Is religion the sole source of morality?

[Doddibot]

I wish to address something that I often hear when I talk to people about my atheistic perspective on life. They often claim that without God in their lives, there would be no reason to live a moral life. In fact, some say that crimes in general are suppressed by religion, and that if atheism was more common, so too would murder, rape, theft etc.

It is obvious that there exist atheists who are perfectly respectable human beings in terms of their moral behaviour, but this could be due to the cultural influence of their neighbours, who derive their morals from religion. It's not good to be the odd one out, so perhaps that is why atheists are moral.

I wish to ask if you think it is possible to have a largely secular society with a moral code not derived from religion. That is, could you remove God from everywhere in a society and still have it function?

Personally, I think it is certainly possible. In my mind, morality is not objectively from 'on high', but subjectively in our own minds. Regardless of the existence of a God, I couldn't bring myself to rape my cousin. It just makes me feel bad. Likewise for stealing and killing. Even tax fraud, a form of stealing, would feel wrong to me. A divine mandate against it isn't needed, just a few legal ones. Our brains, which in my opinion evolved to have morality, are inherently moral (unless something in the brain isn't working). Even the Christians, believing in evolution or not, should agree with my conclusion - all the children of Adam and Eve should know right from wrong, seeing as they ate from the Tree of Knowledge.

What are your views?

[With the new rules behind me, I think I can discuss this topic without digressing into arguments for or against the existence of the supernatural creator(s).]

[Troll]

I have known plenty of atheists who were far more moral than self-proclaimed christians I've known. But the ones I've known were roomies or fellow marines who were also surrounded by others who were christian.

For example, I had roomie DB who was realy kind of a pissy little dude who also was known to take other people's things for himself from the fridge. He preached a lot as to how people should be according to his church. Roomie AJ, was an atheist and of higher moral charcter than DB

[Gerbera]

Personally, I think it is certainly possible. In my mind, morality is not objectively from 'on high', but subjectively in our own minds. Regardless of the existence of a God, I couldn't bring myself to rape my cousin. It just makes me feel bad. Likewise for stealing and killing. Even tax fraud, a form of stealing, would feel wrong to me. A divine mandate against it isn't needed, just a few legal ones. Our brains, which in my opinion evolved to have morality, are inherently moral (unless something in the brain isn't working). Even the Christians, believing in evolution or not, should agree with my conclusion - all the children of Adam and Eve should know right from wrong, seeing as they ate from the Tree of Knowledge.

First of all, I am an Atheist, my whole family is atheistic and so are most people I know.
I do not think there needs to be a God to secure morality.
Though it seems to me pretty obvious that our moral derives from theistic concepts such as Christianity, we can live a moral live without any need for a god.
I have been taught Humanist values, which are close to Christian values but not explained with god.
I think the movement of the Enlightment has made that possible. My school was called "Immanuel Kant Gymnasium", after the famous philosopher. He and other intelligent men (Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, ...) have long thought about moral and ethics and all those things. They were Christian but the values they found were universal.
I would never dare to kill somebody, not because God says so but because it's the law. And that law is very reasonable because it makes it possible to build a (mostly) functional society.
In my opinion, the whole concept of the 10 commandments was nothing else but a law to ensure a functional society. And that's what I hav been taught in religion and in ethics classes.

[triplea_SC]

I would think unreasonable murder (you can define that as you'd like, but the definition changes from place to place) is illegal in all societies. You don't have to be religious to be moral and some morals are simply universal.

[Rainncandy]

No, I don't think religion is the sole source of morality at all. You don't have to be a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, etc... to have morals. You are right, there are those that are religious that don't seem to have morals (EX: priests that molest children, preachers that steal from their church), and there are those that are atheist that can be amongst the kindest people you can find. Religion doesn't MAKE you moral and not having religion doesn't make you immoral. It's just the person that you are inside that makes you who you are - not religion or the lack of.

[crocobaura]

I don't think religion is the (only) source of morality, mainly because views on morality have changed a lot during past 100 years or so, while religion, or at least religious books have not changed. It was immoral a few decades ago for a woman to live with a man to whom she were not married to. Now, that has certainly changed a lot, and people are no longer questioning a woman's morality if she chooses to move in with her boyfriend or be a single mother. I think an entirely secular population with perfect morals according to current standard is entirely possible. Some people just like to do good things for the sake of goodness itself and not for the promise of some afterlife bliss.

[khakido]

I think it's more likely the other way around, that morality is the sole source of religion. The source of religion, mind you, and then all the other evils of man get involved (greed, lust, etc.) and spoils the religion, and makes it seem all the more immoral. To me anyway. A lot of the time organized religion seems to be about the least moral organization around. In fact some of the most religious people I've known have been the least moral and ethical. They don't have to be, from thier point of view, because they are taught that as long as they follow the rules of the religion, they are allowed a pass into heaven, or wherever.

ETA: Not to pick on a particular religion, but the Catholic church comes to mind. Sin all you want, doesn't matter, you go to confession, do your penance, and you are forgiven, over and over again. Every athiest I've ever known started out as a catholic, and they just couldn't accept the idea that it was ok to go around be a total sinner, and you'd be forgiven. The hipocrisy of the church is what pushed them away... My current S.O. would tell me how sick it made him to know of people who were downright evil, who would not give a hoot about what their actions did to others because they only cared that God would forgive them.

[Rabid]

As an atheist, I find it very offensive when religious people assume that I am immoral and unethical simply because I don't believe in a higher power. I've known plenty of atheists who are far more morally upstanding than some of the Christians I know. I think it's quite possible to have a strong set of moral and ethical values without religious influence. Although we wouuld have nowhere to derive our morals from for a short while, the reaction to what is done is more than enough to teach a person whether or not they should do it again. For example, do you think the public is going to be happy when you kill someone? No, they won't. You'll learn not to do it again. Although you may kill someone else despite the moral consequences, the public's unhappiness with you would teach you that killing people is wrong. Morals have more to do with cause and effect than religion, in my opinion. Just because you're religious doesn't make you an upstanding moral example, and just because you're irreligious doesn't mean that you're a barbarian, as is the common misconception.

[davious]

The problem atheists will have in this argument is such: Pretty much every law we have is based out of a previous belief held by a civilization that based it on some religious text. Lets use American laws as an example. Despite the law being the most innocuous law you can think of, it was created by people who have faith in some God, whether its Jehovah, Allah, Buddha, or whatever. Their minds were influenced by religion, someway, somehow. What is morality, after all? From a strict atheist standpoint, would morality be defined as following the law, and not harming other people? If so, you were taught that those notions were virtuous, most likely by other people who have been influenced by religion somehow. No matter where you go in America, the law has been created by people who have been influenced by religion somehow. I am not suggesting that atheists aren't moral or anything, but I think it would be impossible to state that no matter how you define morality, that religion had nothing to do with it. Your morality is taught to you, whether by parents, teachers, books, whatever other method, but those people have been influenced, the authors have been influenced, somehow by religion. It might not be a direct influence, but its there. Everybody's mindset has been affected by religion in some fashion, whether positive or negative...the problem I see in the question itself is to find a source of morality that is absolutely clean of any religious influence at all...otherwise its an impossible task. Even if its not readily identifiable as a clear, direct source, if you take it back far enough, religion is still the source.

I don't know how I am related to any member of S2C...however, if I traced my geneology back far enough, and traced each member's geneology back far enough, I would start running into people that I was related to after all...then if I kept digging, I would find that I was probably related to each and every member in the community, no matter how small the familial connection might be. Morality and religion are like that. If you dig deep down enough, it would be an impossible task to truly and completely separate the two, because of the role religion has played for the past 5000+ years.

[edejan]

Some of you are talking about the past 100 years or so and changes in that time period. But civilizations has existed for tens of thousands of years, just not well recorded. Civilization is very much older than most people recognize. And watch he history channel. "Ancient" civilizations, even Judaism which is the basis for our current Christian culture, were very brutal and not at all what we would call moral today. Human sacrifice was common. Raping of women and children, even daughters, in ceremonial settings was common. Cannibalism is still reportely practiced in some very secluded, small societies. Look at the brutality that is occurring today in countries with these terrible civil wars, including genocide, rape and murder of children, starvation, slavery, selling of children into prostitution. There is NO SUCH THING as human inbuilt morality!!! In our country, people we consider murderous monsters, serial killers and rapists, would be considered priests in these type of societies. I believe strongly that the ONLY civilizing process is a very strict religion controlling societies. Most of us in the US are raised the background of a Judaeo-Christian morality system. It has given modern societies the structure on which to build what we consider a "civilized" society. And the protection of a civilized society has given us the freedom, without fear, of practicing Atheism or whichever religion we prefer. If there comes a time when the majority of the "modern" societies reject any kind of religious structure, then it will be easy for mankind to again descend into cruelty and "inhumanity".

[pieridae]

I believe morality comes from what we are taught in our upbringing. Sadly, many of the kids I work with have been taught that it's right and just to steal sometimes, it's ok to lie to certain people, it's ok to hurt others in some situations and many other lax moral values. However many of these same parents also teach that believe in a Christian God is right (therefore moral) while no belief in a higher power or belief in a non-Christian God is wrong (therefore immoral). This leads to the type of perverse mentality that a belief in God trumps all other moral values, so "if I believe in God, I am a moral being, regardless of my actions." Or, to a lesser degree, "I believe in God, therefore any actions I commit are held in a different light, and moral transgretions are excusable if done in the name of religion."

So while I agree, as davious mentioned, that religion has influenced our current society's moral views in terms of 10 commandment type beliefs -- wrong to kill, etc, I also believe religion has had negative influence on our moral views. This is the "You are immoral if you don't believe in my God" view, which preaches intolerance and hate instead of acceptance and love. Or the fact that religious leaders are overwhelmingly male, which teaches (by example) that men are in a position above women. Further, our society is becoming more and more global, so people are open to new religious ideas in a way that was not possible 100 years ago, including atheism. In the next 100 years, I'm sure moral beliefs will continue to evolve, as they always do, on the basis of societal trends, which include but are not limited to religious beliefs.

Finally, I think it is safe to say that moral values are not universal, as evidenced by the concept of honor killing (http://whedonesque.com/comments/13271#more) or female genital mutilation (http://www.unicef.org/protection/index_genitalmutilation.html), both of which are done for religious (and other) reasons. Morality is a social manifestation, and a direct reflection of the society in which one lives.

[ayshala]

Oh, I'm sinknig my teeth into this one! First of all, I really think this is kinda a "The egg and the chicken" question. Which came first, morals or religion? Religion teaches morals, but religion was created to gather groups of people who had the same morals. Religion dictates certain morals, but people had to agree on those morals as part of the religion.

I get somewhat annoyed when I hear people say that if there wasn't religion there wouldn't be morals. I find that insulting personally. I hate it when people tell me if I do this or that, I'll go to hell. I've never killed anyone, not because I'll go to hell, but because I think it is just wrong. I don't need a punishment to make me follow my rules. All I need to do is stick with what I believe is right. Most religions have some sort of punishment for not following the rules. I find that sad, because people shouldn't do things (or not do things) because they are scared they will be punished, but because they personally find it wrong. If the only way to live in a "civilized" society is to be led by religion, then humans are in worse shape than I thought. But I don't believe that, because Communist China was far from being an open slaughterhouse. Well, the leaders were a bunch of power crazy maniacs, but the people did not fall into savage behavior.

Even in the few societies that we deem "non religiouse", there are still morals. But morals are relative, so modern U.S. morals cannot be compared to, say, Ancient Mayan morals.

Most of us in the US are raised the background of a Judaeo-Christian morality system. It has given modern societies the structure on which to build what we consider a "civilized" society. And the protection of a civilized society has given us the freedom, without fear, of practicing Atheism or whichever religion we prefer. If there comes a time when the majority of the "modern" societies reject any kind of religious structure, then it will be easy for mankind to again descend into cruelty and "inhumanity".

I wonder how many Satanists or Muslims or Pagans feel that they are allowed to practice their religion in the U.S. without fear? Speaking for my friends that fall into those catagories, I can state they are very fearful.


Everybody's mindset has been affected by religion in some fashion, whether positive or negative...the problem I see in the question itself is to find a source of morality that is absolutely clean of any religious influence at all...otherwise its an impossible task. Even if its not readily identifiable as a clear, direct source, if you take it back far enough, religion is still the source.


Davious, may I ask what you define religion as? I find the previouse quote questionable, but I think that may be because I'm defining the word differently.

[davious]

What I was referring to is not necessarily Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any specific religion...but more any generic religion where people gathered to worship some deity, whether its Jehovah, Allah, Zeus, Baal, Gaea, etc...I believe that what we would call morals developed out of those believers in whatever faith's desire to do right by their deity. I think your statement

Religion teaches morals, but religion was created to gather groups of people who had the same morals. Religion dictates certain morals, but people had to agree on those morals as part of the religion.

is fundamentally flawed because it assumes everyone who followed a specific religion did so voluntarily. In many cases, religion was not voluntary, many people were forced to follow a certain religion...so it cannot be said that they had to agree to those morals before joining the religion...It didn't always gather people who shared the same beliefs, sometimes religion crammed those beliefs down people's throats under penalty of death. You had no choice but to convert...

what it all comes down to is this. Sometime, a long time ago, someone was told something by some religious person, who told them something was wrong or something was right, they passed that along to their friends, family, who passed it along somewhere else, who wrote it down, etc until we get to now. That does not mean that every law is a Christian law, or an Islamic law, or dictated by any Holy Book, merely that no matter what our faith is, or if we choose to not have faith in any particular deity, our choices, our sense of right and wrong ultimately can be attributed to a religious influence, even if that influence occurred 4,000 years ago, the ripples of that influence can still be felt.

You speak English, you type in English. Thats fine. But, what if I were to tell you that your English, which is a different language from French, which is different from German, which is different from Chinese isn't original? You would probably say "well duh", or something similar. We know that the English language has its roots in Latin, a now dead language, has been significantly influenced by German and other European languages, and contains many words that have their origins in other languages besides English...Well, if our languages can evolve over thousands of years, why can't our philosophy or sense of morality? Even though I don't speak a lick of Latin, I have been heavily influenced by the language, by virtue of having English as my language. Well, why should morality be any different? Even if you have never stepped foot inside a church, synogogue, mosque or other religious building, have never read any specificly religious texts, don't believe in any deity, can you honestly say that your life has not been influenced at all by religion? It is my belief that everyone's worldview, which shapes their core moral beliefs, has somehow been influenced by one religion or another. To what extent, I cannot say. Growing up in a Christian household, its a very direct influence for me, however even for someone who hasn't, they have been affected somehow. (again, not saying affected in either a positive or negative way, just that they have been affected)

[MizzesSimmer]

I didn't grow up in a religious environment. I wouldn't call myself an atheist, though. I do believe a higher power exists. But we never grew up on the morals presented to man by a religious source.
I believe good vs evil derives from a more "natural" cause.
It is human nature to thrive. And to keep human in existence, we must do good for all. Work together, help each other, keep from conflict, give as well as receive.
That being said, there is some "bad apples" who's desires center only on themselves. Religious upbringing or not, this is also an aspect of human nature.
If God was removed/never existed, I do think we would still thrive. We have this need to do what is good, because we depend on each other for our survival. There would still be law of man, because we desire structure and happiness.
If everyone ignored morality, there would be no structure, no happiness. And us human beings, being as emotional as we are, would not stay like this for long. We would eventually bring back law and morality, even without beliefs in God.

[Synthesis]

There's also a "legalist" standpoint, I think--what we define as "moral" or "ethical" is, to some extent, influenced by modern law. Law is influenced not only by religion, but thousands of years of civic sciences. Various aspects that we associate with early law...such as "eye for an eye", etc., are not from the Old Testament, but from the legal code of King Hammurabi of Babylon, centuries before the composition of the Old Testament. And while it may have been religion in Hammurabi's time, that religion hardly applies to the society that adopted it. Aspects of Hammurabi's Code, as well as aspects of Biblical Law, have heavily influenced United States Law.

So, our legal system owes as much to ancient secular law as it does to biblical law. Add to the fact that near-Atheist societies of the 20th Century (or at least, populations considered "Atheistic" from the Judeo-Christian standpoint, such as in East Asia), are sustaining and obviously have their own moral structure (they have existed for centuries, and do not implode). It can be assumed that they rely more on an old legalist tradition, and that religious philosophy might be secondary in their consideration.

So, I would say that religion is not the sole source of morality in society. As an Atheist, I can confidently say that exposure modern religion does not influence my personal ethics. Now, whether or not a society with ethical norms can exist completely independent of any religious thought, I don't know--I would like to say 'yes', but there's no concrete example of a completely atheist society (just as there is no example of a completely theist society).

The devout like to assume that every form of morality can be traced to some religion or another--but Anthropology tells us when we go back tens of thousands of years, to pre-agriculture survival, ethics and morality probably have their "roots" in early clan life belonging to earlier ancestors of modern man--such ancestors which, while having an understanding of life and death, did not have even a rudimentary form of religion, in part due to a "lack of imagination"--they knew the consequences of "injustice" to eachother within their own clans, but they did not fear retaliation from divinity, just each other. Rules allowed for the function of packs of early ancestors, doing much to increase their chances of survival (not unlike a pack of wolves). In the earliest cases, religion wouldn't be a consideration--only the most basic in creative thought, to me anyway, means that there is not a religious notion in those ancestors.

Of course, you could argue that what those packs had wasn't "ethics" or "morality" anymore than it would be ethics or morality within a pack of wolves. I think it's somewhat more developed than that, so it's different from wolves, but I can't say with absolute certainty.

However, my knowledge of Anthropology is limited to the basics--someone more familiar with the subject should be able to clarify.

[ayshala]

What I was referring to is not necessarily Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any specific religion...but more any generic religion where people gathered to worship some deity, whether its Jehovah, Allah, Zeus, Baal, Gaea, etc...I believe that what we would call morals developed out of those believers in whatever faith's desire to do right by their deity. I think your statement

Religion teaches morals, but religion was created to gather groups of people who had the same morals. Religion dictates certain morals, but people had to agree on those morals as part of the religion.

is fundamentally flawed because it assumes everyone who followed a specific religion did so voluntarily. In many cases, religion was not voluntary, many people were forced to follow a certain religion...so it cannot be said that they had to agree to those morals before joining the religion...It didn't always gather people who shared the same beliefs, sometimes religion crammed those beliefs down people's throats under penalty of death. You had no choice but to convert...

Perhaps I stated that badly. What I mean, is some "original" religion was a group of people getting together and agreeing on "this or that" set of rules. When I say this, I mean like twenty people "X" amount of years ago. Be they rules handed down from a wise man, or from a burning bush, or from a green alien. That "established" this random religion. Then, as it or its power grew, people were forced and such into it. But when that religion was born, the very day of it's birth, was someone/somebodies gathering together a group of ideas to teach. But a religion has to already be established for anyone to be forced into it. As far as "religion being created to gather groups of people with the same morals together", I still stand by that too. But in the sense that those morals may already be there, or maybe they are taught, or maybe they are forced. But part of the purpose of religion is to gather those who believe and teach those who don't.

what it all comes down to is this. Sometime, a long time ago, someone was told something by some religious person, who told them something was wrong or something was right, they passed that along to their friends, family, who passed it along somewhere else, who wrote it down, etc until we get to now. That does not mean that every law is a Christian law, or an Islamic law, or dictated by any Holy Book, merely that no matter what our faith is, or if we choose to not have faith in any particular deity, our choices, our sense of right and wrong ultimately can be attributed to a religious influence, even if that influence occurred 4,000 years ago, the ripples of that influence can still be felt.

Well our modern U.S. Holidays are certainly a great example of that. Easter anyone? Hmm, now once again, what do rabbits and chocolate eggs have to do with Jesus? :P We all know that Easter is also the fertility festival/spring festival, thus the rabbits and eggs and grass baskets. But, again, I'm not sure it is possible for religion to come before morals. I don't mean that as a blanket statement, because I can think of some cases where that is true. But I can also think of some cases where the opposite is true.

[Vengeance_SC]

I actually find that most people who are atheists are have more morals than any religious person I know and Christians are worsed in my opinions, always critising others for not being Christian. However I do find Buddha's to quite calm, collected and generally more moralistic than the other religious groups, on the other hand some believe that Buddha's are atheists anyway.

I just think that Religion rules our lives too much, it's the centre of everything it seems. Conflict, Happiness, Faith, Spirituality, War, Freedom, Life, Death. There is no escaping it, it's take over the planet and frankly it all needs to stop. It causes to much pain and conflict to be a good thing!

[Modestgurl88]

I actually find that most people who are atheists are have more morals than any religious person I know and Christians are worsed in my opinions, always critising others for not being Christian. However I do find Buddha's to quite calm, collected and generally more moralistic than the other religious groups, on the other hand some believe that Buddha's are atheists anyway.

I just think that Religion rules our lives too much, it's the centre of everything it seems. Conflict, Happiness, Faith, Spirituality, War, Freedom, Life, Death. There is no escaping it, it's take over the planet and frankly it all needs to stop. It causes to much pain and conflict to be a good thing!
I agree. I find that being an atheist it's tough especially in the south.Everyone is always concerned that I don't have morals. I do...I use the general rule of empathy.I'm not against religion,I just don't get why some people use it to avoid tolerance of different lifestyles or different religions

[Mumo_SC]

I seriously don't believe that having or not having God or a belief in something of higher power makes one has less or more morals or ethics than some else. Every body should know the difference between right and wrong. Morals are something that are taught and found through life. I am Christian and I am no better or worse than an Atheist. I just have a belief *sort of* and that is it. Someone who believes than Atheists are lower than them because they are just that Atheist, Well that person needs seriously to re-think the whole view points on morals and ethics. Morals are not just for those who have a belief.

[Doddibot]

"Ancient" civilizations, even Judaism which is the basis for our current Christian culture, were very brutal and not at all what we would call moral today.
True, because morality is cultural, and as culture changes, so too does morality. I'm sure some of the things we accept today would be considered immoral to the ancients, such as homosexuality or co-habitation.

Human sacrifice was common.
For religious reasons.
Raping of women and children, even daughters, in ceremonial settings was common. Cannibalism is still reportely practiced in some very secluded, small societies. Look at the brutality that is occurring today in countries with these terrible civil wars, including genocide, rape and murder of children, starvation, slavery, selling of children into prostitution.
Yes, I will agree that there are terrible things happening around the world. However, this does not lead to the conclusion that....
There is NO SUCH THING as human inbuilt morality!!!
You will find, in almost every person (bar sociopaths or psychopaths, where their brain is a little different) a reluctance to sell their OWN children into prostitution, unless they think it is the only way to provide for them. You will find a attitude against murder, unless it is a person of the 'enemy' side or that person did something against you (like tried to kidnap your children). Granted, we have progressed beyond that, but that doesn't mean that they are acting totally immorally. There are morals there - the core human morality exists there.

Secondly, those societies are indeed just as religious as ours is. Different religions, perhaps, but there I don't see a correlation between behaviour and religion.
I believe strongly that the ONLY civilizing process is a very strict religion controlling societies.
Now, do you care to explain why those societies with strict religion (Taliban, Iran, Saudi Arabia) are not as civil (by Western standards) as secular societies like Sweden, the UK etc.
If there comes a time when the majority of the "modern" societies reject any kind of religious structure, then it will be easy for mankind to again descend into cruelty and "inhumanity".
Good. So I wasn't making this stuff up in my original post. People, such as yourself, clearly believe this. May I ask how you draw this conclusion, given what I said above?

[danielb1]

No. If anything, I consider morality to be a universal truth beyond even religion (albeit a somewhat flexible one). Weird, yes. But I believe that even God is bound by a code of ethics (many religions take the view that God is 'above and beyond', i disagree), although it may be a bit different from the ones we mortals do and/or should live by.

[khakido]

Years ago in college, I had a literature professor who taught about the underlying moral themes that were evident in classic literature. I can't remember much of the topic, but it was very interesting, it was something along the lines of :
There are certain behaviours that have been written about time and time again. Behaviours that put a tribe's survival at risk, and that would be written about in order to convey the basic message that said behaviours were wrong... things like murder, which will make it harder for a tribe to survive, and incest, which screws up the gene pool. The main point seemed to be that from the beginning of time, in a biological sense, there are certain things that should not be done if a species is to survive. These things of course correspond to what we now consider "morals". The lessons are found in ancient fables and myths, in religious texts, and very much in the works of Shakespeare.

And along the same line, I think Chris Rock had it right, in his bit about pork in the bible, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd5p3iD9WGs&mode=related&search= (adult language-please let me know if not allowed)
Religion is just trying to teach those who, for whatever reason, can't figure it out themselves.

[chynableu]

Religion might not be the sole source, but morality as I know it definitely comes from the Word. For those who believe in the Bible, Cain and Abel were a perfect example. They were brothers and due to jealousy, one killed the other without a second thought. Man's initial instinct is self pleasure and survival and if there were not a moral code, man wouldn't think twice about killing, stealing, and doing whatever else he needs/desires to live comfortably.


This is not saying that non-religious people cannot be moral. It goes w/o saying that athiest doesn't equal killer, adulterer, thief, etc. But until man recieved his instruction from God - whether directly as a believer or one who's been influenced by a society that largely believes in a god- I don't think there would be too much moral difference between man and beast.

[Synthesis]

But until man recieved his instruction from God - whether directly as a believer or one who's been influenced by a society that largely believes in a god- I don't think there would be too much moral difference between man and beast.

Of course--the real question presented here is, "What was the word of God?". Certainly from a Judeo-Christian standpoint, societies with complex laws existed well before the "Word of God" was delivered.

Hinduism, for example, is the eldest of the major world religions today--and I don't think they have a word of God precisely, in any case. But we definitely know the Indus Valley Civilization not only had morality, but laws and a complex bureaucracy in addition to their own religions--and they certainly weren't the only ones.

It's less of a problem with the Indus Valley then it is with, say, Judaism--prior to Judaism's founding, there were plenty of organized moral beliefs. But, and here I might be mistaken, there wasn't a word of God (or at least, according to the early Jews).

Religious evolution may, in fact, be independent of the evolution of what we can consider ethical behavior at it's earliest point.

[edejan]

OK, let's do this!

ayshala: religion was created to gather groups of people who had the same morals

No. "Religions" were created by men who were in a big, scary world where they were pretty much "prey." Men who sat under the stars at night and wondered where they fit in this great big world. Religions were created by men to try to control their environment, to control life and death, sickness, starvation and all the other scary things in a world without big cities or big weapons to protect frail humanity. If we sacrifice, pray, whatever, to the "power/powers" that control our lives, than we have some control over our lives.

ayshala: Most religions have some sort of punishment for not following the rules.

Really, traditionally, most SOCIETIES, whether religious or secular, have some sort of punishment for not following the rules, whether it be legal (punishment, imprisonment) or behavioral (shunning, gossip, ostracism, bullying). This is just the nature of social groups.

ayshala: I wonder how many Satanists or Muslims or Pagans feel that they are allowed to practice their religion in the U.S. without fear? Speaking for my friends that fall into those catagories, I can state they are very fearful.

In most societies, as in the US, the prevailing religion or else the religion of those in power dictates what is acceptable and what is abhorrent. The US happens to currently be a majority Judaeo-Christian culture. We as Americans want to believe we are tolerant of other "types" of religions and many of us are, but, in general, the majority religion is the one that most acceptable to the "culture" especially in times of social upheaval and/or tension such as we are in now with the "terror alert."

Doddibot: You will find, in almost every person (bar sociopaths or psychopaths, where their brain is a little different) a reluctance to sell their OWN children into prostitution, unless they think it is the only way to provide for them. You will find a attitude against murder, unless it is a person of the 'enemy' side or that person did something against you (like tried to kidnap your children). Granted, we have progressed beyond that, but that doesn't mean that they are acting totally immorally. There are morals there - the core human morality exists there.

Hmmm...where to start??? "a reluctance to sell their OWN children into prostitution, unless they think it is the only way to provide for them." In our own country in the not so distant past (say 100 to 200 years ago) I have heard it was morally and legally acceptable for Mormons (and no I am not casting aspersions at this particular religion, this is just an example that seems readily available) to marry off their daughters into polygamous households as soon as they hit puberty, 12 or 13 years old. OK this is not "selling your children into prostitution" but it isn't that far off. You are allowing your very young child to enter into a state of enforced sexualization because the religion and society you lived in says this was not only OK but a good thing to do. I think we consider this immoral today but it was not so in that society at that time.
And that's in our own recent past.

"You will find a attitude against murder, unless it is a person of the 'enemy' side."

True but what is the "enemy" side? In other cultures, in the past and even now, the "enemy" side could be anyone not in your immediate family group. It could thus be "acceptable" to murder someone in the next town or across the street. In the countries now which are experiencing the terrible genocides, it seems to be OK to murder anyone of another village, man, woman and child. I find no inbuilt "morality" as we define it in this attitude.

edejan: "I believe strongly that the ONLY civilizing process is a very strict religion controlling societies." Perhaps I misstated - I believe a very strong morality based on religious teachings - because that's where I believe morality comes from - is the ONLY civilizing process. I don't mean that every person MUST follow that religion or any religion, only that this is necessary for a society to be civilized according to what we (or I) consider civilized today. Specifically, that everyone has the opportunity to live a peaceful life, a healthy life, to earn a decent living, to be free from the fear of bodily harm or impingement on our personal lives by any unwelcome authority, to feel somewhat confident that we and our children will have a tomorrow.

Doddibot: Now, do you care to explain why those societies with strict religion (Taliban, Iran, Saudi Arabia) are not as civil (by Western standards) as secular societies like Sweden, the UK etc.

Currently "secular" societies, such as Sweden, the UK and the US, I suppose, are societies which have been formed by a religious history. And as for the societies with strict religions which you noted, I have not indicated that all religions lead to civilization as we define it. The Mayans were probably a relgious society but they glorified human sacrifice.

Doddibot: "Good. So I wasn't making this stuff up in my original post. People, such as yourself, clearly believe this. May I ask how you draw this conclusion, given what I said above?"

Is this the statement you're referring to? "I wish to ask if you think it is possible to have a largely secular society with a moral code not derived from religion. That is, could you remove God from everywhere in a society and still have it function?"

Then, I think my answer is no.

And why did I say this: "If there comes a time when the majority of the "modern" societies reject any kind of religious structure, then it will be easy for mankind to again descend into cruelty and "inhumanity".

I think as I've said that there is no "basic" human morality without some socioreligious structure to foster it. Sure some individuals may be nicer than others but that doesn't mean the human race would live peacefully without this structure.

[ayshala]

Originally Posted by edejan


Are we really moral beings? Do we not kill because we're afraid of jail or hell, or do we not kill because we control our free will through reason as an end in itself? or do we have some inherent biological imperative not to kill?

I am shutting up for now lol.

EDIT: Synthesis, you read my mind

cheers all :)



To make this even more complicated, I'm not sure if you can really seperate all those things as independant influences. We DO have a biological imperative not to kill our own, it is called survival instinct. From the earliest days of our survival we discovered what many animals have, there is power in numbers. Better defense, better (more diverse) genetic material, greater variety of goods, and so on. So we started grouping up. In this grouping up, as our brains also grew, there came to be certain rules that were needed for many people to live together. You see it in any greater ape group. There are certain roles, certain stations, and certain things a member has to learn in order to survive in that troop. Mainly, they have to learn who is leading the troop, yes, but there are other, more subtle things as well.

As we refined these basic instincts we changed from pure survival to a point of abtract thought. We realized that killing off our own people not only hurt our chances at survival, but messed with how our "troop" worked and lived together. So for the best interest of this group, we figured out it was wrong to just randomly kill off members. I have no idea if the person leading the group claimed this was his idea, or if he claimed it came from a God, or if he claimed it came from a fig leaf. But when you see humans begin to group together and start a civilization, you see the development of laws, of ethics, of codes, and/or of morals,......because they had to figure out how to live together.

[chynableu]

chynableu,

Fearing a consequence is not morality.


I decided to look up morality and the definition I read is:

conformity to the rules of right conduct; a doctrine of morals


If that's the case, then anytime you have rules, there has to be some type of negative consequence if they are broken. Also, that led me to believe that morality isn't this instinctual thing many people describe it as. Without some type of rules and dire consequence, I don't believe most of us, religious or not, would be moral. It just so happens that most of our rules, it seems, have a religious origin (of course I believe in the creation/Bible).

[urisStar]

Yes I agree with danielb1, morality is a universal truth of mortals that is embedded/indwells in the mind of men that develops or not, through thought. It (morality) will increase/develop or decrease/lay dormant depending on the realm of the highest and most spiritualized thinking, or decrease for the lack of such thinking.

The Divine Spirit/Spirit of Truth makes contact with mortal man, not by feelings or emotions, but in the realm of the highest and most spiritualized thinking. It is your thoughts, not your feelings that lead you Godward. The divine nature and the Spirit of Truth may be perceived only with the eyes of the mind. But the mind that really discerns God, hears the indwelling Spirit of Truth, is the pure mind. "Without holiness no man may see the Lord." All such inner and spiritual communion is termed spiritual insight.

Such religious experiences result from the impress/imprint made upon the mind of man by the combined operations of the spirit of men/divine nature and the Spirit of Truth/Divine Spirit as they function amid and upon the ideas, ideals, insights, and spirit striving of the evolving sons of God.

The highest religious experience is not dependent on prior acts of belief, tradition, and authority; neither is religion the offspring of sublime feelings and purely mystical emotions. It is, rather, a profoundly deep and actual experience of spiritual communion with the spirit influences resident within the human mind, and as far as such an experience is definable in terms of psychology, and it is simply the experience of experiencing the reality of believing in God as the reality of such a purely personal experience.

Morality searches out the highest religious experience and not the other way around. There really is a true and genuine inner voice, a "true light which lights every man who comes into the world."

The age of enlightenment was seen as a secular movement but in reality was the acceptance of Truth that was ignored by the church. The truth of that Light which lights every man who comes into the world messes with other bible so-call truths as it strips away the fear that was implanted into man by the religious order of the day. :D

No, the enlightenment came way before religion, in some cases it never develop to be of use to the individual=Cain's thought were not on the high things. :Slap: :worm:

[chynableu]

Well, what I'm saying is that morality doesn't seem to be what most people are making it out to be. In the example you gave, according to the definition of morality, it sounds like - I want to kill but I will not because I don't want to go to jail - is the definition. Morality doesn't sound like this fuzzy feeling you get because you're such a good person. I think it's possible that people have used the term incorrectly for so long that most take the incorrect meaning to be true.

I don't believe people are inherently moral, and then again, I don't see that as being a bad thing either. How can human nature be bad? It only becomes bad when you instate rules and consequences that make it so.

In order for society to function in an orderly manner, however, I do believe morals are necessary, which is why, IMO, God set them forth and man has taken them a step further.

[Rabid]

I'll comment on this one issue for now....

I think human morality formulates before "socioreligious morality" can even be understood.

Simple example: I can remember being pre-school age, I didn't know anything about religion or the ten commandments. Religion was just something about a place I was dragged to on Sundays in uncomfortable clothes lol.

But if I hit my brother or took my sisters crayons, and Dad said "how would it make you feel if they did that to you?" I understood this, completely. As I said before, morality is a function of reason and the autonomous will to act accordingly. These things occur earlier in our psychological/social development than our education in the complexities of religion and secular law.

I think you're exactly right. Even as a child before you're too young to even begin to comprehend, much less accept, a specific religion, your morals are shaped by your experiences. Your actions and their consequences teach you whether or not you should try to do something again. The reaction to what you've done is evidence enough of whether your actions were right or wrong, and it is common human behavior to want to do the "right" thing despite how often we do the "wrong" thing. Humans have an innate desire to please and be praised in return, and doing what is right often pleases those around you, causing you to desire to do the right thing. Your morals are shaped by those around you and your experiences long before religion comes into play.

[chynableu]

My point was...both statements could apply to that (really simple) definition. But which is truly a statement of morality?


There's nothing wrong with simplicity. Actually, the simpler the better, IMO. I'm assuming you think the second example you gave is the definition of morality. Which one is right or wrong, I don't know.




When you say human nature only becomes bad when there are consequences....you mean consequences define what is right and what is wrong?

...hmmm, I really have to think about that one. If murder were suddenly legal, would it suddenly be morally right? I can't wrap my head around that one, but I'll think about it lol

I'm not saying that consequences define right from wrong. The actual law makes that definition and the consequences enforce it. If murder was never viewed as being illegal, then I don't believe most people would view it as wrong. I'm going on raw, basic instinct with that one, not emotions and feelings.




I seem to have hit a sore spot with you, I didn't mean to...I just want to understand where you're coming from


Why do you think that? I'm actually quite calm, sitting here eating dinner.

[Rabid]

ok my last post for the night lol (I totally agree RabidAngel, just trying to clarify a point :))

I was trying to distinguish autonomous free will from the imposed suppression of an action.

In my simple example before....I'm encouraged to use reason to control my will (and adhere to a universal maxim I know is right but cannot even name yet), and it is an internal process that controls my actions. If I were hit every time I stole a crayon, it would be an external process (and consequence) that controlled my actions (or lack of action in this case).

In other words, in the first instance, I don't want to steal crayons anymore because I understand that no one should steal crayons. In the second, I learn not to steal crayons because I don't want to get hit.

But...in thinking about it...I guess that any sort of internal turmoil I might experience is still a consequence of stealing, lol.

I'm just trying to differentiate an autonomous moral conscience as being very distinct from merely being a law-abiding citizen...if that makes sense lol.

Everything you say is on the money, just trying to make that distinction.

:)

I understand the distinction you were trying to make... I guess, in my head, the two seem somewhat similar. Your autonomous moral conscience is what turns you into a law-abiding citizen or turns you into an outlaw, after all. Laws that we think are unjust are often rallied against or willfully disobeyed, in some cases, which is a result of the moral conscience that you retain despite societal brainwashing and governmental insistences that you need to obey the law or be punished. Your inner moral compass overrides the moral compass instated in you by society- your gut feeling tells you what is right and what is wrong despite the law. I guess, to me, your inner moral conscience and your moral belief system due to external influence go hand in hand.

[chynableu]

But if I hit my brother or took my sisters crayons, and Dad said "how would it make you feel if they did that to you?" I understood this, completely. As I said before, morality is a function of reason and the autonomous will to act accordingly. These things occur earlier in our psychological/social development than our education in the complexities of religion and secular law.

Before you think I'm picking on you, I just keep highlighting your posts because they are the most interesting and stood out the most to me. You have not annoyed me.

Based on the example you gave above, is it possible a child stops hitting and stealing crayons because they view their parents as authority figures and so to be chastised by authority leaves them with shame and and a negative feeling? I think emotion and acting on those emotions is what is in-bred and basic with man, moreso than morality being natural to man. My opinion, not fact, is that morality has to be taught, which leads me back to believing that people would not have morals if they were not taught and enforced somehow, whether that be early in our "psychological/social development" or not. Just by you describing it as a development leads me to again believe that morals are not in-bred, but something that has to be developed through instruction and consequence. If there were not the law or overall moral agreement that hitting and and stealing are wrong, then it would not be wrong. And the commandments to refrain from stealing and hurting one another definitely comes from a religious standpoint, if you are someone who believes in religion.

With that said, I think the only way the debate question can be answered is to ask whether one believes in religion or not. Based on the person's belief, the answer can go either way.

[Doddibot]

Hmmm...where to start??? "a reluctance to sell their OWN children into prostitution, unless they think it is the only way to provide for them." In our own country in the not so distant past (say 100 to 200 years ago) I have heard it was morally and legally acceptable for Mormons (and no I am not casting aspersions at this particular religion, this is just an example that seems readily available) to marry off their daughters into polygamous households as soon as they hit puberty, 12 or 13 years old. OK this is not "selling your children into prostitution" but it isn't that far off. You are allowing your very young child to enter into a state of enforced sexualization because the religion and society you lived in says this was not only OK but a good thing to do. I think we consider this immoral today but it was not so in that society at that time.
And that's in our own recent past.
Polygamy is not anywhere near prostitution. Sure, it is against our own code of social ethics, but in many societies it wasn't. Obviously, the personal morality, that I believe everyone has, is variable on the issue of how many partners to have. Still doesn't show a lack of an inherent code of ethics, just one example where the inherent code doesn't match our social code.
True but what is the "enemy" side? In other cultures, in the past and even now, the "enemy" side could be anyone not in your immediate family group. It could thus be "acceptable" to murder someone in the next town or across the street. In the countries now which are experiencing the terrible genocides, it seems to be OK to murder anyone of another village, man, woman and child. I find no inbuilt "morality" as we define it in this attitude.
Of course there is inbuilt morality. You are asking the wrong question. It should not be "why do these people kill those of the other village?" but "why don't these people kill those of their own village?". The answer to the latter question can be found in the natural sense of right and wrong that we all have.
Specifically, that everyone has the opportunity to live a peaceful life, a healthy life, to earn a decent living, to be free from the fear of bodily harm or impingement on our personal lives by any unwelcome authority, to feel somewhat confident that we and our children will have a tomorrow.
I don't see why pure materialism, which still acknowledges feelings of others, wouldn't give rise to those same things that you mention here.
I think as I've said that there is no "basic" human morality without some socioreligious structure to foster it. Sure some individuals may be nicer than others but that doesn't mean the human race would live peacefully without this structure.
Forgive me for being slightly frustrated, but you're not giving me any reason to believe you. Where is the supporting evidence for your assertion that morality can only come from religion? I feel I need to see your reasoning more closely.

[urisStar]

There is true religion and then there is religion that is lower base/flesh (outward) much of what we see today. Morality is to mortals as the instinct to fly are to birds, and yet all birds do not fly. Morality is that gift given to all of mankind; it is like a time releasing capsule that encloses the fruits of the spirit. Those fruits have the potential to grow as in you must grow into them. They are the response that must be the action/response to your dealings with the world/men. The more you use your moral capsule the more it releases its contents as needed. The more you use the more you get or is made available to you. They are not laws and in fact transcends law as in against such there is no law.

True religion is an insight into reality, the faith-child (does not speak to religious labeling) of the moral consciousness, and not a mere intellectual assent to any body of dogmatic doctrines. True religion consists in the experience that "the Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God." Religion consists not in theological propositions but in spiritual insight and the sublimity of the soul's trust.

My deepest nature -- my divine spirit -- creates within me a hunger and thirst for righteousness, a certain craving for divine perfection. Religion is the faith act of the recognition of this inner urge to divine attainment; and is brought about that soul trust and assurance of which I become conscious as the way of salvation, the technique of the survival of personality and all those values which I have come to look upon as being true and good.

The realization of religion never has been, and never will be, dependent on great learning or clever logic. It is spiritual insight, and that is just the reason why some of the world's greatest religious teachers, even the prophets, have sometimes possessed so little of the wisdom of the world. Religious faith is available alike to the learned and the unlearned.

Religion must be its own critic and judge; it can never be observed, much less understood, from the outside. Your only assurance of a personal God consists in your own insight as to your belief in, and experience with, things spiritual. To all of us who have had a similar experience, no argument about the personality or reality of God is necessary, while to all other men who are not sure of God no possible argument could ever be truly convincing. :D

[pieridae]

Ok let me ask it this way...because Webster isn't Schopenhauer or Kant lol. Webster (or whoever) isn't wrong...just simplistic. And there is nothing in that definition about consequences.

Which is the statement of morality?

I want to kill but I will not because I don't want to go to jail and/or hell

OR

I will not kill because I have reasoned that killing does not conform to the universal maxims that should apply to all humanity, and because I have autonomous free will to act or not act according to this reasoning, I will not act.

In other words, of course there are societal consequences, but any system of ethics based on societal consequences and not on the reasoned autonomous free will to conform to universal maxims is doomed to fail.


They are both statements of morality. There is nothing wrong with being simplistic. If you want the truest statement of fact, you choose the simplest. In both statements the person is choosing not to kill because something external has told him killing is wrong. That's what morals are: a set of beliefs regarding right or wrong. It doesn't matter if those beliefs come from the Bible, the Koran, Kierkegaard, your parents, the law, your neighbor, or the little green men in your head.

[ayshala]

I think many people are ignoring the effects of reason. True, lots of people seem to lack this quality, but it still exsists. I don't need to be told something is wrong or right. I can ponder it, and reason it, and come to a conclusion myself. I do not kill humans. Not because I'll go to jail, not because I'll go to hell, but because I have thought about the act, the universal consequences, and what the world would be like if everyone else followed those actions. Then I figured out it would be bad and decided not to do it. Theres no outright punishment involved, just an understanding that I am only one in a mass of many.

[Sheyza]

I think everyone can agree that if everyone was allowed to kill, this world would be in complete chaos. Just the same as being allowed to steal, or any other kind of "immoral" act. I don't believe religion is the reason we have these rules, I believe it is as ayshala says. It is soley upon personal principles, in an effort by people to maintain a calm environment for everyone.

[pieridae]

ok my last post for the night lol (I totally agree RabidAngel, just trying to clarify a point :))


I'm just trying to differentiate an autonomous moral conscience as being very distinct from merely being a law-abiding citizen...if that makes sense lol.


:)

Of course, each individual has a personal "moral conscience," but I believe we are not born with this quality. It is formed over time based on many life experiences and the teachings of others, as you pointed out in your crayon example. But teachings are just that, teachings, and while many in our current society have been effected by religious belief, that is not the sole source of morality.

In my opinion, many who are simply "law-abiding citizens" are immoral, but maybe that's due to hindsight being 20/20 and all. For example, I don't believe in racial segregation, but many people followed and practiced this a mere, what, fifty years ago? For those people, it was morally right that blacks and whites should be separate. And they had the support of the law. So, in many people's eyes Rosa Parks committed an immoral act by refusing to give up her seat on the bus...after all, it was against the law!

Thank goodness morality evolves and changes.

[Calalily]

I wish to ask if you think it is possible to have a largely secular society with a moral code not derived from religion. That is, could you remove God from everywhere in a society and still have it function?

There are many that are separate from religion - such as utilitarian ethics and ethical egoism, but some might say that they are in fact derived from religion. There are some ethical systems that are based on reason, and espouse virtues based on reason alone, such as some Greek ethical systems - but whether that society would resemble ours is debatable. The only Greek ethical system that would fit closely with Western society is Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics.

Then of course, there are ethical philosophies that would not fit so closely with current society, such as Stoicism and Epicureanism. Both featured reason at their core. Stoicism influenced Early Christianity and Epicureanism disavowed religion - actively attacking it.

There also various new systems of ethics such as the "ethics of care" which are based on a feminine understanding of ethical questions. It is based on female reactions, and those reactions that have been moulded by current society.

The main point seemed to be that from the beginning of time, in a biological sense, there are certain things that should not be done if a species is to survive. These things of course correspond to what we now consider "morals".

Indeed, and within religions we find the same common themes, the same common threads - to be kind to others (even the Satanist writings of Anton LeVey acknowledge this - they just leave it to your discretion who you should be kind to). Religions that developed around the world have developed the same kinds of rules for themselves, which means that there has to be some common kind of interest at the core of human groups.

And whatever it is, it runs deeper than reason. Reason says that if people were trying to kill you, you would kill them, or that if your country were in danger, you would fight for those at home. Duty says that one would kill for their country and on behalf of others. Not so - at least without the modern training techniques used today.

I was surprised to learn recently that despite what is believed widely by the community, it is actually harder to kill than not. The figure that blew me away was that 4% of infantry soldiers in fact aimed to kill in the Great World Wars according to a study done in c.1941. A further 25% of soldiers fired their guns intentionally missing, and the rest didn't fire at all.

For any who are interested, you can read more about killing in war and the myths surrounding it here:
Natural Killers - Turning the Tide of Battle (http://web.archive.org/web/19991008231638/http://www-cgsc.army.mil/milrev/English/MayJun99/Pierson.htm)

[ayshala]

I was surprised to learn recently that despite what is believed widely by the community, it is actually harder to kill than not. The figure that blew me away was that 4% of infantry soldiers in fact aimed to kill in the Great World Wars according to a study done in c.1941. A further 25% of soldiers fired their guns intentionally missing, and the rest didn't fire at all.

For any who are interested, you can read more about killing in war and the myths surrounding it here:
Natural Killers - Turning the Tide of Battle (http://web.archive.org/web/19991008231638/http://www-cgsc.army.mil/milrev/English/MayJun99/Pierson.htm)

I think this is situational. Killing for a "great cause" or such is not as powerful as some might hope. BUT, watch how easily a mother can kill when someone is trying to kill her offspring. Or how easily someone can kill if they are in mortal danger. All self preservation/survival instinct of course. But as far as killing without having your life threatened, it is very rare. In all species there are "rogue" animals. Animals that do not follow survival instinct and are overly aggressive. Like the shark that the movie "Jaws" is based on. Humans have "rogues" too, our serial killers and such. People whos brains do not function along normal lines. Otherwise it does more harm, and more potential damage, for any animal to kill without reason.

Thus, our very survival instinct is what keeps us from murdering everyone. If religion is taken out of the equation, we will still have this instinct, and still have reasons not to kill.

[Synthesis]

I think this is situational. Killing for a "great cause" or such is not as powerful as some might hope. BUT, watch how easily a mother can kill when someone is trying to kill her offspring. Or how easily someone can kill if they are in mortal danger. All self preservation/survival instinct of course.

Biological "instinct" is no less complicated in any case. Even among mammals, many mothers that can be extremely protective of their young will kill and consume them without a second thought when food becomes scarce.

At the most basic level is the instinct to spread one's own genetic material--the driving force for life in general. But that's at such a elemental level, I think it's impossible to connect it with a developed idea such as religion or justice. "Be fruitful and multiple" is just addressing what everyone already knows--they don't need some god to tell them that.

[ayshala]

But arent those instincts the birth of morals?

[Doddibot]

I don't need to be told something is wrong or right. I can ponder it, and reason it, and come to a conclusion myself.
That's true. I could develop nearly all moral laws simply from the desire to increase my own happiness and the observation that other people (and animals, for that matter) seek to do the same.

From that, I can deduce that I shouldn't murder, steal, rape etc. I can't even commit tax fraud because doing so, although perhaps giving me momentary happiness, will upset the happiness of others, and thus when they seek to prevent it to ensure their happiness (as per the observation), my happiness overall will decrease. I can't say that lies are outright wrong, because in some situations a lie can increase my happiness (eg "Sweetie, you look very pretty tonight"), but in most situations, if a person finds out they have been lied to, they will seek to prevent it from occuring again, thus decreasing my happiness. Even adultery could, in a few rare situations, be moral by these standards.

However, you will certainly find that this form of reason-based morality doesn't always match up with what people would actually do. For example, consider the following "trolley problem" where a trolley ('tram' or 'streetcar' - for those of you who are confused) is heading down a track at breakneck speed. You notice there is are a group of people on the track, and a side track with one person on it. You are standing next to a lever that can divert the trolley onto the side-track. Do you do it? (most people say yes)

Then, consider a similar situation, but instead of the lever, you are standing next to a big, burly guy. Pushing him onto the track will surely halt the tram enough to avoid the other people, but will kill that man. Do you do it? (logically, this is the same as the other one, but far fewer opt to push the man. An intended kill, even to say lives, is considered immoral in comparison to minimizing losses of an unavoidable accident).

This shows that reasonable morality, and instinctive morality, are often at odds.

[davious]

I do neither. I yell at both groups of people to get out of the way. If they still choose to stay on the track, thats their decision.

[Synthesis]

But arent those instincts the birth of morals?

To ensure the spread of our genetic material? I don't think so, but I couldn't be certain. You could just as easily say they lead to immorality.

I do know they predate morality, and religion, for that matter.

[Calalily]

I think this is situational. Killing for a "great cause" or such is not as powerful as some might hope. BUT, watch how easily a mother can kill when someone is trying to kill her offspring. Or how easily someone can kill if they are in mortal danger.

But that's the key to this situation - these men are in mortal danger - and they still don't do anything. They are in danger from the 4% - who are shooting them, and they don't do anything. These people were killed en masse and did nothing - in fact, there are reports of them hunkering down and being shot at - and are lucky to have one of the 4% with them, who takes out their opponents.

This is why for many centuries until recently a lot of uniforms were not camouflaged - it's a male display - made to frighten the enemy off as much as anything. From those red uniforms that are highly visible, to the shield bashing and blue woad painted on the faces of Celts - these are male displays - designed to avoid killing.

As for mothers killing someone who is trying to kill her offspring - sometimes mothers kill their offspring as well. During some ancient famines in Egypt, children's bodies were the ones found cannibalised for food.

[pieridae]

The question of morality is complicated because we all would like to think we would do the right thing in any given situation, but reality is much more complicated. Think of the Milgram experiments: "He found, surprisingly, that 65% of his subjects, ordinary residents of New Haven, were willing to give apparently harmful electric shocks-up to 450 volts-to a pitifully protesting victim, simply because a scientific authority commanded them to, and in spite of the fact that the victim did not do anything to deserve such punishment." link (http://www.stanleymilgram.com/milgram.php)

65% is a huge number, for any type of research, let alone psych research! How many of those people, if they had been given a questionaire instead of participating in the actual research, would have said they could never do such a thing to another human being? How many people actively involved in a religion put up a "moral facade" in front of fellow churchgoers? How many of us put up a "moral facade" in front of neighbors or our boss?

[RubyAmbition]

The other 45%?? I for one, hate it wehn people get up in your face asking what you're religion is. I want to scream "Religion doesn't matter!?!?!' But that wouldn't help. Morality can come from many sources, and if you believe religion is one of them, then it is.

[ayshala]

But that's the key to this situation - these men are in mortal danger - and they still don't do anything. They are in danger from the 4% - who are shooting them, and they don't do anything. These people were killed en masse and did nothing - in fact, there are reports of them hunkering down and being shot at - and are lucky to have one of the 4% with them, who takes out their opponents.

This is a very vague statement. I'm trying to clarify with the link you provided, but it has been down (at least for me), so my apologies if the link explains any of the following.... You are saying that of ALL the infantry soldiars in ALL the Great Wars, only 4% aimed to kill. Nothing is given about firing in defense. 25% missed intentionally.....so 71% never fired a shot? I'm sorry, but according to the death counts in those wars, the weapons and ammunition used, and the testimonies of people involved in the battles, I find that hard to swallow. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that many didn't fire, or missed on purpose.....but not in numbers like that. I also find it hard to take the stats as totally real since the study was done in 1941, and WWII didn't end until 1945. Thats four full, bloody, uncounted years of war.

This is why for many centuries until recently a lot of uniforms were not camouflaged - it's a male display - made to frighten the enemy off as much as anything. From those red uniforms that are highly visible, to the shield bashing and blue woad painted on the faces of Celts - these are male displays - designed to avoid killing.
As for mothers killing someone who is trying to kill her offspring - sometimes mothers kill their offspring as well. During some ancient famines in Egypt, children's bodies were the ones found cannibalised for food.

Why would that matter or be any different at all? Childrens bodies were found cannibalised for food. As in, people were starving and had a choice to survive. Again, survival. Again, no non rogue animal has killed without a reason. It was a famine. They were starving to death. Someone killed off the weakest of the group and ate. How is this not survival? How is this not situational? How is it assumed that the parent killed the child? If they did, again, how is this not survival, how is this not situational?

[Calalily]

This is a very vague statement. I'm trying to clarify with the link you provided, but it has been down (at least for me), so my apologies if the link explains any of the following

Sorry - it's difficult to find non-subscription links.
Hope on the Battlefield (http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/current_issue/grossman.html)

You are saying that of ALL the infantry soldiars in ALL the Great Wars, only 4% aimed to kill. Nothing is given about firing in defense. 25% missed intentionally.....so 71% never fired a shot?

Yes that is right - I was shocked as the next person. Many people assume that they were all shooting, and if asked, almost every single person says that they would fire in war etc.

I'm sorry, but according to the death counts in those wars, the weapons and ammunition used, and the testimonies of people involved in the battles, I find that hard to swallow.

Ammunition is used. A civil war rifle was found with 23 musket balls packed down the barrel, complete with powder - but never fired. Plenty of ammunition can be used but not fired. Testimonies of people involved could be the testimonies of the 4%, or due to societal expectations, these people could be adopting a conglomeration to fit expectations and not be labelled a "coward".

Not to mention that many men who went to the Great Wars did not actually talk about it - I remember men from my youth who'd never spoken to their wives about their experiences, much less talked about it in testimonials.

Combined with the fact that the Great Wars brought the death from afar - the artillery and aerial assaults - this is far easier to kill with - no faces to look at, no pleading for mercy, no human to watch die.

Again, no non rogue animal has killed without a reason.

This was the part I was refuting - it might be situational but the definition of rogue is related to temper. Rogue implies that the behaviour is unnecessary, unwanted and unusual. If the entire society is condoning such actions, then they are not "rogue" actions. And almost all people kill for a reason - whether you agree with that reason, whether they regret the reason at a later time - there is still a reason - which is judged subjectively.

[Nymphy]

Is religion the sole source of morality?

Hmm interesting question.

Well firstly you can argue about how religion puts restraint on our actions and so gives us morality - so the Ten Commandments in Christianity. Where you can not steal, murder, envy, etc. So this means that we have moral boundaries, but do we have morality? Moral boundaires and actual morality are different concepts - one limits our actions and thoughts, whilst the other is everything as a whole, and what we think is right and wrong.

Now as religion does certainly give us moral boundaries but not definitely morality, you have to look at it from another way, and this is that religion relies on morals as a base. Without morals religion just would not exist. And then religion manipulates (not the right word, but you get what I mean) our morals and fits them into boundaries of what we can and can not to, and what we think is right and wrong.

So I would say that religion is not the source of morality, but morality is the source of religion, and religion then restrains our morals giving us a sense of greater right and greater wrong

(If that made any sense ;)!)

[Mumo_SC]

Mmmm, I actually thought that is was just commence sense for the greater parts of right and wrong.

Take religion out of the picture, and morals would still be set. I don't base my morals on any form of religion. I base them solely on the way I was raised through my parents, and throughout my adult life, I base my morals on experiences whether they are good or bad.

Example. If my mum and dad were complete losers and abused me, as in, letting me do whatever I wanted as a child (smoking, swearing, drinking), then I would have different morals than what I do now. I believe it is how your raised as a child and what you experience throughout life that set morals. Not religion. JMO.

[cary123]

Religion is not a source of mortality, because not doing something because you fear going to hell. Is not moral reasoning, it's based off of fear. Moral reasoning is not doing something because you do not feel it is right within your reasoning. example:I do not feel its right to kill someone unless for self-defense or to save someone else, and under my moral reasoning, even under those conditions you must avoid killing at all costs but if you cant, kill him/her, because I feel everyone has a right to there life they were born to. Christianity it just says "Thy may not kill" It doesn't say why, it just says its a sin and you will be sent to hell if you are not forgiven.

[Rayline]

In fact, some say that crimes in general are suppressed by religion, and that if atheism was more common, so too would murder, rape, theft etc.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I'm atheist and I hardly want to end up in jail...I wouldn't even want to do those things if it were legal.

What's got being religious or not got to do with wanting to commit sins/crimes? Some people are just sick in the head and others aren't.

[ayshala]

Sorry - it's difficult to find non-subscription links.
Hope on the Battlefield (http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/current_issue/grossman.html)



Yes that is right - I was shocked as the next person. Many people assume that they were all shooting, and if asked, almost every single person says that they would fire in war etc.

OK, according to that article, 15-20% of soldiers would fire at the enemy during WW2. I find this much more believable than 4%......it is still startlingly low, but more realistic. In Vietnam it was 90-95%! Very interesting part about desensitizing in the article.



Ammunition is used. A civil war rifle was found with 23 musket balls packed down the barrel, complete with powder - but never fired. Plenty of ammunition can be used but not fired. Testimonies of people involved could be the testimonies of the 4%, or due to societal expectations, these people could be adopting a conglomeration to fit expectations and not be labelled a "coward".

Not to mention that many men who went to the Great Wars did not actually talk about it - I remember men from my youth who'd never spoken to their wives about their experiences, much less talked about it in testimonials.

Theres no doubt that there were many who never spoke of their experiences. However, it is easier to make a historical record than tell your wife directly. Part of the reason is the "personal" aspect, .....being judged by those you love. I have personally found that as time went on, more WW2 vets were willing to share their stories for prosperity as their fellows began to die off. I would love to relate some here, especially about the undercover spy I knew who worked in Germany the entire war. But that is so far off topic...... sorry.

Combined with the fact that the Great Wars brought the death from afar - the artillery and aerial assaults - this is far easier to kill with - no faces to look at, no pleading for mercy, no human to watch die.
absolutely!



This was the part I was refuting - it might be situational but the definition of rogue is related to temper. Rogue implies that the behaviour is unnecessary, unwanted and unusual. If the entire society is condoning such actions, then they are not "rogue" actions. And almost all people kill for a reason - whether you agree with that reason, whether they regret the reason at a later time - there is still a reason - which is judged subjectively.

Rogue: (of an animal) having an abnormally savage or unpredictable disposition, as a rogue elephant.

"Kill without reason": maybe I should clarify this to "Kill without reason of direct survival".

If someone puts their lives in more danger by committing the act, it isn't a survival reason. A seriel killer is putting their lives at risk for something that does not benefit their direct survival. They may be mentally screwed up, yes, but that is what makes it rogue. They do not biologically need to kill to survive.
So what I was saying is still true? I don't understand what the argument is? The actions of Ancient Egyptians killing a child to eat during a famine is survival, not a rogue action, just like you said. Survival and situational. Even if someone kills for a reason, is the reason a true neccesity of biological survival? Thats what defines the difference between rogue and "normal".

[Calalily]

OK, according to that article, 15-20% of soldiers would fire at the enemy during WW2. I find this much more believable than 4%......it is still startlingly low, but more realistic.

I stated in my first post the 20% figure

figure that blew me away was that 4% of infantry soldiers in fact aimed to kill in the Great World Wars according to a study done in c.1941. A further 25% of soldiers fired their guns intentionally missing, and the rest didn't fire at all.

The documentary I saw had Dave Grossman in it, stating those numbers, so I hardly think that he would not know what he was talking about in either.

Theres no doubt that there were many who never spoke of their experiences. However, it is easier to make a historical record than tell your wife directly.

No - I meant they told no one - they didn't speak to anyone about it. Not that they told others, but never their wives.

The actions of Ancient Egyptians killing a child to eat during a famine is survival, not a rogue action, just like you said.

I think that there's reason involved in there too - only serious famine caused parents to allow their children to be eaten, and rarely do we see these events in history. It's not just survival - otherwise it would crop up far more.

[ayshala]

I stated in my first post the 20% figure


You posted 4% shoot to kill, 25% shoot to miss. From what I have read of the link, and the following searching I have done, this is not correct. 15%-20% shot at the enemy. According to Grossman, this increased if there was a superior nearby (of course), and decreased as a soldier was left on his own.


The documentary I saw had Dave Grossman in it, stating those numbers, so I hardly think that he would not know what he was talking about in either.

Actually, Marshalls findings are debated (what Grossman was reffering to) ,.....because of what I already stated about technique. But in general, following studies have found around the same numbers for WW2.



No - I meant they told no one - they didn't speak to anyone about it. Not that they told others, but never their wives.

Ahh, no doubt that is true. However, we still have many who were willing to offer up their stories, and thereby give us a fairly accurate historical and personal account of the war.



I think that there's reason involved in there too - only serious famine caused parents to allow their children to be eaten, and rarely do we see these events in history. It's not just survival - otherwise it would crop up far more.

Hmm, Im confused. This is what I have been saying, no? Only seriouse famine caused parents to allow their children to be eaten. And rarely do we see this. How in the world is this not survival? Why would it crop up more if it was? Seriouse famine causing cannibalism of family is not survival? Ancient Egypt is hardly the last place we see this happen.

[zedrik]

Personally, I believe morals come from our ability to both think with complex reason and feel with complex emotions. Society and family may play a part in initial development in individuals, but as an individual we usually end up forming our own morals, sometimes very similar and sometimes very different from earlier influences.

Religion is not a source of mortality, because not doing something because you fear going to hell. Is not moral reasoning, it's based off of fear. Moral reasoning is not doing something because you do not feel it is right within your reasoning. example:I do not feel its right to kill someone unless for self-defense or to save someone else, and under my moral reasoning, even under those conditions you must avoid killing at all costs but if you cant, kill him/her, because I feel everyone has a right to there life they were born to. Christianity it just says "Thy may not kill" It doesn't say why, it just says its a sin and you will be sent to hell if you are not forgiven.

Please do not mischaracterize Christianity. We are told exactly why we are not to murder or any number of other things. It was spelled out quite plainly.

Primary above all other commandments is the command to love God with all our hearts. Primary above all commandments, save the previous, is to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. These are stated clearly as the most important of all commandments. (Gleaned from Mark 12:28-34)

Personally, I take this to mean that all other commandments had these two in mind. Many might not make sense now, as we live in a vastly different culture, so we must filter everything through those two. Those two are our guide.

You may not believe in the Christian God or that Jesus was anything more than a man (or didn't even exist at all). That is fine. But, please, try to put in a little effort to learn a bit before you post.

[Blake_SC]

As said in another post (http://forums.sims2community.com/showpost.php?p=960081&postcount=59) I don't base any of my morals off religion. I don't believe in god, there are too many to choose from. Over 200 religious sects and mine is the right one? Not too sure about it.. :/ I seem to have good morals, I don't want to kill people, I am stable, I really like myself, what else? I don't really like my neighbors, but, who can? ;)
Basing your morals off Religion is big, most people do it. Although, one of the writers (of some parts) of the bible (or biblical writings) was highly contradictory. He was a man who had a big "love life" ;) and then one day, he turned his back on his "love life" and wrote scriptures and passages about how having a "love life" is bad. :/ So I'm not condoning having a big "love life" do what you want, but one should look things up before he delves into molding his life around the holy books.

[sayyadina_SC]

I would say that my atheistic friends, and myself, oftentimes discuss morality from a more philosophical and psychological perspective, and that it matters a lot to be a person of high moral standards even though we "lack" the guidance from religion or God. We also have brains. Not saying that some followers of certain religions dont, but what about thinking for yourself. (?) Atheist do too live in a world regulated by cultural and social rules, and in countries that have laws to follow. Atheist have access to edjucation through books and freedom of thought that some religious societies deny their people.
What I tend to think, however, is that religion makes the moral decissions for you, and should you find yourself in a situation where God or church cant actually help you (or you simply lost your faith) you may as a religious person become quite lost morally...
Is there any actual "proof" that religious people are "better" people? I havent found any.

[zedrik]

Many people, religious or not, simply do not like having to think for themselves. They will pick a religion or other philosophical standpoint that suits them and let it do all the thinking for them. Many of these people's morals may very well come from their religion.

Many people, religious or not, refuse to do things simply because they are told to. If they follow a religion, it is because that religion is compatible with their own predetermined belief system. The religion's morals must be able to mesh with these people's morals or they will reject the religion.

Many people fall somewhere in between. They find a religion that is compatible with their morals and allow the religion to fill in the blanks. If they find morals they don't like, they may reject the religion and find a new one (or follow a different philosophical viewpoint), find a different sect that is more compatible, create a new sect that is compatible, find a way to interpret those disliked morals into a more palatable light, or any number of other ways of coping.

The existence of the first type of people greatly encourages people who couldn't care less about religion to get into religion simply so they can control those who don't want to think for themselves. It is usually these manipulators and their followers who give most religions a bad name.

Just because people are religious doesn't mean they can't think for themselves. Many people come to the point they are religiously after many years of searching for the right place. They put a lot of thought into it and often continue to do so.

Ultimately, yes, morals can come independently of religion. No, religion isn't the only source. Yes, religion can be a source. No, not all (probably not even all that many) religious people are mindless zombies bowing to their leaders' every whim.

[sayyadina_SC]

Just because people are religious doesn't mean they can't think for themselves. Many people come to the point they are religiously after many years of searching for the right place. They put a lot of thought into it and often continue to do so.



That I respect. I have a friend who choose to become a catholic after spending years with monks in Italy. Im happy for him, cause he had the courage to follow his conviction. But Im not so sure it made him a more moral person.
On the other hand, I met catholics ( and christians, and moslems) who over-simplify life and everything in it to the degree where it becomes silly. They where all born into the religion, and has never questioned it. I feel religion has never given them a choice.

[Basundain]

Here's a thought; maybe we only think of today's morals as "morality" because religion introduced them. Now, religion has done its work and remains as nothing more than a social institution. Nowadays, our morals are better sustained without bringing God into the picture. We keep these morals simply because they've helped us so much to advance in civilization.

[Doddibot]

maybe we only think of today's morals as "morality" because religion introduced them.
Yes, that's the question I want to address. Is there another possible source for these morals?

[Wintermute]

In my mind, morality is not objectively from 'on high', but subjectively in our own minds.Precisely. It also explains how different cultures have different concepts of morality. There is no absolute moral code from any higher being, but over human history, some behaviors such as murder, incest, rape, etc. have become more or less universally condemned as amoral. Of course, there are those odd-ones-out who think those behaviors are morally justified (such as the people involved in honor killings) or at least that they have a perfectly good (in their minds) reason, and their culture turns a blind eye to or even supports this kind of behavior. It's all relative.

I'm in no way defending honor killings, murder, etc.--I believe they are absolutely wrong and not justified no matter what the excuse. It gets hairy, though, when people who think the same way try to impose their moral code on other cultures which have preserved their ways of thought for ages and are in no hurry to change due to outside pressure.

Basic morality comes from the importance of survival when humans were still nomads and foragers. Individuals who are helped must help in return to ensure the survival of the group. Ones who cheat and do not reciprocate favors reduce the chances of survival for everyone.

I'm not making any sense DX.

[ayshala]

Yes, that's the question I want to address. Is there another possible source for these morals?

Empathy. Someone without empathy is unable to function outside of isolation. Lack of empathy is found in abusers, killers, rapists and so on. Our ability to see outside of ourselves, and imagine what another is going thru is the basis of morals. Right and wrong, good and bad,....all involve abstract situations we can imagine ourselves in, and our empathy guides us to what is "right", or best for the group as a whole. Without empathy we only care what happens to ourselves, and not anyone else. In that selfish state, there can be no morals, only self preservation.

[urisStar]

Empathy. Someone without empathy is unable to function outside of isolation. Lack of empathy is found in abusers, killers, rapists and so on. Our ability to see outside of ourselves, and imagine what another is going thru is the basis of morals. Right and wrong, good and bad,....all involve abstract situations we can imagine ourselves in, and our empathy guides us to what is "right", or best for the group as a whole. Without empathy we only care what happens to ourselves, and not anyone else. In that selfish state, there can be no morals, only self preservation.

You are on the right track and I could understand your reasoning in choosing empathy, however morality gets its being/existence from love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

When they are applied to situations, conditions, and circumstances of life as an appropriate proactive response, morality flourishes/grows like a weed that attacks all that is not considered good/righteous. They are what transform the human above his animal/brute ways. :noball: :lol:

[pieridae]

Basic morality comes from the importance of survival when humans were still nomads and foragers. Individuals who are helped must help in return to ensure the survival of the group. Ones who cheat and do not reciprocate favors reduce the chances of survival for everyone.

I'm not making any sense DX.



:D I think you're making sense. I think it's the same today, and that humans haven't evolved as much as we'd like to believe. Survival at all costs has always been the name of the game, and joining whatever religion was in power at the time was a good way to increase your odds of survival. Of course, today there is no one all powerful religion, but those who do not practice the dominant religion in an area may still suffer persecution.


Although, in terms of morality in general, I'm beginning to wonder what there is left out there in the world, or if it ever really exists, or if we just choose to believe the "prettier" versions of history.

Sorry to be so negative, but it's been a long week. :(

pieridae

[Doddibot]

You are on the right track and I could understand your reasoning in choosing empathy, however morality gets its being/existence from love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

When they are applied to situations, conditions, and circumstances of life as an appropriate proactive response, morality flourishes/grows like a weed that attacks all that is not considered good/righteous. They are what transform the human above his animal/brute ways. :noball: :lol:
I'd agree, but for one word on that list: faith. Does it need to be there?

[urisStar]

I'd agree, but for one word on that list: faith. Does it need to be there?

Notice that there are things that do the opposite and choke morality out and render it useless/dead; such things as wars, greed, vainglory, emulations, wrath, strife (all the makings of a good America) and the list goes on.

Faith has been corrupted (the word faith not faith itself) by false religion but so have men through the power and growth of that same false religion corrupted the others. Faith is the bond/glue/link/connection that keeps the other eight a reality.

I will make the connection more clear later. :scowboy:

[Doddibot]

Faith is the bond/glue/link/connection that keeps the other eight a reality.

I will make the connection more clear later. :scowboy:
I still don't see a reason to believe your assertion that faith is needed to get joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness or temperance.

[Rabid]

I still don't see a reason to believe your assertion that faith is needed to get joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness or temperance.

I agree, Doddi. I don't see how my stance as an atheist makes me incapable of feeling emotions such as joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness, or temperance. To me, this derives back to the age-old debate that atheists are inferior to theists because of a lack of faith. Is it so wrong to have faith in humanity and that somewhere, deep down, there's a little bit of good in everyone rather than having faith in a god? From your earlier posts, urisStar, it seems to me like you are suggesting that without faith, a person cannot feel. Correct me if I'm interpreting your messages wrong, but I find that totally ill-founded. I have faith- not in a god, rather in people, but I do not find that my godlessness makes me incapable of feeling. A lack of faith does not negate all emotions.

[urisStar]

I still don't see a reason to believe your assertion that faith is needed to get joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness or temperance.

I am a little puzzle! Why do you continue to attribute faith to God while isolating the other eight and claim them as/for human emotions? I purposely stayed away from this thread to give you some time to think about what was said but I think you overlooked what I said about faith (the word) being corrupted by false religion.

True religion is to know God as your Father and man as your brother. Religion is not a slavish belief in threats of punishment or magical promises of future mystical rewards. True religion shatters tradition, destroys dogma, and calls mankind to the achievement of its highest ideals in time and eternity—to be perfect, even as the Father in heaven is perfect. True religion is the social association of the spiritual membership of the kingdom of heaven and has little chance to function in religious segregation. True religion doesn’t strip man of his dignity by pronouncing him to be in total depravity as that pretty much destroys much of the potential of religion for effecting social repercussions of an uplifting nature and of inspirational value.

So when we speak to faith we must disassociate it from what we see as counterfeit religion which say we are not all the children of God as that is anti-God and anti-Chris, because Jesus sought to restore man’s dignity when he declared that all men are the children of God. Today’s religion calls Jesus a liar and their teaching is contrary and humanist at best. With that out of the way we can now speak of faith.

To be continued…got to go. :lol: :scowboy:

[Mumo_SC]

My 2 cents worth here again.

Faith is something that you have inside....I look at it as a feeling of satisfaction and gratification to have a "spiritual" relationship with God. You cannot speak to faith. You can pray to God, but whether he/she listens is a whole different story, but you can speak about faith, not to it.

I can honestly say that I don't think that anyone knows what the True Religion is, if there actually is one. Every religion whether you are a Catholic, Christian, Muslim or even Atheist think that what they believe is right and all others are wrong.

I was raised a Jehovahs Witness, and that religion is just wrong. I have on many many occasions raised questions as to the way they treat there fellow witnesses and they cannot give me a straight answer. I left that religion when I was 15. I was then baptized as a BAC at the age of 21. I thought I was on the winning team with that religion, they are Holier than thou, and do not practice what they preach. Now I am cruising into being an atheist because with all the crap about which religion is right, NONE of them have shown it.

I believe that there is a higher power, and that is pretty much it. If someone can prove which religion is the TRUE one with documentation to back it up (and I don't mean the Bible)...Then I will join that bandwagon too.

[urisStar]

That is the thing mumof5ferals; there is no bandwagon to join. Religion is not a joining thing. It is like you said, a relationship with the knowledge of God as Father and all mankind as brothers. If those two are not a reality in your mind/spirit everything after that is meaningless. If you cant love your brother who you can/have seen you don’t know God plain and simply. Once your understanding/mind is open too and can accept the reality of God as Father and mankind, all of mankind are brothers God Himself through the Holy Spirit move you along in the wisdom of His knowledge from there, man can not do it no matter what label he give himself.

Faith comes from the same substance that love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness and temperance come from. They are what make the difference between higher intelligence and flesh/animal nature. They are all in short/small supply in human nature because they all come from the core of man, his inner being, and the person who you really are without the mask. If you look at those nine attributes you will first notice that they are conditions that no one else can experience for you, they are all personal to that individual. They must and can only be a reality to an individual, as only he/she must partake of them for them to be his/her reality.

Faith then is only something you can have to yourself. We all have those nine attributes in different measure and only when we partake of them will they unveil your true core-self and you will know what your core-being already know, even if your claim is you do not/are not a believer in God. :D

[Tjaames]

Personally, I do believe that some people are influenced so heavily by religion that if there was a complete seperation from it, they would stop caring. Many abide by the 10 commandments because they hope for a paradise after death. At the same time, most people don't commit crimes because they will have to face criminal charges if they do. So in my opinion, yes, it would be possible, as long as there is a strong legal system in this community, because the system would scare criminals into not commiting the crimes, which kind of relates to religion.

[Synthesis]

It is like you said, a relationship with the knowledge of God as Father and all mankind as brothers. If those two are not a reality in your mind/spirit everything after that is meaningless.

I don't completely follow you....so, if I have a feeling of concern and interest in other human beings (my "brothers"), I must, by definition, have a faith in God (my "father"), even if I do not believe in the existence of a God?

There's no other case? You must possess some sort of subconscious "love for God", in order to experience "love for mankind"--that the former can exist without the later, but not the later without the former? That any love for other people must be preceded by love of father/God--i.e. the basic "stuff" of religion.

Wouldn't that just make religion so intangible as to make it meaningless? Isn't that basically like saying, "Anyone who believes in God must realize that, rationally, he does not exist--even on a subconscious level. Because they know that they have a creator, a father, but God does not have a creator, so he is illogical and a fantasy."

I hope I'm mistaken--I probably am--but the way you describe is a little unusual. It seemed as though you were saying that, on the most basic levels, there are no Atheists--just members of a religion who don't really care about said faith.

[Doddibot]

Faith comes from the same substance that love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness and temperance come from.
Agreed. They are come from the human brain. In fact, many are part of the same part of the human brain. However, that doesn't mean that there is some kind of dichotomy here - you can have all nine or none. There are plenty of people with faith but without meekness. And, there are plenty of people without faith but with goodness.

[urisStar]

I don't completely follow you....so, if I have a feeling of concern and interest in other human beings (my "brothers"), I must, by definition, have a faith in God (my "father"), even if I do not believe in the existence of a God?

There's no other case? You must possess some sort of subconscious "love for God", in order to experience "love for mankind"--that the former can exist without the later, but not the later without the former? That any love for other people must be preceded by love of father/God--i.e. the basic "stuff" of religion.

Wouldn't that just make religion so intangible as to make it meaningless? Isn't that basically like saying, "Anyone who believes in God must realize that, rationally, he does not exist--even on a subconscious level. Because they know that they have a creator, a father, but God does not have a creator, so he is illogical and a fantasy."

I hope I'm mistaken--I probably am--but the way you describe is a little unusual. It seemed as though you were saying that, on the most basic levels, there are no Atheists--just members of a religion who don't really care about said faith.

You can interchange the word faith with any of the other eight if it makes more sense to you, but you will also have to acknowledge our definition of religion and faith is not the same.

Anything that come off from the norm of what have been thought to be religion will and must be questioned and I am in full agreement with that. I think your confusion comes in when you think and or believe that your choice (not you personally, in general speaking) somehow has within it the ability to change who God is.

In the natural I can say my father is not my father and go out of my way to show all contempt, it does not change the facts. Basically it is up to each individual to use all nine attributes or none at all and I truly do believe God do speak for Himself to all however He chooses, I do not pretend to be His mouth piece. The mind is the battle ground/field and from it comes all kind of things be they judge to be good or bad by the owner of that mind.

My position is not to convince anyone of anything as it is up to each individual to find their own way and by whatever means they so choose. Your reality will never benefit me and the other way around as there would be no way that I could convince you that your reality/realities/experiences did not exist/is not real when you have lived them.

Not everyone, in fact, not many will understand what I am saying, but it is okay. I am not speaking to/of/from worldly wisdom nor is it good or bad, it just is.

The way I wrote/worded my post everyone that has a label besides Man/mankind to include both gender, should be asking the same question you just did. :D

Here is my clear-cut definition of faith: An energy force that brings/transport forth that which was created by an individual in the unseen world (the mind), into the material world to make it a seen/actuality/reality for that individual. :sneaky: :lol:

[Synthesis]

The way I wrote/worded my post everyone that has a label besides Man/mankind to include both gender, should be asking the same question you just did. :D

Here is my clear-cut definition of faith: An energy force that brings/transport forth that which was created by an individual in the unseen world (the mind), into the material world to make it a seen/actuality/reality for that individual. :sneaky: :lol:

Believe it or not, I prefer 'humanity', but it's not nearly as popular in English. Dunno why. :)

Incidentally, your definition pretty much confirms what I feared--so I'll just say, yes, we exist. We are conscious.

Does that have anything to do with God? Not anymore than the bread I'm toasting, but that's just me.

I'll throw another definition your way. My clear-cut definition of religion: the attributing of an origin to elements of our world, leading up to a supreme origin that is, ultimately, originless. Thus, religion (particularly Abrahamic religion) is an oxymoron and fundamentally flawed. :sneaky: :lol:

[urisStar]

Believe it or not, I prefer 'humanity', but it's not nearly as popular in English. Dunno why. :)

Incidentally, your definition pretty much confirms what I feared--so I'll just say, yes, we exist. We are conscious.

Does that have anything to do with God? Not anymore than the bread I'm toasting, but that's just me.

I'll throw another definition your way. My clear-cut definition of religion: the attributing of an origin to elements of our world, leading up to a supreme origin that is, ultimately, originless. Thus, religion (particularly Abrahamic religion) is an oxymoron and fundamentally flawed. :sneaky: :lol:

Guess what? I agree in part that Abrahamic religion is flawed because it was hijacked and turned into a outward public manifestation of a personal reality that can only exist/function behind the scenes/unto one’s self. Abraham's reality was mass produced and given out as a covering for others to wear without them having to have their own experience.

Most would say they prefer humanity but in fact they don’t and that is why by using labels it is easier for man to kill each other as well as all the ugly things they do to each other, and they don’t need religion to do that but find it more appealing when done in that way. I believe that could be why we are called humans.

The good part of it all is that we all have our individual choices and are free to use them however we see fit, and yet, you are okay and I am okay and the fight has no sting or harm attach to it. :D :sneaky:

[Doddibot]

they don’t need religion to do that
Do they need religion to not do it?

[urisStar]

Do they need religion to not do it?

Don’t you think they need some thing, cause what they got is very lacking won’t you agree?

To answer your question: Do they need religion to not do it? Lets take America, they claim to be a religious nation with a leaning towards Christianity, and yet when put under close observation, America is the most ungodly place with a propensity for more violence than you would want to shake a stick at. Their thought process is, it is all about me, so to hell with you. They mask this with the covering/claims of freedom and prosperity, which are all subjective, and seems to encourage a lack of morals through their practices and policies, while at the same time claiming to be a moral majority. Religion doesn’t seem to have a positive influence unless you think it is a positive thing to take advantage of the weak and the poor. In fact I would go so far as to say, they cultivate their own weak and poor with an interesting twist/spin.

Would you say they are in need of religion? It, religion, don’t seem to work, even a blind man can see that. I would suggest that what they call religion is not even a form of religion. Now that I’ve managed to upset a whole nation, I’ll stop here and answer your question.

Disclaimer: This observation is not limited to America, but they have mastered the concept best, so much so, that they have also given birth to "The Corporation"; their moral-less poster child that they have declared a person through their laws, that only have the dollar bill as a soul/spirit/mind. I would say, that is right up there with the worldly religious church which has now become their trusted allies. :cylon:

Take into consideration my definition of faith because we have come full circle.

Those nine attributes that we spoke of earlier (love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness, temperance and faith); all are individual condition of the making of man, all men. My answer would be that faith and not religion is needed to not do it. Why faith? Faith can transform/transport those eight attributes from the mind/unseen into the world/seen where they are most needed. Think about it, if you don’t see that answer in your mind’s eye then it will never make any sense to you. :D

[Doddibot]

My answer would be that faith and not religion is needed to not do it. Why faith? Faith can transform/transport those eight attributes from the mind/unseen into the world/seen where they are most needed.
I don't understand. I would have thought action (or will) would be what actualizes the others.

[urisStar]

I don't understand. I would have thought action (or will) would be what actualizes the others.

I never underestimate anyone and if you can become the eight virtues through will and they become you, it is a good thing, and they will make all things clear to you even the deep things that are pass finding out. They are not the roads most travel but the sights on the way of this journey is full to overflowing with more of the same.

"Faith is like a great flooding river. How can it be directed to the left or right?
The myriad/countless things rely on it for their life but do not distinguish it.
It brings to completion but cannot be said to exist.
It clothes and feeds all things without lording over them.

It is always desireless, so we call it "the small."
The myriad/countless things return to it and it doesn't exact lordship
Thus it can be called "great."
Till the end, it does not regard itself as Great.

Therefore it actualizes its greatness." :baloons:

[Doddibot]

Poetry and rhetoric.

[TheSimaniac]

I really have no ieda how peple can argue in favour of this lie. It's not even a matter of opinion, it's just nonsense. If that were true, all athisets would be commiting crimes and no religious people would. As it happens, the figures show that actually more religious people do, and when there are a fair few religions, Christianity for example, that teach you will always be forgiven - or, to reword it, you can do whatever you like and not worry about punishment if you apologise - that's not exactly a baffling statistic.
People might be saying that then they're not religious, but just since they don't follow that person's ideals then that doesn't mean they're not part of the religion. If you were to follow the ideals of your religion, chances are you'd be actively working against homosexuals, if you were one be afraid to say it, and quite a lot more immoral stuff.

Since its start there have been human sacrifices, persecution and wars over religion. Perhaps the first no longer exists in most modern day religions, and then only practiced by tiny religions or complete extremists, but the other two do, undeniably.

This isn't a rant against religion; that would be the silliest and rudest form of hypocrisy. Instead, this is a rant against a completely false statement brought upon by arrogance, hardly the most moral thing in itself and so the statement disproves itself.

[urisStar]

Poetry and rhetoric.


Just answering your questions, not selling you anything as I have chosen that road through free will but also with the understanding of the role of faith. If the rest of the world go in the opposite direction their choice through their exercise of their Will doesn’t impede me in the least. As far as religion is concerned, I fit into none. I am accepting of all and have come to understand that we are all one and the same. I look for the best in all and can almost always find it, so there is no struggle or stiffness or ridged/unevenness.
Here is more poetry and rhetoric:

The softest thing in the world
Will overcome the hardest.
Non-being can enter where there is no space.
Therefore I know the benefit of unattached action.
The wordless teaching and unattached action

Are rarely seen. :wavegbye: :D

[wargarurumon]

well my perspective on the notions of morality, ethics and good or evil is that it doesn't come from religion but from two things

-first: it comes from a desire to give meaning to ones actions, we do things because we believe them to be good or ethical

- second: we call actions or things unethical or bad if they aren't beneficial for you or for someone else, but they might be beneficial for someone else

most philosophically based religions(the abrahamic ones, Buddhism,..)also come from these two causes(to call things good or bad and give meaning to ones actions)