Topic: Religion and Morality. - page 7. (Read 837 times)
^^^... except when they were instructed what to write by God.
Do you really think it's okay for each person to determine for themselves what is moral and what is not?
Personally, I think there needs to be some social consensus on what is acceptable and what is not, otherwise we will have chaos and clutter in society.
And I agree that human morality is relative and changeable but God's morality is absolute and unchangeable, and therefore more reliable.
Personally, I think there needs to be some social consensus on what is acceptable and what is not, otherwise we will have chaos and clutter in society.
And I agree that human morality is relative and changeable but God's morality is absolute and unchangeable, and therefore more reliable.
I'm not only saying that it's okay, I'm saying that the bulk of individuals on the planet already make this determination for themselves based on factors I outlined in my previous post.
We already have a number of social consensus's on what is acceptable; laws and religion are two of the more dominant examples. Laws will differ from state to state and country to country, while religion will differ from person to person. Both will evolve or change over time to suit societal needs. This leaves no absolute common ground on which to form a solid consensus on what is right and wrong.
As an atheist, I can't agree with the last part of your last sentence. If you base your God's morality on any religious scripture, then you're basing it on morality of the human(s) who transcribed/wrote it at the time.
Hey guys. I've been watching a lot of debates on youtube about this topic where theists, apologetics, philosophers, scientists, agnostics and atheists discuss whether religion has a monopoly over what people perceive to be right or wrong. Guys like WLC, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, Frank Turek, Richard Dawkins etc. Go after each other's throats to prove their points and honestly, i think every one of them has a valid argument.
What do you think?
What do you think?
If the outcome of the debates does not include enhancing love for God and people, then the debates are wrong.
Well most of them have no problem with enhancing love for other people as one aspect of morality. They differ largely though when it comes to love of God. We know there more than a thousand religions and a handful of major ones. For the people who believe that religion is the basis of morality, how do one assure himself that his religion is the true basis and not the others?
God made the universe including the earth. What does He do for people, partially to show them His love?:
Quote from: https://biblehub.com/acts/14-17.htm
Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy.
Consider religion. James 1:27"
Quote from: https://www.biblehub.com/niv/james/1-27.htm
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
So you see? True and pure religion goes above and beyond simple morality. It goes into extending one's self into loving and helping those in need. For me, there is no such thing as right and wrong when it comes to morality; there is simply accepted and unaccepted.
Each individual will determine for themselves what they will or won't accept, and will base their actions accordingly. Society, religion, culture, upbringing, environment, laws, individual traits and even current state of mind will all influence what an individual will perceive as acceptable.
As such morality is both subjective and relative.
Each individual will determine for themselves what they will or won't accept, and will base their actions accordingly. Society, religion, culture, upbringing, environment, laws, individual traits and even current state of mind will all influence what an individual will perceive as acceptable.
As such morality is both subjective and relative.
Do you really think it's okay for each person to determine for themselves what is moral and what is not?
Personally, I think there needs to be some social consensus on what is acceptable and what is not, otherwise we will have chaos and clutter in society.
And I agree that human morality is relative and changeable but God's morality is absolute and unchangeable, and therefore more reliable.
This is true. And all people have reasonably correct morality written on their hearts. But when they deviate from the correct morality in themselves, they show that they are corrupted liars.
For me, there is no such thing as right and wrong when it comes to morality; there is simply accepted and unaccepted.
Each individual will determine for themselves what they will or won't accept, and will base their actions accordingly. Society, religion, culture, upbringing, environment, laws, individual traits and even current state of mind will all influence what an individual will perceive as acceptable.
As such morality is both subjective and relative.
Each individual will determine for themselves what they will or won't accept, and will base their actions accordingly. Society, religion, culture, upbringing, environment, laws, individual traits and even current state of mind will all influence what an individual will perceive as acceptable.
As such morality is both subjective and relative.
Do you really think it's okay for each person to determine for themselves what is moral and what is not?
Personally, I think there needs to be some social consensus on what is acceptable and what is not, otherwise we will have chaos and clutter in society.
And I agree that human morality is relative and changeable but God's morality is absolute and unchangeable, and therefore more reliable.
For me, there is no such thing as right and wrong when it comes to morality; there is simply accepted and unaccepted.
Each individual will determine for themselves what they will or won't accept, and will base their actions accordingly. Society, religion, culture, upbringing, environment, laws, individual traits and even current state of mind will all influence what an individual will perceive as acceptable.
As such morality is both subjective and relative.
Each individual will determine for themselves what they will or won't accept, and will base their actions accordingly. Society, religion, culture, upbringing, environment, laws, individual traits and even current state of mind will all influence what an individual will perceive as acceptable.
As such morality is both subjective and relative.
I am no expert but considering that people seem to have certain common values despite differing religion/culture, I believe we have some sort of internal moral compass. How that is expressed is then affected by culture, for example how some cultures put more emphasis on honor, etc.
They also a human same like you so they are nothing more than you in the view of God,so just do what you think and be good for you and others.Religion is for people not to control anyone from their comfort zone.
Hey guys. I've been watching a lot of debates on youtube about this topic where theists, apologetics, philosophers, scientists, agnostics and atheists discuss whether religion has a monopoly over what people perceive to be right or wrong. Guys like WLC, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, Frank Turek, Richard Dawkins etc. Go after each other's throats to prove their points and honestly, i think every one of them has a valid argument.
What do you think?
What do you think?
They have a valid argument but we have to respect both opinions.
If someone believes on something we cannot stop to respect that. If there are records that God existed many decades ago, we have to consider them as an argument from the side who support the religion.
I think that religion is a good set of rules for the general population and the general population usually is dumb. This is the reason why smart people debate it and go against it because they feel like they have their own morality and can see a difference between good and evil. Then comes a priest and tells them what to do or that they are immoral according to some of his rules. Rules made 2k years ago, rules that sometimes even the priests don't obey.
We don't need religion to be good and moral but if you are lost and find it difficult to function in society maybe religion is the way to go. People who need guidance will find religion helpful and those who don't can do without it.
We don't need religion to be good and moral but if you are lost and find it difficult to function in society maybe religion is the way to go. People who need guidance will find religion helpful and those who don't can do without it.
Religion must be rational, how can you be religious while your own mind does not say yes about it. When someone successfully debates your religion, does he say That your religion is wrong, and he said as it is based on a variety of logical propositions, we can see how when Dr Zakir Naik who opened debate with various religions, and He presented various arguments so that many of his opponents became silent without being able to respond.
You know, I believe that conscience is the best religion ever.
If you don't have it, you have no god inside you. Simple
If you don't have it, you have no god inside you. Simple
I understand that. Though I'm not actually asking about religion. How do you come up with your conscience? Some atheists say that knowing what's good or bad can be a product of evolution and that it's imprinted already in the genes. Theists say that God is the basis of what's good, so by that you also get a definition for what's not good. Some philosophers say that it's a product of time and it's by instinct.
I just wanna what people's thoughts are about this. Where does your definition of morality come from?
Conscience comes from your schooling and your self learning.
Religion too is a learning but it doesn't purely teach about deciding what is right or wrong but states what's right and what's wrong. Which is a form of brainwashing.
A brainwashed mind can't make an unbiased decision.
I don't mean everyone needs to dump their religion but when it comes to making a decision, be neutral and don't get influenced by your religion.
Hey guys. I've been watching a lot of debates on youtube about this topic where theists, apologetics, philosophers, scientists, agnostics and atheists discuss whether religion has a monopoly over what people perceive to be right or wrong. Guys like WLC, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, Frank Turek, Richard Dawkins etc. Go after each other's throats to prove their points and honestly, i think every one of them has a valid argument.
What do you think?
What do you think?
If the outcome of the debates does not include enhancing love for God and people, then the debates are wrong.
Well most of them have no problem with enhancing love for other people as one aspect of morality. They differ largely though when it comes to love of God. We know there more than a thousand religions and a handful of major ones. For the people who believe that religion is the basis of morality, how do one assure himself that his religion is the true basis and not the others?
First of all, many philosophers and atheists do not understand that God is the source of all creation, life and love.
God is behind all natural laws, he is the creator of mathematics, physics, science etc.
In the end, God is also the source of ethics and morality, which are unchanging and absolute.
People can create only temporary moral which cannot stand the test of time.
Religion is merely an intermediary between God and men.
And as someone has well noted, what is most fundamental is that God is love and our Heavenly Parent.
God's love was his motivation for creation and the absolute morality he gave us as a guide to life.
God is behind all natural laws, he is the creator of mathematics, physics, science etc.
In the end, God is also the source of ethics and morality, which are unchanging and absolute.
People can create only temporary moral which cannot stand the test of time.
Religion is merely an intermediary between God and men.
And as someone has well noted, what is most fundamental is that God is love and our Heavenly Parent.
God's love was his motivation for creation and the absolute morality he gave us as a guide to life.
Hey guys. I've been watching a lot of debates on youtube about this topic where theists, apologetics, philosophers, scientists, agnostics and atheists discuss whether religion has a monopoly over what people perceive to be right or wrong. Guys like WLC, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, Frank Turek, Richard Dawkins etc. Go after each other's throats to prove their points and honestly, i think every one of them has a valid argument.
What do you think?
What do you think?
If the outcome of the debates does not include enhancing love for God and people, then the debates are wrong.
The other point about religion, that I forgot to add, is that if your religion tells you to act in a certain way that you think is morally good, then there's no way to separate out whether you are doing that act because it is inherently good to do so, or whether you are doing it in expectation of future reward from your religion.
For example, if Christianity defines something as good behaviour, and further says that after death only good people get to go to heaven whereas bad people suffer eternal torment in hell, then are you performing the act because it is good, or because you want to go to heaven and avoid hell? This is why a religious person can't be good - it's too tied-in to expectation of future personal reward/punishment.
But if you don't follow a religion, then you stand on your own, and you act without expectation of any future positive or negative impact on yourself.
For example, if Christianity defines something as good behaviour, and further says that after death only good people get to go to heaven whereas bad people suffer eternal torment in hell, then are you performing the act because it is good, or because you want to go to heaven and avoid hell? This is why a religious person can't be good - it's too tied-in to expectation of future personal reward/punishment.
But if you don't follow a religion, then you stand on your own, and you act without expectation of any future positive or negative impact on yourself.
My opinion is that no act committed in the name of religion can be morally "good".
What I mean is that if you follow a religion, then you obey the dictates of that religion without question, and you act according to the rules of that religion, again without question. If a religion tells you to be kind to strangers, then the reason you are kind to strangers is not because you think it is a morally good act, rather you are doing it because the religion tells you to do it.
I suppose there's a distinction in there in that if you choose to follow a religion specifically because of its moral code, then the point doesn't really apply. But generally that isn't the case, people tend to follow a religion because they have been born into it.
It's the 'question everything' approach really. If you do not constantly critique and evaluate your own behaviour, then you can't perform a morally good act. If you don't take responsibility for your own actions, and instead defer all meaning to your religion and your god, then any act isn't really 'your' act at all.
What I mean is that if you follow a religion, then you obey the dictates of that religion without question, and you act according to the rules of that religion, again without question. If a religion tells you to be kind to strangers, then the reason you are kind to strangers is not because you think it is a morally good act, rather you are doing it because the religion tells you to do it.
I suppose there's a distinction in there in that if you choose to follow a religion specifically because of its moral code, then the point doesn't really apply. But generally that isn't the case, people tend to follow a religion because they have been born into it.
It's the 'question everything' approach really. If you do not constantly critique and evaluate your own behaviour, then you can't perform a morally good act. If you don't take responsibility for your own actions, and instead defer all meaning to your religion and your god, then any act isn't really 'your' act at all.
I'm kinda leaning on that view as well. Though some arguments indicate that without God, or the bible, or the quran, you won't have a basis as to what good or bad is. I kinda got confused with that argument but I'd be happy to try and understand it. I think you don't need to have any external basis. What's hurts you is not good, therefore you shouldn't bestow that upon other people. I think the many of the early humans understood that even before being introduced to any religion.
My opinion is that no act committed in the name of religion can be morally "good".
What I mean is that if you follow a religion, then you obey the dictates of that religion without question, and you act according to the rules of that religion, again without question. If a religion tells you to be kind to strangers, then the reason you are kind to strangers is not because you think it is a morally good act, rather you are doing it because the religion tells you to do it.
I suppose there's a distinction in there in that if you choose to follow a religion specifically because of its moral code, then the point doesn't really apply. But generally that isn't the case, people tend to follow a religion because they have been born into it.
It's the 'question everything' approach really. If you do not constantly critique and evaluate your own behaviour, then you can't perform a morally good act. If you don't take responsibility for your own actions, and instead defer all meaning to your religion and your god, then any act isn't really 'your' act at all.
What I mean is that if you follow a religion, then you obey the dictates of that religion without question, and you act according to the rules of that religion, again without question. If a religion tells you to be kind to strangers, then the reason you are kind to strangers is not because you think it is a morally good act, rather you are doing it because the religion tells you to do it.
I suppose there's a distinction in there in that if you choose to follow a religion specifically because of its moral code, then the point doesn't really apply. But generally that isn't the case, people tend to follow a religion because they have been born into it.
It's the 'question everything' approach really. If you do not constantly critique and evaluate your own behaviour, then you can't perform a morally good act. If you don't take responsibility for your own actions, and instead defer all meaning to your religion and your god, then any act isn't really 'your' act at all.
You know, I believe that conscience is the best religion ever.
If you don't have it, you have no god inside you. Simple
If you don't have it, you have no god inside you. Simple
I understand that. Though I'm not actually asking about religion. How do you come up with your conscience? Some atheists say that knowing what's good or bad can be a product of evolution and that it's imprinted already in the genes. Theists say that God is the basis of what's good, so by that you also get a definition for what's not good. Some philosophers say that it's a product of time and it's by instinct.
I just wanna what people's thoughts are about this. Where does your definition of morality come from?
You know, I believe that conscience is the best religion ever.
If you don't have it, you have no god inside you. Simple
If you don't have it, you have no god inside you. Simple
Jump to: