Religion, moral and values.

Reading the American political spectrum thread, one of the questions stood out.

It IS NOT necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values
or
It IS necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values

I thought this whole debate belonged in some wacky borderline crazy religious fringe in politics, but given it got a position among the top 20 questions of American politics - it scares me to say the least.

Is the belief that a belief in God (I assume the Christian one is the one implied) is necessary widely spread enough for this to be a real issue, or did this political compass go out on a limb for some reason?


And as a side note - what would the reasoning behind this belief be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibumi

Reading the American political spectrum thread, one of the questions stood out.

It IS NOT necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values
or
It IS necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values

I thought this whole debate belonged in some wacky borderline crazy religious fringe in politics, but given it got a position among the top 20 questions of American politics - it scares me to say the least.

Is the belief that a belief in God (I assume the Christian one is the one implied) is necessary widely spread enough for this to be a real issue, or did this political compass go out on a limb for some reason?


And as a side note - what would the reasoning behind this belief be?

---

Sounds liek you need to learn some more about America bro. Come over here and watch our TV.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LjEnbMk1q4

As for the reasoning, ummm ask PVC or Rhy.

Wow.

Is that guy at all representing some sort of major stream in thinking? Over here he would come off as a complete loon.

What is the reasoning?

Hate.

Nothing else. Hate towards those who do not believe as you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibumi

Is the belief that a belief in God (I assume the Christian one is the one implied) is necessary widely spread enough for this to be a real issue, or did this political compass go out on a limb for some reason?


And as a side note - what would the reasoning behind this belief be?

---

I believe that it is a real issue. I seriously doubt that an agnostic/atheist President will be elected in the US any time soon. I think that many Americans consider the US a Christian country. I'd like to see a breakdown of Congresspeople by religion, though.

Personally, I don't think that one must believe in a higher power to have good morals and values. But, I believe that I am in the minority. I would like to hear reasoning behind the belief that one must believe in God to have good values, though I would probably disagree with it.

I'd say tisn't hate not at this stage in American civilisation, there are plenty loons allright but my hunch is that it's more cultural, they live in an echo chamber 'twould seem a perfectly sound statement that you have to be religious to have morals to them.

Wiki has the answer to your question, Scienter:

1.

One atheist in congress. Enjoy your theocracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Wiki has the answer to your question, Scienter:

1.

One atheist in congress. Enjoy your theocracy.

---

I'm surprised that there's even one. I'm not an atheist, I just believe that religion and law shouldn't intersect. My beliefs are my own, and I don't care if other people don't believe the same as me. It's none of my business, really. I don't have issues with religion so long as people don't try to legislate their religious views into my life. That's a line that shouldn't be crossed. Separation of church and state, and all that.

Without being religious, I think it is impossible to come to a consensus on a universal set of morals, since it is impossible for an atheist to even define what morals are. This makes some weak persons immoral, but not all atheists, I think. The lack of consensus is the problem.

What the hell?

It's impossible for an atheist to define morality? What are you smoking.....?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

What the hell?

It's impossible for an atheist to define morality? What are you smoking.....?

---

Define it then. And one on which all atheists can agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Define it then. And one on which all atheists can agree.

---

"atheists" is not a group of people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

"atheists" is not a group of people.

---

And therefore it lacks an universal set of morals, which leads many to immorality.
And even if it would be an organized group of people, most would reject any obligated moral code anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

And therefore it lacks an universal set of morals, which leads many to immorality.
And even if it would be an organized group of people, most would reject any obligated moral code anyway.

---

Yes, because we all know that catholic priests make great kindergarden workers....

What nonsense. An enforced universal code is not needed to make people behave ethically.

Also, in order for them to behave immorally one would need a standard of morality, which you say is impossible to have. So, the argument kinda fails at the start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

What nonsense. An enforced universal code is not needed to make people behave ethically.

---

What utter nonsense! The increase of atheism has led to more disgusting immorality in this last 20 years than ever seen before! And yes, catholic priests make mistakes, but the general public has never been so immoral or so tolerant to immorality!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

What utter nonsense! The increase of atheism has led to more disgusting immorality in this last 20 years than ever seen before!

---

Ermmm.... no?

That is completely unsupported and unfounded with no basis in reality. It would be the equivalent of me saying "The decrease in Catholicism over the past 20 years has led to a decrease in Child Abuse.", it was actually the public pressure from greater transparency within the church and the efforts of the church to tackle such issues with the latest pope in particular doing a major crackdown. (Have to give him props for that)

If anything, the figures show that there has been a general decrease in the last twenty years though with greater transparency on the issues. Then with the main issues of immorality within the last decade has been purely funded by those of a religious background, such as the release of Catholic Priest scandals in the USA and Ireland, Osama Bin Laden who is a Muslim and even Josef Fritzl visited church on a Sunday.

The historical irony of humans coming up with a moral value and then give it power by claiming that it's coming from the gods is not lost on me.

Skullheadhq, I'm not sure if you're trolling or not, but please define your moral value from the Bible then. With quotes!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

The historical irony of humans coming up with a moral value and then give it power by claiming that it's coming from the gods is not lost on me.

Skullheadhq, I'm not sure if you're trolling or not, but please define your moral value from the Bible then. With quotes!

---

Is it possible to quote the entire law of Moses, prophets, Luke, Mark, John, Matthew and the epistles of the Apostle's in one post or should I do it in multiple.
And even if morality doesn't come from 'the gods', it still wouldn't harm, except wicked and immoral people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Ermmm.... no?

That is completely unsupported and unfounded with no basis in reality. It would be the equivalent of me saying "The decrease in Catholicism over the past 20 years has led to a decrease in Child Abuse."

---

Do you think that more atheism and godlessness will increase morality?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Is it possible to quote the entire law of Moses, prophets, Luke, Mark, John, Matthew and the epistles of the Apostle's in one post or should I do it in multiple.
And even if morality doesn't come from 'the gods', it still wouldn't harm, except wicked and immoral people.

---

Thankfully I found at least some of them here http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Bible_rules.
Are all of them still applying or have some became obsolete? If some are obsolete, which ones? And who decides that?

I would disagree that the US is a Christian country. Yes, it is the majority by a long shot. But lets get a few things straight.

I hesistate to say "the majority", but a substantial amount of people do not go to church on a regular basis. This includes believers. And while one does not have to attend church to believe, I bring this up because a substantial number of "believers" also do not adhere to the lifestyle. It's called being a "convenient christian." Ask a man convicted of rape and murder what his religion is...most likley christian. Go to a strip club with an anti-christian slogan on your shirt and expect to get punched by a "christian." Having "christian beliefs" does not make one a religious person, the funny thing being that most "christian beliefs" adhere to the same core principles as just about every other religion.

We are secular, which means that religion affects, at most, laws and legislation indirectly, so much that even in-your-face christians will often cringe when a loon tries to justify some crazy knee-jerk law based on "Gods will." Yeah, yeah, this on time Bush said that one thing about God guiding him blah blah. That's what that is, it's blah.

To be honest, I am very comfortable where we are as a country in terms of religion. It is here, but it is not. Yes, a christian candidate will likley have leverage over a non-christian, but that honestly does not bother me because most christian politicians -- even the religious conservative ones -- don't legislate through the Bible. There is a large segment of the political conservative movement who holds animosity towards the religous right for highjacking the GOP because GOP fiscal and social intervention principles are incompatible with GOP Christian nanny-state ideas no matter how you boil it down.

The only reason more non-believer leaders haven't come out as such is because they have a better chance of winning if they "believe." Photos of a president coming out of church holding a bible goes an awful long way with Granny.

The American left, Eurpoean press and muslim nations try fairly often to paint America as some big, Christian doom machine, when in fact we are so sectarian that trying to post the 10 commandments in a court house brings out the alligators and people lost jobs and re-elections.

to the OP:
My answer is no, religion is not necessary, and I think that you will find the majority of americans feel the same way

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Thankfully I found at least some of them here http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Bible_rules.
Are of them still applying or have some became obsolete? If some are obsolete, which ones? And who decides that?

---

None are obsolete, but is it possible to do every single one of them always?

You forgot to mention the ones that contradict each other.

Do you support the return of stoning as a punishment as well, Skullheadhq?

I like this one too:

Quote:

---

Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

---

In the Old Testament, God hates cripples during the time where the "modern medicine" was covering a wound with dung. No wonder he sent Jesus, he ran out of eligible followers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

You forgot to mention the ones that contradict each other.

Do you support the return of stoning as a punishment as well, Skullheadhq?

---

Jesus didn't, he sent away the adulturous women while saying they shouldn't do it again. But since when is this a theological debate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Do you think that more atheism and godlessness will increase morality?

---

My answer to that is a clear "YES!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I believe alternatives such as Humanism will increase morality, yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

What utter nonsense! The increase of atheism has led to more disgusting immorality in this last 20 years than ever seen before! And yes, catholic priests make mistakes, but the general public has never been so immoral or so tolerant to immorality!

---

Not only can you not prove this, it is unprovable.

The media age has made death and debauchery far more visible, available and newsowrthy than ever before. This kind of crap has always gone on in the world, and to a far greater extent. There were no TWEETS during the crusades, FOX wasn't there when the Mongols raped a couple of continents, and the perverted things you *accidentally* find on the internet have always existed. With education and the availability of information came the downfall of the church's monoploy on "good citizenship" and ultimately the rise of secular government.

To think that we are the first generation of men who realized all the totally awesome places in which to place our penises is laughable.

The last 50 years has seen a drastic decline the number of religious people in western europe. In that timeframe, we have also seen:

-drastic economic growth among the general population
-women accepted as equals instead of lesser people
-pre-marital sex is now the norm and fully accepted
-gays are more accepted than ever before
-positions of power are no longer reserved for white, hetrosexual males
-most blasphemy laws and other such restrictions of free speech have finally been removed
-democracy is spread around the world
-universal rights and benefits like healthcare
-abortion is completely legal and accepted
-violence is no longer an accepted form of child-rearing
-neither is violence in marriage accepted

I could go on all day, but I believe this is enough for now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

None are obsolete, but is it possible to do every single one of them always?

---

Well, it is quite possible to break them always. I'm already condemned so it's not a problem.

- Deuteronomy 23:2:
"A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation."

You better hope that any of the 1024 couples that are your ancenstors didn't cheat.
Σ(2 + 2*2 ... 2^10)/2=1024
For a generous 2% cheating ratio (historically, it's been much higher), we got 7 people in the world that can enter into the congregation of the LORD, statistically speaking.

Well, the Ten Commandments most christians point to when claiming moral superiority, are filled with human rights abuses and other evil, and I consider those them the pinnacle of immorality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

-pre-marital sex is now the norm and fully accepted
-gays are more accepted than ever before
-positions of power are no longer reserved for [...], hetrosexual males
-most blasphemy laws and other such restrictions of free speech have finally been removed
-abortion is completely legal and accepted

---

Doesn't sound so moral to me, quite the opposite, in fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Well, the Ten Commandments most christians point to when claiming moral superiority, are filled with human rights abuses and other evil, and I consider those them the pinnacle of immorality.

---

Modern liberal '(human) rights' crybabyism is not the same as morality.
Then again, I was not thinking about Christianity specifically. Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and the likes also instill a somewhat good moral code into the minds and hearts of its believers, it's just that atheism spreads immorality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Well, the Ten Commandments most christians point to when claiming moral superiority, are filled with human rights abuses and other evil, and I consider those them the pinnacle of immorality.

---

Some Mistakes Of Moses by Robert Green Ingersoll

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Some Mistakes Of Moses by Robert Green Ingersoll

---

92 pages in 1990 newsgroup style in which he basically confuses personal disagreements he has with the pentateuch with mistakes. TL;DR.

The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.

Right, thread over, I'll take my cheque.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

[I]The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. .

---

HEY GUYS, LET US **** EVERYONE AND BE MORAL! HAHAHA EVERYONE HAPPY EVERYONE MORAL!

I hope you're joking. John Stuart Mill and his sick ideology is what's destroying society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

92 pages in 1990 newsgroup style in which he basically confuses personal disagreements he has with the pentateuch with mistakes. TL;DR.

---

I didn't expect to you but the mistakes are there all the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Doesn't sound so moral to me, quite the opposite, in fact.

---

No, but for me, this is morality. To me, the opposite view is immorality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Modern liberal '(human) rights' crybabyism is not the same as morality.

---

I fell like doing a breakdown of the collection of abuses usually called the ten commandments(lutheran version):

1: I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol.

ORLY?

This is totalitarianism. A human is free to think as they please, and choose how they please. I can't make me an idol? Have a look at my freedom of expression, and go join Stalin, Daffy and all the other dictators who gain sexual pleasure from controlling the minds of their population.

2. Do not take the name of the Lord in vain.

I can and I will, freedom of speech is vital in any society. Can't handle that? Go hide in a corner.

3. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.

No. Just no. I will work when I get the chance, at any day. I can organize my personal life on my own, thankyouverymuch.

4. Honor your father and mother.

No, I will not honour my parents because they are my parents. I will honour them if they in turn honour me. If they don't, I won't. Honouring people solely based on blood and kinship is plain stupidity, and the basis of any racist.

5. You shall not kill/murder.

Well duuuuuuuuuuuh... I am perfectly capable of knowing that killing other people is bad, I don't see the need for anyone to tell me that. What makes this commandment bad, is that it is used to justify the list.

6. You shall not commit adultery.

Yes, I will. Pre-marital sex is good and healthy, plain and simple.

7. You shall not steal

Same as for number 5.

8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Again, same as for number 5.

9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.

Excuse me, but my neighbors wife is not his possession. She is not his to keep, if I want her and she wants me, it's right for us to be together.

10. You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Yes, I should want to own his possessions. This is the driving force of the capitalist economy, the desire to own more and more. This in turn has created extra-ordinary economic growth and is the reason why we have so good living conditions today. If I see a man living in a castle, I shouldn't be indifferent to it, I should desire to one day live in that casatle, which will motivate me to work hard, for the benefit of myself and society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

No, but for me, this is morality. To me, the opposite view is immorality.



I fell like doing a breakdown of the collection of abuses usually called the ten commandments(lutheran version):

1: I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol.

ORLY?

This is totalitarianism. A human is free to think as they please, and choose how they please. I can't make me an idol? Have a look at my freedom of expression, and go join Stalin, Daffy and all the other dictators who gain sexual pleasure from controlling the minds of their population.

2. Do not take the name of the Lord in vain.

I can and I will, freedom of speech is vital in any society. Can't handle that? Go hide in a corner.

What makes freedom of speech absolute?

3. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.

No. Just no. I will work when I get the chance, at any day. I can organize my personal life on my own, thankyouverymuch.

Thank you for destroying small shops by being egoistic

4. Honor your father and mother.

No, I will not honour my parents because they are my parents. I will honour them if they in turn honour me. If they don't, I won't. Honouring people solely based on blood and kinship is plain stupidity, and the basis of any racist.

This disrespect is what's destroying society.

5. You shall not kill/murder.

Well duuuuuuuuuuuh... I am perfectly capable of knowing that killing other people is bad, I don't see the need for anyone to tell me that. What makes this commandment bad, is that it is used to justify the list.

6. You shall not commit adultery.

Yes, I will. Pre-marital sex is good and healthy, plain and simple.
Long live AIDS and immorality, huh?

7. You shall not steal

Same as for number 5.

8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Again, same as for number 5.

9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.

Excuse me, but my neighbors wife is not his possession. She is not his to keep, if I want her and she wants me, it's right for us to be together.
Thanks for destoying families.

10. You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Yes, I should want to own his possessions. This is the driving force of the capitalist economy, the desire to own more and more. This in turn has created extra-ordinary economic growth and is the reason why we have so good living conditions today. If I see a man living in a castle, I shouldn't be indifferent to it, I should desire to one day live in that casatle, which will motivate me to work hard, for the benefit of myself and society.

---

I hope it makes you happy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

I hope it makes you happy

---

Oh it makes me very happy, which is why I love life here in western europe, and feel its just getting better and better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Oh it makes me very happy, which is why I love life here in western europe, and feel its just getting better and better.

---

http://www.google.nl/#hl=nl&source=h...56f642a2cc9723

Ironside, winning post there.


Skullheadhq, I did not expect to meet someone like you on this side of the millennium. If you defend the view that religious people have better moral than atheist ones, then how can you explain such things as crime statistics, birth statistics - and so on?

If your view were true, the USA would see way less crime than, say, atheist Sweden.

International level aside, I guess then that your prisons are filled with atheists?

Another Example, Japan has a very very very low percentage of christians, yet their criminal record is the lowest in the world (IIRC). How do you explain this? Are they simply all secretly christian, or what?

I do not think you have thought this through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibumi

If your view were true, the USA would see way less crime than, say, atheist Sweden.

---

Sweden has less 'minorities'.
Also, 'that idea is old and thus wrong' sounds like a fallacy to me.

In Sweden, it is the "minorities" that has a belief in God.

Mainstream population is atheist.

For you to be right we should thus get better and better morals the more immigrants we accepted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibumi

In Sweden, it is the "minorities" that has a belief in God.

Mainstream population is atheist.

For you to be right we should thus get better and better morals the more immigrants we accepted.

---

71.3% of Sweden is part of the Church of Sweden (Lutheran), you lose.
"23% [of Sweden says] that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

HEY GUYS, LET US **** EVERYONE AND BE MORAL! HAHAHA EVERYONE HAPPY EVERYONE MORAL!

I hope you're joking. John Stuart Mill and his sick ideology is what's destroying society.

---

To quote Mill again,

When thus attacked, the Epicureans have always answered, that it is not they, but their accusers, who represent human nature in a degrading light; since the accusation supposes human beings to be capable of no pleasures except those of which swine are capable. If this supposition were true, the charge could not be gainsaid, but would then be no longer an imputation; for if the sources of pleasure were precisely the same to human beings and to swine, the rule of life which is good enough for the one would be good enough for the other. The comparison of the Epicurean life to that of beasts is felt as degrading, precisely because a beast's pleasures do not satisfy a human being's conceptions of happiness.

Alternatively,

In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility.

I could do this all day. Making thoughtful, provocative and devastating backroom comments has never been easier.

Quote:

---

Skullheadhq, I did not expect to meet someone like you on this side of the millennium.

---

ho ho ho

So you say atheists are altruistic Epicureans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

71.3% of Sweden is part of the Church of Sweden (Lutheran), you lose.
"23% [of Sweden says] that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force"

---

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....

As far as I know, I'm still a member of the Church of Norway. The Church of Sweden works the same way, in that everyone who's mother or father belongs to the church on paper is entered into it. I renounced my membership(my moyher was still a member at the time of my birth) for the 3rd(!) time last year, but I have strong doubts that they have actually managed to strike me off their records.

The membership number in the criminal state church says absolutely nothing about how many people are religious here. The last survey I saw that had the question "Do you believe in god?" had 70% say "no". It's the same in Sweden.

Not necessarily, just as Christians aren't necessarily charity-giving do-gooders. But should they aim to be? Probably, yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Not necessarily, just as Christians aren't necessarily charity-giving do-gooders. But should they aim to be? Probably, yes.

---

I agree, I agree, but shouldn't we help the people with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

71.3% of Sweden is part of the Church of Sweden (Lutheran), you lose.
"23% [of Sweden says] that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force"

---

Are you actually now trying to teach me about my own country?

71,3% of Swedes are part of the church of Sweden because, guess what, you enter it from birth. To mistake that number for actual religious followers are narrow minded to say the least.

23% of Swedes believe there is not any sort of spirit, god or life force. Sure, I as an example believe in some sort of life force, how else would we have life? I am as far away from being christian as you are from a correct analysis though.

“it is impossible for an atheist to even define what morals are” ?. You should read a little bit more, you know, the Universal Human Rights thing…

The moral values of an atheist come from reasoning, not revealed by a ball of fire or after a walk in the desert without hat and having eating too much of these nice mushrooms (the ones red with blue spots).

“The increase of atheism has led to more disgusting immorality in this last 20 years than ever seen before!” You mean as the Inquisition, the burning alive of witches on the public places or the stoning to death of adulteries?
Don’t start on this, the crimes organised by various religions groups are well documented from collective suicides to pogroms…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibumi

I am as far away from being christian as you are from a correct analysis though.

---

So, are you going to define what Christianity is then? And let me guess, it's a very liberal, modern definition of what you perceive of what 'real Christianity' is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibumi

It IS NOT necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values
or
It IS necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

As for the reasoning, ummm ask PVC or Rhy.

---

Well... I actually voted for the first option in that poll.

Christianity isn't about being a better or more moral person than other people... it's about admitting that you're not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Modern liberal '(human) rights' crybabyism is not the same as morality.
Then again, I was not thinking about Christianity specifically. Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and the likes also instill a somewhat good moral code into the minds and hearts of its believers, it's just that atheism spreads immorality.

---

So aethists doesn't know morals, because that's the job for old dudes (there's always old dudes for this) that lived for more than 1000 years ago? That or the first commandment is about the existance of more than one god...

Quote:

---

3. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.
No. Just no. I will work when I get the chance, at any day. I can organize my personal life on my own, thankyouverymuch.

Thank you for destroying small shops by being egoistic

---

That's why God invented Saturday. No, wait we came up with that one ourselves. Or the national day or any non-religious red day.

Quote:

---

4. Honor your father and mother.

No, I will not honour my parents because they are my parents. I will honour them if they in turn honour me. If they don't, I won't. Honouring people solely based on blood and kinship is plain stupidity, and the basis of any racist.

This disrespect is what's destroying society.

---

Indeed, lets reintroduce the death penalty for disobedient children.
- Leviticus 20:9:
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

How dare the children curse their parents when they're getting sexually abused and beaten.

Quote:

---

6. You shall not commit adultery.

Yes, I will. Pre-marital sex is good and healthy, plain and simple.
Long live AIDS and immorality, huh?

---

We have condoms and basing a marriage on love and/or personal compatabillity instead of politics or a crush might not always be the best, but it's an improvement on average.

Quote:

---

9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.

Excuse me, but my neighbors wife is not his possession. She is not his to keep, if I want her and she wants me, it's right for us to be together.
Thanks for destoying families.

---

It might actually be that gender biased. But I digress.
Since it takes two to cheat, it's a sign that not all is well inside that family. Sometimes, they're better off breaking up. It's not the nicest thing, since cheating is always a break of trust, but that's hardly something that should be criminalised, but handled by the parts involved (that involves breaking up, divorce, accepting it or trying to fix what's wrong).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

I agree, I agree, but shouldn't we help the people with that?

---

No, you most definitely must not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Without being religious, I think it is impossible to come to a consensus on a universal set of morals, since it is impossible for an atheist to even define what morals are. This makes some weak persons immoral, but not all atheists, I think. The lack of consensus is the problem.

---

No such consensus did ever exist - nor will it ever do so. Such is the human nature.

Remember, many of the laws being quoted hear are not part of the moral law, but the laws Moses gave to the Israelites as a civil leader, and which were only ever intended for the Israelite people. For a particular place and time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwr

Well... I actually voted for the first option in that poll.

Christianity isn't about being a better or more moral person than other people... it's about admitting that you're not.

---

I didn't mean to infer that you supported the position, I was just conceding that you and PVC seem to have the most experience and knowledge of religious doctrine and could explain the thought process of those that choose the second option.

I think that anyone that has sat down for five minutes to think about how society works generally agrees it's not really a good idea if we kill or steal. I think that religion may help for those incapable or unwilling to do so, but it shouldn't have to. Skullhead, you are like me, a citizen of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Let's take a look at 1848. What happened? Right, Thorbecke happened. The Dutch constitution, enabling the modern Dutch parliamentary democracy was laid down. Was it religious in nature? Was Thorbecke a religious man? I don't think it's important.

But he knew something that defines our current society; piety does not necessarily correlate with moral behaviour. This is vital to keep in mind.

A lot of people need religion as a crutch because they are too weak to be good simply because it is the right thing to do. :shrug:

Not that all religious people are weak, but if you can't understand why someone without god or religion can be moral then obviously your entire social well being depends on using religion to make yourself a good person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Without being religious, I think it is impossible to come to a consensus on a universal set of morals, since it is impossible for an atheist to even define what morals are. This makes some weak persons immoral, but not all atheists, I think. The lack of consensus is the problem.

---

(1) Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.

(2) In all things, strive to cause no harm.

(3) Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.

(4) Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.

(5) Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.

(6) Always seek to be learning something new.

(7) Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.

(8) Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.

(9) Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.

(10) Question everything.

Something along those lines look rather universal.

4 out of 10 points are correct. I believe it was Luther who said one should throw its reason out: "Die verfluchte Huhre, Vernunft". This is what he said, and: ""Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets." and ""Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his Reason."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

4 out of 10 points are correct. I believe it was Luther who said one should throw its reason out: "Die verfluchte Huhre, Vernunft". This is what he said, and: ""Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets." and ""Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his Reason."

---

I am a huge Luther Van Dross fan, and I don't remember those hateful lyrics from any of his R&B songs. You are making that up, especially since Luther was a huge fan of whores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

I am a huge Luther Van Dross fan, and I don't remember those hateful lyrics from any of his R&B songs. You are making that up, especially since Luther was a huge fan of whores.

---

Even more hateful than R&B :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

4 out of 10 points are correct. I believe it was Luther who said one should throw its reason out: "Die verfluchte Huhre, Vernunft". This is what he said, and: ""Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets." and ""Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his Reason."

---

I am getting the impression that Luther thought reason was a whore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I am getting the impression that Luther thought reason was a whore.

---

I see you threw out your reason for the greatest part as well, since it took you so long to find out :)

-pre-marital sex is now the norm and fully accepted
-gays are more accepted than ever before
-positions of power are no longer reserved for [...], hetrosexual males
-most blasphemy laws and other such restrictions of free speech have finally been removed
-abortion is completely legal and accepted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Doesn't sound so moral to me, quite the opposite, in fact.

---

Are you actually saying that it is immoral for people other than heterosexual males to occupy positions of power? Care to share your reasoning for that?

Reason is what separates us from animals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scienter

-pre-marital sex is now the norm and fully accepted
-gays are more accepted than ever before
-positions of power are no longer reserved for [...], hetrosexual males
-most blasphemy laws and other such restrictions of free speech have finally been removed
-abortion is completely legal and accepted



Are you actually saying that it is immoral for people other than heterosexual males to occupy positions of power? Care to share your reasoning for that?

---

Women in positions of power, LOL!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

And I mean it

The troll has reared its head. Subtle at first, but now apparent he was trying to draw some of our more religiously conservative folks into the fray by agreeing with him. Based on his previous posts in the BR, I thought he was acting out of character.

GG

Skullheadq - from this and other threads, I do not think you like modern society very much.

But I think if anything we live in a more moral world today in the past. I attribute this to the increasing (historically speaking, and only reversed very recently) dominance of the nuclear family, and the decline of the working-class, and in turn its absorbance into the middle-class and its more traditional Christian (and post-Christian) values.

It's hard to describe what I mean, but these social conditions create a really stifling atmosphere when it comes to morality. Like with teh gays. In Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, there was an article somewhere about how its a haven for gay people, because most people don't really care about it, desipte the fact that the country's religious laws carry the death penalty for sodomy.

On the other hand, if you are gay in the Bible belt, you might not face any legal problems, but you will be hounded of of your family, school, work, church etc.

As for pre-marital sex, I am not necessarily again it. Having dropped that bomb, I will now leave you all in suspense as to what wonderfully interesting opinion I could have on the matter.

Ten bucks says Rhy got a hawt threesome after some heavy drinking saturday night, and now tries to justify his actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Ten bucks says Rhy got a hawt threesome after some heavy drinking saturday night, and now tries to justify his actions.

---

It's becuase he's getting swole!

Quote:

---

It's hard to describe what I mean, but these social conditions create a really stifling atmosphere when it comes to morality. Like with teh gays. In Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, there was an article somewhere about how its a haven for gay people, because most people don't really care about it, desipte the fact that the country's religious laws carry the death penalty for sodomy.

---

I remember an article like that. Let me try and look it up.

EDIT: Found it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Mad Arab

I remember an article like that. Let me try and look it up.

EDIT: Found it.

---

That's the one IIRC, puts a very different perspective on things here and in the middle-east.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Ten bucks says Rhy got a hawt threesome after some heavy drinking saturday night, and now tries to justify his actions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

It's becuase he's getting swole!

---

:laugh4:

lol, but no. I was just thinking about this when reading Genesis, and I wondered how much of what we think of as marriage is Biblical.

We make marriage into a fancy and legalistic ceremony - things, which, as a crazed Protestant, I do not like. Because these things are always unscriptural, or an attempt to undo the Gospel by returning us to the bondage of the Judaic law.

So, how much of our idea of marriage is Biblical? Well, first off, the union of one man and woman is a creation ordinance, and as such something natural to the condition of mankind. The marriage ceremony, on the other hand, is not. There is absolutely no need to be married by a priest/minister, no Biblical precedent. When was Adam 'married' to Eve? Well the answer is found in Genesis which made me think about this, because when Isaac is considered to have become married to Rebekah when he took her into his tent.

Obviously sleeping with someone in itself doesn't mean you are married and meant for each other for the rest of your lives... but if you do it with the intent of staying with that person then that is what marriage is all about... not fancy ceremonies which are unbiblical and more cultural than anything. And when they cost thosuands of pounds nowadays, I think people can live together before becoming officially married.

I think it is necessary. Some understanding that there are moral truths that transcend convenience and egoism is very important. I view morality as transcendental, the real question is; Is it? How do we know? Do we just say "because it is"? Isn't that the same thing as being a theist in a way? It is based on unknowable truths that you just accept defacto.

There is no morality without "God", only subjective actions that may or may not be polite but have no inherrent moral value, so cannot be good or bad objectively in the long term. Morality in the way we know it exists cannot exist without "God", loosely understood. A world without a plan just is. Most people who are iffy on God know what is right and wrong in a superlative sense, so maybe their beleif or lack of belief is irrelevant. The truth exists whether we believe it or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I think it is necessary. Some understanding that there are moral truths that transcend convenience and egoism is very important. I view morality as transcendental, the real question is; Is it? How do we know? Do we just say "because it is"? Isn't that the same thing as being a theist in a way? It is based on unknowable truths that you just accept defacto.

There is no morality without "God", only subjective actions that may or may not be polite but have no inherrent moral value, so cannot be good or bad objectively in the long term. Morality in the way we know it exists cannot exist without "God", loosely understood. A world without a plan just is. Most people who are iffy on God know what is right and wrong in a superlative sense, so maybe their beleif or lack of belief is irrelevant. The truth exists whether we believe it or not.

---

So, well, explain why Japan is not a nest of sins.

Edit: Why is it based on unknowable truths? Moral equal what is good in society - no?

So that is a truth right there, religion playing no part.

Why do we not murder our boss to take his job - because if everyone murdered the boss it would kind of not be very nice to be the boss.
Why do we generally honour our parents? Because we one day will be the parent, and we will assume we will have more life experience than our kids and would want them to respect it.

The list goes on.

Do your seriously believe that the christian moral code is some sort of invention? That prior to that people did not see a reason not to, say, kill?

Japan is one of the most "Religious" modern nations on earth.
"Religion is a cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning by establishing symbols that relate humanity to beliefs and values.[1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature."

Most people are "religious" and believe in a God. Even those who are not religious believe that, in the face of their reality that there is no right or wrong that somehow, in some way, it matters how we live our lives. Is this judgement of a right way and a wrong way to live life a despicable vestige of their faulty religious genes, or is it a hint to the truth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Most people are "religious" and believe in a God. Even those who are not religious believe that, in the face of their reality that there is no right or wrong that somehow, in some way, it matters how we live our lives. Is this judgement of a right way and a wrong way to live life a despicable vestige of their faulty religious genes, or is it a hint to the truth?

---

Murder is wrong, yet many religions have practiced human sacrifice. Was that a wrong way to live life? It's also something that cannot form without a religion, since only religion can make this matter (outside extreme cases of starvation), to give this sacrifice a meaning.

If you're completely alone, is there a right way to live a life? Not really and it would probably cause insanity (pets doesn't count, since you're not really alone having one).

So every decision on how to live your life in the right and the wrong way is based on getting a working social interaction and also have control of your life (the feeling of having control is one funtamental safety feeling).

Now, having a working social interaction with your specie is fundamental your survival. For mating, at least and for a pack animal like humans, working group dynamics. So there's significant genetical imperative to develop genes that promotes working group behaviour. So there's no suprise that an intelligent social animal will come up with a universal set of rules (within that specie, human intelligent lions would probably have other rules), since it's in their blood.

Disconnecting those rules from religion has the advantage of flexibillity. Rules are after all what the vast majority consider as acceptable behavior. That means that if circumstances changes, then the rules might also need to change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Murder is wrong, yet many religions have practiced human sacrifice. Was that a wrong way to live life? It's also something that cannot form without a religion, since only religion can make this matter (outside extreme cases of starvation), to give this sacrifice a meaning.

If you're completely alone, is there a right way to live a life? Not really and it would probably cause insanity (pets doesn't count, since you're not really alone having one).

So every decision on how to live your life in the right and the wrong way is based on getting a working social interaction and also have control of your life (the feeling of having control is one funtamental safety feeling).

Now, having a working social interaction with your specie is fundamental your survival. For mating, at least and for a pack animal like humans, working group dynamics. So there's significant genetical imperative to develop genes that promotes working group behaviour. So there's no suprise that an intelligent social animal will come up with a universal set of rules (within that specie, human intelligent lions would probably have other rules), since it's in their blood.

Disconnecting those rules from religion has the advantage of flexibillity. Rules are after all what the vast majority consider as acceptable behavior. That means that if circumstances changes, then the rules might also need to change.

---

Absolutely brilliant.