First of all, what references? also, you presume to put limitations on what God can and cannot be? For shameNot true. Jehovah's Witnesses do not teach the trinity. The teach against it. The trinity was a creation of the early Catholic Church, based on a misinterpretation of John 1:1 which really says- "The word was with God," as opposed to "The word WAS God." Not to mention the references to the Archangel Michael, who is Jesus in heavenly form. Michael can't be God AND Jesus.
hartsickdiscipl
Morals without God?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
non-believes have morals because they copy morals from other religions that think is "ok" without giving credit to them.alexside1I find that there are severe flaws in most major religions. Even when I do think a religion is right, I do not abide by that commandment because that religion says so, especially when it fails to give any proof to back itself up. I act good because I try to think the logic through my actions to see if it is beneficial to myself. Man should be against a religion if that religion is against man. Most religions don't consider man, but instead focus on worshiping a higher power.
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
I have never been taught nor believed that Christ was God. He was God's son.. an Agent of God. Certainly not God himself.
hartsickdiscipl
The Holy Trinity, look it up. Pretty much all of Christianty teaches it.
Not true. Jehovah's Witnesses do not teach the trinity. They teach against it. The trinity was a creation of the early Catholic Church, based on a misinterpretation of John 1:1 which really says- "The word was with God," as opposed to "The word WAS God." Not to mention the references to the Archangel Michael, who is Jesus in heavenly form. Michael can't be God AND Jesus.
I said "pretty much all", which is another way of saying "most". That one branch doesn't teach this doctrine does not take away from the fact that most adhirants of the religion do teach it.
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
[QUOTE="xaos"] Back at yousSubZerOo
Like I said, it's not that hard to figure out that there would be situations not covered in Mosaic Law. Not everything was punishable by death.
How is that possible? How can Mosaic Law not cover everything? Its God's laws.. God is perfect.. Either Mosaic Law is not the words of god.. Or god is not perfect.. You take your pick.
That's a ridiculous assumption. I'm not even going to dignify that with a response.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
Like I said, it's not that hard to figure out that there would be situations not covered in Mosaic Law. Not everything was punishable by death.
hartsickdiscipl
How is that possible? How can Mosaic Law not cover everything? Its God's laws.. God is perfect.. Either Mosaic Law is not the words of god.. Or god is not perfect.. You take your pick.
That's a ridiculous assumption. I'm not even going to dignify that with a response.
You just did dignify that with a response, so you might as well answer it.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
Like I said, it's not that hard to figure out that there would be situations not covered in Mosaic Law. Not everything was punishable by death.
hartsickdiscipl
How is that possible? How can Mosaic Law not cover everything? Its God's laws.. God is perfect.. Either Mosaic Law is not the words of god.. Or god is not perfect.. You take your pick.
That's a ridiculous assumption. I'm not even going to dignify that with a response.
... What assumption? That if one were to make laws to abide for your entire life that they should include every single relatable offense out there? I mean we only have our entire legal system based around this... Guess god just didn't have enough time to "write" them out.
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
How is that possible? How can Mosaic Law not cover everything? Its God's laws.. God is perfect.. Either Mosaic Law is not the words of god.. Or god is not perfect.. You take your pick.
sSubZerOo
That's a ridiculous assumption. I'm not even going to dignify that with a response.
... What assumption? That if one were to make laws to abide for your entire life that they should include every single relatable offense out there? I mean we only have our entire legal system based around this... Guess god just didn't have enough time to "write" them out.
Well, He knew that hartsick would come along to set everyone straight
[QUOTE="alexside1"]non-believes have morals because they copy morals from other religions that think is "ok" without giving credit to them.Genetic_CodeI find that there are severe flaws in most major religions. Even when I do think a religion is right, I do not abide by that commandment because that religion says so, especially when it fails to give any proof to back itself up. I act good because I try to think the logic through my actions to see if it is beneficial to myself. Man should be against a religion if that religion is against man. Most religions don't consider man, but instead focus on worshiping a higher power. I never said that religion is original. I just find it BS that militant-atheist always criticized religion for being copies, while they get their morals from them.
[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"][QUOTE="alexside1"]non-believes have morals because they copy morals from other religions that think is "ok" without giving credit to them.alexside1I find that there are severe flaws in most major religions. Even when I do think a religion is right, I do not abide by that commandment because that religion says so, especially when it fails to give any proof to back itself up. I act good because I try to think the logic through my actions to see if it is beneficial to myself. Man should be against a religion if that religion is against man. Most religions don't consider man, but instead focus on worshiping a higher power. I never said that religion is original. I just find it BS that militant-atheist always criticized religion for being copies, while they get their morals from them.
We get our morals from society.. Religion plays a part but so do many things.. :| I guess people don't realize the capitalist model and charging interest during the middle ages were seen as a sin that would lead to severe punishment with in Christian society.
I never said that religion is original. I just find it BS that militant-atheist always criticized religion for being copies, while they get their morals from them.[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="Genetic_Code"] I find that there are severe flaws in most major religions. Even when I do think a religion is right, I do not abide by that commandment because that religion says so, especially when it fails to give any proof to back itself up. I act good because I try to think the logic through my actions to see if it is beneficial to myself. Man should be against a religion if that religion is against man. Most religions don't consider man, but instead focus on worshiping a higher power.sSubZerOo
We get our morals from society.. Religion plays a part but so do many things.. :| I guess people don't realize the capitalist model and charging interest during the middle ages were seen as a sin that would lead to severe punishment with in Christian society.
I never said anything about Christianity or Christian society in this entire thread. What are you trying to do here?That's such a cop-out. By that logic, we can't question society. We just have to accept what society prescribes for us. That is just an excuse not to use logic when determining right and wrong, but to resort to the masses.We get our morals from society.. Religion plays a part but so do many things.. :| I guess people don't realize the capitalist model and charging interest during the middle ages were seen as a sin that would lead to severe punishment with in Christian society.
sSubZerOo
But it is the business of the people doing the stoning, despite them not being involved in the alleged offense? :roll:[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="GazaAli"] It does not make you intolerant or whatever, its just not your business.GazaAli
well did not expect this from you. Yes it is since they are living in one society. Societies have their own social norms and laws that people should adhere to. If Iranians don't like Iran they get out of it, just like when Gazans don't like Gaza they get out of it and live happily ever after. Because by this logic, extremists and some other factions of Muslims should launch a full-scale attack on the US for the widespread of Bikinis and booze, which is also absurd to me.
Yeah, bikinis are really killing people...
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
He would follow God's law and do what he was told to do.
hartsickdiscipl
Hence when he turned the mob back from stoning the adultress huh?
Case by case basis. Not to mention that Jesus was an agent of the most high himself. I think he had a bit more latitude than we do.
Jesus worked for Snoop Dogg?[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="alexside1"] I never said that religion is original. I just find it BS that militant-atheist always criticized religion for being copies, while they get their morals from them.alexside1
We get our morals from society.. Religion plays a part but so do many things.. :| I guess people don't realize the capitalist model and charging interest during the middle ages were seen as a sin that would lead to severe punishment with in Christian society.
I never said anything about Christianity or Christian society in this entire thread. What are you trying to do here?Pointing out that religion has little to do with it, its the society in its needs.. During times the capitalist model and charging interest was seen as sin.. This changed later on as society developed and became acceptable.. The point of the matter is religion does not create the base line morals that run societies today, the society does as it evolves.. It should OBVIOUS why it would be a good idea to make murder unacceptable.. Security would be nonexistent, neighbors would not be able to get the kind of communication and agreement amongst one another if they were worried that their neighbor would kill them for their land..
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
The intial wrong and violation of the marriage arrangement has to be answered.
hartsickdiscipl
With divorce, by the party wronged. Not by other people in whom it is none of their business.
That just goes to show that you don't think the adultery was as serious an offense as I do.
Most don't believe a civil dispute is on the same platform as murder, rape, and child molestation.
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"][QUOTE="worlock77"]
Hence when he turned the mob back from stoning the adultress huh?
StopThePresses
Case by case basis. Not to mention that Jesus was an agent of the most high himself. I think he had a bit more latitude than we do.
Jesus worked for Snoop Dogg?I gotta admit, I lol'ed.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]That's such a cop-out. By that logic, we can't question society. We just have to accept what society prescribes for us. That is just an excuse not to use logic when determining right and wrong, but to resort to the masses.We get our morals from society.. Religion plays a part but so do many things.. :| I guess people don't realize the capitalist model and charging interest during the middle ages were seen as a sin that would lead to severe punishment with in Christian society.
Genetic_Code
:| No you don't, you can question society all you want.. That how things CHANGE and adapt within society.. If we never questioned society then slavery would still exist to this day.. Society is not some moral unquestionable figure like god, but its ultimately a huge make up of how you grow into things.. If your grow up around a society in which you value a patriachal society.. Chances are your going feel uncomfortable in a society in which women are incontrol of the mass amount of things.. And sorry to say thats usually how things occur.. Society in general dictates what is right and wrong as it goes.. If you ask some one form the 1700s US chances are they will have a positive aspect on seeing slavery as moral and acceptable..
Socrates one of the founding fathers of modern day logic in many areas said some pretty "illogical" things from what we have seen today.. Such as his opinion on women..
[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"][QUOTE="alexside1"]non-believes have morals because they copy morals from other religions that think is "ok" without giving credit to them.alexside1I find that there are severe flaws in most major religions. Even when I do think a religion is right, I do not abide by that commandment because that religion says so, especially when it fails to give any proof to back itself up. I act good because I try to think the logic through my actions to see if it is beneficial to myself. Man should be against a religion if that religion is against man. Most religions don't consider man, but instead focus on worshiping a higher power. I never said that religion is original. I just find it BS that militant-atheist always criticized religion for being copies, while they get their morals from them. Religion derives its morals from what people want in the first place, so this is a rather arbitrary criticism. Mainstream Christianity of today is generally a lot different from mainstream Christianity of 500 years ago. Cultural norms have changed, and religious interpretations have followed suit.
I never said that religion is original. I just find it BS that militant-atheist always criticized religion for being copies, while they get their morals from them.alexside1
There is so much I could say about religion. I could go on and on over so many different aspects. I could thank my parents for raising me well, but I don't think that would lead me anywhere. Bottom line, religion has nothing to do with my morals. I also believe that basing your morals on religion, even in part, is wrong. Religion talks about morals, but religion is not the source of morality. Our brain is the source of morality, and everything that interacts with it. You may think religion brings morality because it gives a reason for doing some things, but that's what influences morality, the explanation, not religion itself.
[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="Genetic_Code"] I find that there are severe flaws in most major religions. Even when I do think a religion is right, I do not abide by that commandment because that religion says so, especially when it fails to give any proof to back itself up. I act good because I try to think the logic through my actions to see if it is beneficial to myself. Man should be against a religion if that religion is against man. Most religions don't consider man, but instead focus on worshiping a higher power.StopThePressesI never said that religion is original. I just find it BS that militant-atheist always criticized religion for being copies, while they get their morals from them. Religion derives its morals from what people want in the first place, so this is a rather arbitrary criticism. Mainstream Christianity of today is generally a lot different from mainstream Christianity of 500 years ago. Cultural norms have changed, and religious interpretations have followed suit.
You would think people would realize this especially when we are seeing a changing social issue over the past few decades when it comes to gays.. In which gays are becoming morally and socially acceptable as a lifestyle that no one should judge them for..
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
When was that?
hartsickdiscipl
Again - "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." As you, nor any other person is without sin then no one should cast that stone.
I'm sure that was referring to situations not specifically covered in Mosaic law. It's not that hard to figure that out. You're just looking for angles to try to justify your way of thinking.
You're basically trying to convince yourself it's okay to murder someone.
Whenever you are met with a something thats shows you it's not okay, you try to change your reasoning.
I agree on Socrates. Aristotle, for example, didn't consider slaves to be persons.:| No you don't, you can question society all you want.. That how things CHANGE and adapt within society.. If we never questioned society then slavery would still exist to this day.. Society is not some moral unquestionable figure like god, but its ultimately a huge make up of how you grow into things.. If your grow up around a society in which you value a patriachal society.. Chances are your going feel uncomfortable in a society in which women are incontrol of the mass amount of things.. And sorry to say thats usually how things occur.. Society in general dictates what is right and wrong as it goes.. If you ask some one form the 1700s US chances are they will have a positive aspect on seeing slavery as moral and acceptable..
Socrates one of the founding fathers of modern day logic in many areas said some pretty "illogical" things from what we have seen today.. Such as his opinion on women..
sSubZerOo
As for the rest of your post, what if there is something wrong with current society? Do you think society will just change on its own? I think allowing society to change by itself is dangerous and relativistic. There is no objectivity to why you think something's right and wrong, because it's dependent upon what society believes which is always in a flux.
Are you a moral relativist?
[QUOTE="alexside1"]I never said that religion is original. I just find it BS that militant-atheist always criticized religion for being copies, while they get their morals from them.bloodling
There is so much I could say about religion. I could go on and on over so many different aspects. I could thank my parents for raising me well, but I don't think that would lead me anywhere. Bottom line, religion has nothing to do with my morals. I also believe that basing your morals on religion, even in part, is wrong. Religion talks about morals, but religion is not the source of morality. Our brain is the source of morality, and everything that interacts with it. You may think religion brings morality because it gives a reason for doing some things, but that's what influences morality, the explanation, not religion itself.
Will you quit assuming so much from me, when I criticized militate atheist?[QUOTE="bloodling"][QUOTE="alexside1"]I never said that religion is original. I just find it BS that militant-atheist always criticized religion for being copies, while they get their morals from them.alexside1
There is so much I could say about religion. I could go on and on over so many different aspects. I could thank my parents for raising me well, but I don't think that would lead me anywhere. Bottom line, religion has nothing to do with my morals. I also believe that basing your morals on religion, even in part, is wrong. Religion talks about morals, but religion is not the source of morality. Our brain is the source of morality, and everything that interacts with it. You may think religion brings morality because it gives a reason for doing some things, but that's what influences morality, the explanation, not religion itself.
Will you quit assuming so much from me, when I criticized militate atheist?What exactly did I assume? I'm just giving my opinion, while pointing out that you are wrong.
Will you quit assuming so much from me, when I criticized militate atheist?[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="bloodling"]
There is so much I could say about religion. I could go on and on over so many different aspects. I could thank my parents for raising me well, but I don't think that would lead me anywhere. Bottom line, religion has nothing to do with my morals. I also believe that basing your morals on religion, even in part, is wrong. Religion talks about morals, but religion is not the source of morality. Our brain is the source of morality, and everything that interacts with it. You may think religion brings morality because it gives a reason for doing some things, but that's what influences morality, the explanation, not religion itself.
bloodling
What exactly did I assume? I'm just giving my opinion, while pointing out that you are wrong.
Pointed what wrong? I never said that ALL militant atheist ( or rather just plain atheist) get their morals from religion. Just make an observation about some of them and showing their BS.[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"][QUOTE="super_mario_128"] Well my point was that fear of eternal punishment isn't the only thing preventing people from acting on their primal urges. And it does benefit to have certain religious doctrines dictated by law, as a means of establishing order. Others, not so much.wstfldMy point was that many of the laws created were originally formed based on the belief that a God/Gods were the ones mandating them.. How can we possibly know that? Because Ancient Egyptian Pharaohs formed their laws based on this belief..the Mesopotamian's did the same..and these are some of the first known civilizations..the oldest recorded works from these civilizations both mention Gods and how they created us..they both had rulers who were believed to be divinely inspired/appointed by the gods...later on we see the spread of Christianity in Europe (Christianity in its many forms) and the belief stays the same...the kings were believed to be divinely inspired/placed in the position of ruler by God or the Gods..and in Rome the emperor was believed to be divinely inspired Hence, it follows that these rulers were believed to be doing the work/works of God/the Gods.....and in the middle east the Ottomans who were Muslims had their laws created based on their religious law..in early America our set of morals were based on/are still based on the Judeo-Christian system of beliefs..
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]I agree on Socrates. Aristotle, for example, didn't consider slaves to be persons. As for the rest of your post, what if there is something wrong with current society? Do you think society will just change on its own? I think allowing society to change by itself is dangerous and relativistic. There is no objectivity to why you think something's right and wrong, because it's dependent upon what society believes which is always in a flux.:| No you don't, you can question society all you want.. That how things CHANGE and adapt within society.. If we never questioned society then slavery would still exist to this day.. Society is not some moral unquestionable figure like god, but its ultimately a huge make up of how you grow into things.. If your grow up around a society in which you value a patriachal society.. Chances are your going feel uncomfortable in a society in which women are incontrol of the mass amount of things.. And sorry to say thats usually how things occur.. Society in general dictates what is right and wrong as it goes.. If you ask some one form the 1700s US chances are they will have a positive aspect on seeing slavery as moral and acceptable..
Socrates one of the founding fathers of modern day logic in many areas said some pretty "illogical" things from what we have seen today.. Such as his opinion on women..
Genetic_Code
.. What I think is irrelevent.. Society does change, it always changing.. Rather it has to do with new inventions, the economic situation, or numerous other events that occur.. And no there really isn't because the things I see immoral today, can be seen as moral back then.. Anthropology and historagraphy revolve around this..
I agree on Socrates. Aristotle, for example, didn't consider slaves to be persons.[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
:| No you don't, you can question society all you want.. That how things CHANGE and adapt within society.. If we never questioned society then slavery would still exist to this day.. Society is not some moral unquestionable figure like god, but its ultimately a huge make up of how you grow into things.. If your grow up around a society in which you value a patriachal society.. Chances are your going feel uncomfortable in a society in which women are incontrol of the mass amount of things.. And sorry to say thats usually how things occur.. Society in general dictates what is right and wrong as it goes.. If you ask some one form the 1700s US chances are they will have a positive aspect on seeing slavery as moral and acceptable..
Socrates one of the founding fathers of modern day logic in many areas said some pretty "illogical" things from what we have seen today.. Such as his opinion on women..
Genetic_Code
As for the rest of your post, what if there is something wrong with current society? Do you think society will just change on its own? I think allowing society to change by itself is dangerous and relativistic. There is no objectivity to why you think something's right and wrong, because it's dependent upon what society believes which is always in a flux.
Are you a moral relativist?
Or... beliefs on the best way of achieving what society wants is in flux, but the goal remains the same.How can we possibly know that? Because Ancient Egyptian Pharaohs formed their laws based on this belief..the Mesopotamian's did the same..and these are some of the first known civilizations..the oldest recorded works from these civilizations both mention Gods and how they created us..they both had rulers who were believed to be divinely inspired/appointed by the gods...later on we see the spread of Christianity in Europe (Christianity in its many forms) and the belief stays the same...the kings were believed to be divinely inspired/placed in the position of ruler by God or the Gods..and in Rome the emperor was believed to be divinely inspired Hence, it follows that these rulers were believed to be doing the work/works of God/the Gods.....and in the middle east the Ottomans who were Muslims had their laws created based on their religious law..in early America our set of morals were based on/are still based on the Judeo-Christian system of beliefs..[QUOTE="wstfld"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"] My point was that many of the laws created were originally formed based on the belief that a God/Gods were the ones mandating them..Xx_Hopeless_xX
.. Their beliefs are a way of a life.. How can you objectively declare that they are clearly religious based? When really anything ran in the life they saw in a religious light? The accepting of divorce of marriages was made a divine right for people centuries later from the inception of the religion.. Don't tell me.. God forgot that and whispered it to some ones sleep centures later..:| It had nothing to do with an inconvience given by the royalty and nobility of the era..
Holy crap, this thread exploded with a hundred fifty new replies in the span of two hours. How fun! I just got to reading the "I think stoning adulterers is pretty okay" part. This is going to be a great (horrible) thread. Scuse me while I read the rest.
Holy crap, this thread exploded with a hundred fifty new replies in the span of two hours. How fun! I just got to reading the "I think stoning adulterers is pretty okay" part. This is going to be a great (horrible) thread. Scuse me while I read the rest.
TreebucketLumi
People get cranky when others declare their religion is some how the moral superiority in which all their beliefs and ideas some how came from.
Because Ancient Egyptian Pharaohs formed their laws based on this belief..the Mesopotamian's did the same..and these are some of the first known civilizations..the oldest recorded works from these civilizations both mention Gods and how they created us..they both had rulers who were believed to be divinely inspired/appointed by the gods...later on we see the spread of Christianity in Europe (Christianity in its many forms) and the belief stays the same...the kings were believed to be divinely inspired/placed in the position of ruler by God or the Gods..and in Rome the emperor was believed to be divinely inspired Hence, it follows that these rulers were believed to be doing the work/works of God/the Gods.....and in the middle east the Ottomans who were Muslims had their laws created based on their religious law..in early America our set of morals were based on/are still based on the Judeo-Christian system of beliefs..[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]
[QUOTE="wstfld"] How can we possibly know that?sSubZerOo
.. Their beliefs are a way of a life.. How can you objectively declare that they are clearly religious based? When really anything ran in the life they saw in a religious light? The accepting of divorce of marriages was made a divine right for people centuries later from the inception of the religion.. Don't tell me.. God forgot that and whispered it to some ones sleep centures later..:| It had nothing to do with an inconvience given by the royalty and nobility of the era..
So you disagree on the point that rulers used their religious beliefs to help create laws as well as citizens believing that the king was divinely inspired hence his word was the word of the God/Gods that were worshiped by the peoples at the time?..Or are you trying to disprove Christianity in regards to my statement..? Because that statement was not about Christianity inspiring every law in every civilization..[QUOTE="bloodling"][QUOTE="alexside1"] Will you quit assuming so much from me, when I criticized militate atheist?alexside1
What exactly did I assume? I'm just giving my opinion, while pointing out that you are wrong.
Pointed what wrong? I never said that ALL militant atheist ( or rather just plain atheist) get their morals from religion. Just make an observation about some of them and showing their BS.I never said that's what you said or assumed either. You did say that atheists get their morals from religion, and I gave you a detailed explanation over this. Whether you were talking about one or all atheists doesn't change anything.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"] Because Ancient Egyptian Pharaohs formed their laws based on this belief..the Mesopotamian's did the same..and these are some of the first known civilizations..the oldest recorded works from these civilizations both mention Gods and how they created us..they both had rulers who were believed to be divinely inspired/appointed by the gods...later on we see the spread of Christianity in Europe (Christianity in its many forms) and the belief stays the same...the kings were believed to be divinely inspired/placed in the position of ruler by God or the Gods..and in Rome the emperor was believed to be divinely inspired Hence, it follows that these rulers were believed to be doing the work/works of God/the Gods.....and in the middle east the Ottomans who were Muslims had their laws created based on their religious law..in early America our set of morals were based on/are still based on the Judeo-Christian system of beliefs..
Xx_Hopeless_xX
.. Their beliefs are a way of a life.. How can you objectively declare that they are clearly religious based? When really anything ran in the life they saw in a religious light? The accepting of divorce of marriages was made a divine right for people centuries later from the inception of the religion.. Don't tell me.. God forgot that and whispered it to some ones sleep centures later..:| It had nothing to do with an inconvience given by the royalty and nobility of the era..
So you disagree on the point that rulers used their religious beliefs to help create laws as well as citizens believing that the king was divinely inspired hence his word was the word of the God/Gods that were worshiped by the peoples at the time?..Or are you trying to disprove Christianity in regards to my statement..? Because that statement was not about Christianity inspiring every law in every civilization..No I am pointing out that rulers had real secular reasons to why they wanted certain laws enforced, and to have the population go with it.. They declared it was by the word of god.. Just like divorce was.. In which the Tudors broke off from the Catholic Church and declared making themselves the divine authority of their country.. Why you say? Because Henry the 8th needed a divorce to see if he can have a male heir to the throne..
So you disagree on the point that rulers used their religious beliefs to help create laws as well as citizens believing that the king was divinely inspired hence his word was the word of the God/Gods that were worshiped by the peoples at the time?..Or are you trying to disprove Christianity in regards to my statement..? Because that statement was not about Christianity inspiring every law in every civilization..[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
.. Their beliefs are a way of a life.. How can you objectively declare that they are clearly religious based? When really anything ran in the life they saw in a religious light? The accepting of divorce of marriages was made a divine right for people centuries later from the inception of the religion.. Don't tell me.. God forgot that and whispered it to some ones sleep centures later..:| It had nothing to do with an inconvience given by the royalty and nobility of the era..
sSubZerOo
No I am pointing out that rulers had real secular reasons to why they wanted certain laws enforced, and to have the population go with it.. They declared it was by the word of god.. Just like divorce was.. In which the Tudors broke off from the Catholic Church and declared making themselves the divine authority of their country.. Why you say? Because Henry the 8th needed a divorce to see if he can have a male heir to the throne..
Ok?...So you're saying that because SOME laws were enforced due to secular reasons..in apparently every case..that as a result no laws were brought about by religious beliefs..?
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"] So you disagree on the point that rulers used their religious beliefs to help create laws as well as citizens believing that the king was divinely inspired hence his word was the word of the God/Gods that were worshiped by the peoples at the time?..Or are you trying to disprove Christianity in regards to my statement..? Because that statement was not about Christianity inspiring every law in every civilization..Xx_Hopeless_xX
No I am pointing out that rulers had real secular reasons to why they wanted certain laws enforced, and to have the population go with it.. They declared it was by the word of god.. Just like divorce was.. In which the Tudors broke off from the Catholic Church and declared making themselves the divine authority of their country.. Why you say? Because Henry the 8th needed a divorce to see if he can have a male heir to the throne..
Ok?...So you're saying that because SOME laws were enforced due to secular reasons..in apparently every case..that as a result no laws were brought about by religious beliefs..?You have yet to prove this.. We have evidence of quite a few rulers declaring they are the will of god in passing laws, we have no evidence of god ever talking to a human being.
I simply mean atheistic as in "without God," not the specific type of morals any particular atheist has. Without God all morality is subjective (except perhaps utilitarianism), and I personally think that those morals would not mean anywhere near as much as morals which come from God.[QUOTE="Acemaster27"][QUOTE="TreebucketLumi"]
This is a complete non-statement. "Atheistic morality?" There is no unifying atheist moral philosophy. An atheist can believe in the exact same moral rules a religious person believes in.
MrGeezer
Wrong.
Observe ants, birds, fish, wolves, etc.
Essentially ANY social species exhibits something which can be seen as a "moral code". And they don't worship gods.
Morality isn't a result of gods, it is a result of SOCIETY (or...a prerequisite to society). And that means a WHOLE lot, since morality then becomes a basic survival mechanism, like pooping or eating.
Wrong.
A society's morality is still subjective in so far as it is culturally relative to other societies. You can't generalise it to a particular species. I agree with you though that morality is a societal construct. But that does not provide a basis for an absolute morality.
In fact, if morality is merely a moral construct, surely, objectively speaking, there is no such thing as right and wrong at all, only what we can claim to be right and wrong through the influences of living, and desiring to live, in an ordered society.
Ok?...So you're saying that because SOME laws were enforced due to secular reasons..in apparently every case..that as a result no laws were brought about by religious beliefs..?[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
No I am pointing out that rulers had real secular reasons to why they wanted certain laws enforced, and to have the population go with it.. They declared it was by the word of god.. Just like divorce was.. In which the Tudors broke off from the Catholic Church and declared making themselves the divine authority of their country.. Why you say? Because Henry the 8th needed a divorce to see if he can have a male heir to the throne..
sSubZerOo
You have yet to prove this.. We have evidence of quite a few rulers declaring they are the will of god in passing laws, we have no evidence of god ever talking to a human being.
Due to their RELIGIOUS beliefs..in which they used to come up with the laws...And they stated that they were acting in the name of whatever God they believed in..hence, religion helped form laws...who knows what would have happened had they just mandated whatever they wanted without any "divine" inspiration or what have you..
Do you think they were just sitting on their throne one day then all of a sudden thought "Hmm...This law sounds like a good idea..i've never heard of anything to do with it..my religious set of morals/beliefs have nothing to do with it..let's make it the law of my civilization"?..
I can't believe the number of people here who say things like: "Morals are the creation of society.. not religion." Umm.. guys and gals.. Society has always had religion as the driving force teaching us morals. Since the very beginning of recorded history. So much so that even those who claim not to believe in God, and don't practice any religion are heavily-influenced by the religiously permeated world around them. They are religiously influenced without even realizing it. Nobody said that our religions were perfect, but don't deny the obvious.
Early man was visited by (or created by) extraterrestrials who gave us a code of conduct to live by. Humans thousands of years ago had a very primitive technological frame of reference for what they were seeing, so they decided that these advanced E.T.'s must be Gods. Men wrote down what they saw and heard, and these writings turned into what we know as "holy books." Truth be told, if they do have the power to resurrect the dead after days, weeks, even years.. I can't say that they're not Gods in comparison to us.
After years of studying the Bible, and more recent studies of ancient cultures and religions around the world.. I can come to no other conclusion. The mainstream way of thinking and teaching that all these old stories are some sort of illustrative myths is not very scientific, especially when you see how strikingly similar these creation and God stories from around the world are. People living thousands of years ago, supposedly having no contact with each other.. coming up with the same basic stories? Sounds more like shared experience than storytelling.
hartsickdiscipl
are you joking?
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]Ok?...So you're saying that because SOME laws were enforced due to secular reasons..in apparently every case..that as a result no laws were brought about by religious beliefs..?
Xx_Hopeless_xX
You have yet to prove this.. We have evidence of quite a few rulers declaring they are the will of god in passing laws, we have no evidence of god ever talking to a human being.
Due to their RELIGIOUS beliefs..in which they used to come up with the laws...And they stated that they were acting in the name of whatever God they believed in..hence, religion helped form laws...who knows what would have happened had they just mandated whatever they wanted without any "divine" inspiration or what have you..
Do you think they were just sitting on their throne one day then all of a sudden thought "Hmm...This law sounds like a good idea..i've never heard of anything to do with it..my religious set of morals/beliefs have nothing to do with it..let's make it the law of my civilization"?..
Actually thats EXACTLY how my example plays.. A certain inconvience comes a foot and they change it accordingly.. :| Serioulsy you don't understand why something like murder would be a obvious something to ban inless its by nobility??? And you do understand these societies they committed rape and murder against all sorts of people? You make it sound like these people were pivotal societies of justice and morality.. THey wer enot.
No need for ignorance and "witty" comments. When I say complete morals I mean to meet the ultimate standard of morals. There are certain morals that are common sense and do not need religion to justify them and spread them among people, like for example not raping women in the middle of the night. But some other morals can't but justified from the human point of view and sound completely logical and legit, like for example accepting a free laptop that I got by mistake. Since we stealing from the evil corporate, then sure why not? Not the best examples up there but this is what I could think off right now. In short, I think my religion guarantee a level of morals that is not reachable by human morality.GazaAli
Then what use are they!
If your argument is that they are idealistic and denote values unattainable, does that not make you religion an entirely vain endeavour when approaching Ethics.
How can you claim to have such perfect morals, if they cannot be applied. That is absurd. That is like saying, 'I have the best cake in the world, it is the best, but i cannot eat it'. How can you make such a claim if you have never tasted, nor ever will.
Ethics resort to a mere matter of intrigue if they cannot be applied.
Due to their RELIGIOUS beliefs..in which they used to come up with the laws...[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]
You have yet to prove this.. We have evidence of quite a few rulers declaring they are the will of god in passing laws, we have no evidence of god ever talking to a human being.
bloodling
And they stated that they were acting in the name of whatever God they believed in..hence, religion helped form laws...who knows what would have happened had they just mandated whatever they wanted without any "divine" inspiration or what have you..
Do you think they were just sitting on their throne one day then all of a sudden thought "Hmm...This law sounds like a good idea..i've never heard of anything to do with it..my religious set of morals/beliefs have nothing to do with it..let's make it the law of my civilization"?..
Actually thats EXACTLY how my example plays.. A certain inconvience comes a foot and they change it accordingly.. :| Serioulsy you don't understand why something like murder would be a obvious something to ban inless its by nobility??? And you do understand these societies they committed rape and murder against all sorts of people? You make it sound like these people were pivotal societies of justice and morality.. THey wer enot.
I don't make it sound like that at all :lol:...i Stated that religious beliefs...whatever they may be...were what helped inspire the kings to form laws in many cases..Your example basically states that every law was made due to an inconvenience in regards to the king and/or nobility..And what are you basing this statement on?.."why something like murder would be a obvious something to ban inless its by nobility???"..[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]
Due to their RELIGIOUS beliefs..in which they used to come up with the laws...
bloodling
In some cases, yes. In others, no. Why does that matter anyway?
Read the rest of the discussion..and you'll see why..?Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment