastic differences are enough that they disprove much of the misleading article you referenced.
Now as for your actual argument: that our sense of morality is derived solely from our perception of what will make us accepted in society. I suppose if you're so weak-willed an individual that you allow society's status quo to become reflective of what you value, that would end up being true. Personally, my morality is reflective of how much of a joke I can objectively perceive myself to be in doing an act. I'm not delusional enough to think that I'm the exclusion to the standards I hold your average human to, so if I'm going to value something enough to preach the virtues, I can't go against those values without subsequently looking at myself as a, "joke". In your case, if your views accurately reflect how your morality is derived, I highly suggest you start looking into some way of developing some self-reliance and self-respect.
Also, in the future, please don't cheapen a significant real world issue by forcing it into single minded (and preconceived) thinking.
I originally intended to write a response to you after the other two, but the pain of sleep deprivation started to overpower my ability to cognate. At that point, I had no choice but to lay down for a bit, and after spending the last two hours laying awake in bed, mentally writing a five page essay justifying my opposition to nihilism, I just don't have the energy anymore to get into it. I'm not sure if this is true in your case, but most people wouldn't take the time to explain a philosophical concept that they didn't subscribe to. If that assumption proves to be correct for you, I'd be really appreciative if you could repeat that philosophy in the future. (I'd go so far as to ask you to force it where it doesn't belong, simply for the sake of piquing my interest) I did like the way you laid out your explanation, and given how much our (assumed) views contrast on a core level, I could definitely see an interesting debate coming out of it.
Before I start, this is the last religion-based debate I'll most likely ever participate in. Aside from nitpicking at inaccurate statements, and outright insulting people for lacking any objectivity in their stance, I've never really had all that much to offer this subject. Due to the finality, and partly as a result of my optimistic views of humanity, I do feel the need to make one last appeal for reason and understanding when dealing with the abstract beliefs of others. (Let's just pretend that this is due to some level of benevolence, rather than the undeniable self-infactuation) It goes without saying, however, that this applies to religion in the sense of personal belief, and not in any particular "organized religion". I suppose I understand some level of conformance for the sake of tradition, and perhaps it's a bit arrogant for me to say, but I just don't see a being that powerful concerning itself with the over-inflated importance we give to human rituals established hundreds or thousands of years ago. (Keeping in mind that if there was a divine presence existent since the dawn of time, hundred or thousands of years would become meaningless by comparison)
Originally Posted by ImmortalCow
It's pointless to try and start a thread expecting logical arguments from religious folk, they are by definition illogical people...
Personally, I tend to identify as a deist when prompted, not because of any need for a higher power to validate the meaning of my existence, but because of my rejection that time is infinite. I reject the notion due to the fact that it's one of those theories that has the advantage of "proven true only if it happens to be true". Humans have a natural expiration date, and as a result, there is nothing that we could ever observe as having "existed forever": without a start or end. This is significant to the topic of religion, because without the assumption that time is infinite, a start to existence becomes a requirement. Based on the fact that existence itself is too complex for humans to ever fully grasp, the only plausible assumption I can really make is that a force outside of our grasp of understanding was the motivating factor. Whether or not you want to take that to mean, "a higher being" or "God" is up to you, but I thought I should let you in on the fact that my belief in something greater is completely based in my own personal logic.
Now, given that my beliefs subsequently reject any divine intervention, or afterlife, it'd probably be pretty accurate to say that my views fall a bit closer to atheism than theism. Even so, I find it a bit silly that you have this retarded notion of superiority against a group people who believe in something you don't based upon their own life experiences and personal logic. Given your apparent authority on the realm of logic, I thought that you might like to explain how your stance is somehow more logical than theirs. That said, please logically explain to me how your belief in atheism (and subsequently, in time being infinite) isn't based in complete faith in the theories established by a group of physicists who's understanding of some of the more minute details of time somehow gave them unwarranted authority in the subject.
Originally Posted by Sacrafan
In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.
Source
We learn how we need to be in order to be accepted by society the same way a monkey learns it.
If religion takes part in that process or not is irrelevant unless you want to talk about the quality of morals tought with/without religion.
As much fun as skewing statistics and withholding complementary data can be, let's try taking a look at the whole picture real quick. I didn't spend much time reading through your source, mostly because I find no intrinsic value in a biased article that does away with any hint of objectivity. Nonetheless, I'm guessing that it didn't bother mentioning or going into much detail on the regions where "immorality" thrives. It should be noted, however, that the devoutly religious tend to be found in much higher numbers in places where the majority of citizens live well below the poverty line. Interestingly enough, these also happen to be places where the tragedies noted tend the occur in the highest numbers. While I suppose it could be argued that religion is the toxic element involved, I tend to think of it more as an escape from the tragedies of daily living than anything inherently evil.
I did notice that you narrowed the article's argument down to "democracies" near the end, so perhaps you decided to disregard rate of occurrence in your argument. Still, nothing much changes: Religion and "immorality" both thrive as poverty increases. (Prefixing "democracies" with "prosperous" excludes pretty much every existing democracy on this planet, unless you mean "prosperous" by comparison. The problem with that, though, is that it doesn't eliminate the fact that poverty and human rights violations as a result of devaluing human life still exist in these "prosperous" countries) The article you referenced becomes even more inaccurate when you factor in the rate of occurrence of "immorality" as you venture towards more urban environments where economic conditions can vary on a block-by-block basis. For instance, I live in Southern California, which tends to be much more secular and apathetic towards religion than the rest of the country. (A majority, anyways) Despite that fact, you'll probably still find much higher rates of murder, teen pregnancy, rape, and STDs in just the 3 cities neighboring mine than you will in your average Bible-belt state. While most of that is a reflection of the difference in population density, the drastic differences are enough that they disprove much of the misleading article you referenced.
Now as for your actual argument: that our sense of morality is derived solely from our perception of what will make us accepted in society. I suppose if you're so weak-willed an individual that you allow society's status quo to become reflective of what you value, that would end up being true. Personally, my morality is reflective of how much of a joke I can objectively perceive myself to be in doing an act. I'm not delusional enough to think that I'm the exclusion to the standards I hold your average human to, so if I'm going to value something enough to preach the virtues, I can't go against those values without subsequently looking at myself as a, "joke". In your case, if your views accurately reflect how your morality is derived, I highly suggest you start looking into some way of developing some self-reliance and self-respect.
Also, in the future, please don't cheapen a significant real world issue by forcing it into single minded (and preconceived) thinking.
Originally Posted by GoodBox
I'm probably not going to contribute to the discussion outside of this. But the correct statement of this common argument is that without religion there would be no justification for the existence of morals. Not that there would be no morals in existence.
There's a key difference between the two. One implies a philosophical nihilism. The other, common misinterpretation, implies the "chaos and disorder" to which you refer. Modern day theists active in this debate argue the first point, and typically agree that even without religion the world would exist under relative order with subjective morals.
Also my information was obtained by conferences in real life. Hence, I have no source to link for further reading or validation. However, my claims are shared by the third paragraph of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism. Which has it's own sources.
I originally intended to write a response to you after the other two, but the pain of sleep deprivation started to overpower my ability to cognate. At that point, I had no choice but to lay down for a bit, and after spending the last two hours laying awake in bed, mentally writing a five page essay justifying my opposition to nihilism, I just don't have the energy anymore to get into it. I'm not sure if this is true in your case, but most people wouldn't take the time to explain a philosophical concept that they didn't subscribe to. If that assumption proves to be correct for you, I'd be really appreciative if you could repeat that philosophy in the future. (I'd go so far as to ask you to force it where it doesn't belong, simply for the sake of piquing my interest) I did like the way you laid out your explanation, and given how much our (assumed) views contrast on a core level, I could definitely see an interesting debate coming out of it.
Last edited by Juntalis; May 22, 2013 at 12:33 AM.
Originally Posted by Karl Marx
If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist.
Cool thing about Karl Marx quotes is how blatantly judgmental they are, coupled with the fact that they were spread across so many subjects. If you look hard enough, you're pretty much guaranteed to find something clever and offensive to the group you target.
Edit: Also, thanks for providing some context to my 7-8 paragraph post on how retarded it is to write off entire groups of people or to approach things with one-sided thinking. I didn't realize I could achieve the same impact with a single biased quote.
Last edited by Juntalis; May 22, 2013 at 01:03 AM.
My post was rather poorly worded and I apologize for that.
The first lines of my post were quotes from the article I linked. I am aware that it is scientificially rather controversial and therefore not of objective value. I chose to ignore that because it is irrelevant for the question of this thread, if religion is essential for ethics and morals.
I merely tried to establish that ethical behaviour and religion don't go hand in hand.
Now to your response to my actual point: I generalized blatantly, mainly because this topic is not very interesting to me.
When I said we learn how we should behave in order to be accepted by society I was refering to Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development which I find to be somewhat accurate.
We obviously have more cognitive abilities to process our surroundings and create an ethical understanding than monkeys do. Our environment does provide what we need in order to form morals and therefore they are reflections of what we perceive.
We can derive our ethical norms from more sophisticated standards once we learned the basics but those norms are dependent (with exceptions of course) on what we were tought through various means.
The first lines of my post were quotes from the article I linked. I am aware that it is scientificially rather controversial and therefore not of objective value. I chose to ignore that because it is irrelevant for the question of this thread, if religion is essential for ethics and morals.
I merely tried to establish that ethical behaviour and religion don't go hand in hand.
Now to your response to my actual point: I generalized blatantly, mainly because this topic is not very interesting to me.
When I said we learn how we should behave in order to be accepted by society I was refering to Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development which I find to be somewhat accurate.
We obviously have more cognitive abilities to process our surroundings and create an ethical understanding than monkeys do. Our environment does provide what we need in order to form morals and therefore they are reflections of what we perceive.
We can derive our ethical norms from more sophisticated standards once we learned the basics but those norms are dependent (with exceptions of course) on what we were tought through various means.
nigerian PM
