Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Xl anthrax lX

Morality and religion: Why morality does not belong to religion.

Recommended Posts

Xl anthrax lX

Being an Atheist who is very outspoken on my belief, I find it important to study the counter arguments against my position. This time we will look at this one: "Don't you think it would be difficult for people to have a sense of morality without religion?" I say no. I think it would be rather sad if the only reason people are good is because they are afraid of hell. People do not need to be told what is good are bad. An example would be this; A young child does not need to be told that murder is evil. The knowledge that an action can result in the ending of someone's life is quite enough knowledge to know that it is wrong. Think of all the good instincts that humans as a race have as well as selfish ones. An example of good instinct would be in the paraphrased words of professor A.C. Grayling that "if you are walking down the street and someone is about to be crushed by a pile of bricks unbeknownst to them, your reaction will be to tell them to watch out. Not because you follow any certain religion but because it is a naturally good instinct. Let's take the Ten Commandments from the bible. Do you really think that up to the point that Moses recieved and told his followers of the commandments that they were under the presumption that murder, theft, and perjury were ok? I think not. We don't need directions from a couple of stone tablets to know these things. Look at the story of the Good Samaritan. A person who went to enormous amounts of trouble to help a fellow human out of struggle and then to help him more after recovery. Though we don't know if he was religious we do know that he was of Samaria and at that time it would have been impossible for him to be a Christian. I conclude by saying that it is quite obvious that if we got our morality from holy books we would not only be doing good but great amounts of evil as you can still see is happening in the name of religion today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gay Tony

To me.... it seems religion being related to morality makes humans look bad.

 

I mean, the only reason you're moral and kind is because of an institutionalized religion or you're just afraid of going to hell/being punished? Can you see where I'm going with this?

 

For this I'll quote the Dalai Lama - "There is no need for temples, no need for complicated philosophies. My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness"

Edited by mr toasterbutt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xl anthrax lX

I agree with you completely. It would be quite the unsettling thought to think morality comes from holy books of any sort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. House

Requesting thread name change to 'Why I wear a fedora'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fefenc

Being an Atheist who is very outspoken on my belief, I find it important to study the counter arguments against my position.

The best counter argument you can use is saying that it's your choice to not be following a religion. Be careful or your atheism will turn into an annoying "religion" of the science...

Edited by fefenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Docfaustino

Requesting thread name change to 'Why I wear a fedora'

 

48f.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xl anthrax lX

Well I don't much care if someone is annoyed by my opinions or my voicing of them. The sophomoric replies made by the few people above is simply an example of how frivolous they are.

Edited by Xl anthrax lX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. House

Well I don't much care if someone is annoyed by my opinions or my voicing of them. The sophomoric replies made by the few people above is simply an example of how frivolous they are.

My 'sophmoric' (lol) reply wasn't due to your overwhelming intellect towering above us proles. It's due to the fact that this topic has already been covered in much more detail than this thread prior to this in this subsection. Besides which, even if it had not, this half a paragraph of entry to atheism wouldn't cut the mustard in any case. Atheism as a fully fledged concept has been around for centuries, what makes you think this lazy attempt has anything of worth to add? A limp A C Grayling quote and a well known bible story is not it.

Edited by Mr. House

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xl anthrax lX

You seem to be under the presumption that every one is aware of everything atheism encompasses. You're saying if I don't have something new then why am I talking? Well I don't suppose they should quit teaching math because it's been around for ages now should they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fefenc

Atheism has turned out to be the religion without a god because people like you wanna spread your atheism everywhere and convince everyone that the religious people are wrong at all costs with a science book under your arms by preaching Darwin's words, this is called religious rape, dude. You talk about your atheism like christians talk about their christianism.

 

I'm sure you're one of those atheists that explains even the history before the Big Bang to someone who believes a god. The main pruporsal of being a unbeliever is having the right of not believing a god.

 

Remember, you must respect to be respected...

Edited by fefenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Most atheists don't give a sh*t whether or not other people hold religious beliefs. They often dislike the negative influences of organised religion on politics and society (particularly questions of morality and ethics, see also: secular humanism) is and resent the misappropriation of logic and reason to justify blind faith, but aggressive atheism is pretty much solely the domain of a small number of intolerant and often poorly informed individuals. Largely like aggressive religious believers really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mr quick

Sivis, wouldn't your first descriptions be antitheism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

sure, but at that point it's really splitting hairs.

 

basically this topic is unncessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Sivis, wouldn't your first descriptions be antitheism?

No, antitheism is active opposition to religious belief on principle. If you don't oppose the concept of religious belief, you're not an antitheist. What I've said is really secularism.

 

Some religious believers seem to confuse criticism of religion's influence on society, advocacy for secularism and humanism, or what people believe to be immoral actions committed by or on behalf of organised religious groups with active opposition to religion itself, but this is largely a ploy to deflect legitimate criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xl anthrax lX

That's all I was doing was offering some criticism. I think if I would have taken out the first part about me being an atheist then no one would have had a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tyler

It's just that the topic as a whole is old hat now. You need to look further than just establishing that atheists can, in fact, be people who don't literally eat fetuses. There is a lot of discussion that can be had in the sphere in general, though. You can talk about the metaphysical stance of some secular ideologies. You can go into ethics beyond a God-centric morality (rather than just arguing morality can be independent of religion). You can talk about how to deal with plurality in society (this is a pretty big issue considering how reactionary some religious sects have become when faced with the globalised world). The myriad topics you could have picked from concerning this is pretty astounding, to be honest. There's a lot of room for discussion, it's just a matter of finding a topic that isn't appropriated by neck-bearded Euphorists (coining this term) who think that religion is literally a plague.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cyper

There is a popular saying that religious books has to be 'put in context'. That is first off amusing since these books are supposed to advocate an objective morality. But the statement is very much true. It has to be put in context because it's no more than made-man books full of contradictions, plagiarism, science that very well corresponds with the time that these books were written in. There is certainly nothing devine about it, at least no more devine than the fact that the greeks proposed that everything must be made of very small particles long before atoms where known to exist. The same goes with the moral codes: there is nothing new or exceptional about the morality expressed in the Bible or the Quaran. ''Though Shall not kill'' is hardly a thought nobody had been thinking about before the Bible laid it out. The Bible have borrowed much of it from other philosophical viewpoints (for example the 'Golden Rules' which was expressed by Confucius 400 years before christ) The Quaran does more or less the same thing as the Bible. It copy the morality and science known at the time period.

 

So the point is quite clear: moral development already happens with or without religion. The human morality have been proven to change over time - often for the better. It's just a matter of religion to catch up to the rest. Those who claim that there is an objective morality do indeed have a great burden off proof on their hands.

Edited by Cyper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeftyGuns

 

 

Well I don't much care if someone is annoyed by my opinions or my voicing of them. The sophomoric replies made by the few people above is simply an example of how frivolous they are.

My 'sophmoric' (lol) reply wasn't due to your overwhelming intellect towering above us proles. It's due to the fact that this topic has already been covered in much more detail than this thread prior to this in this subsection. Besides which, even if it had not, this half a paragraph of entry to atheism wouldn't cut the mustard in any case. Atheism as a fully fledged concept has been around for centuries, what makes you think this lazy attempt has anything of worth to add? A limp A C Grayling quote and a well known bible story is not it.

Thank you for stemming the tide of this mouth breathing neckbeard before he got out of hand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Niobium

Atheism has turned out to be the religion without a god because people like you wanna spread your atheism everywhere and convince everyone that the religious people are wrong at all costs with a science book under your arms by preaching Darwin's words, this is called religious rape, dude. You talk about your atheism like christians talk about their christianism.

 

I'm sure you're one of those atheists that explains even the history before the Big Bang to someone who believes a god. The main pruporsal of being a unbeliever is having the right of not believing a god.

 

Remember, you must respect to be respected...

i stopped reading at "atheism is a religion"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CantThinkOfOne2013

I conclude by saying that it is quite obvious that if we got our morality from holy books

 

Morality doesn't come from the holy book, it comes from God himself (yet we still cross the lines or morality because we are sinners)

I think it would be rather sad if the only reason people are good is because they are afraid of hell.

 

Yet that goes against the entire Christian faith: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith

OP I think you missed their part of the argument. It's not that people necessarily need religion to know good from bad, it's that god created in our hearts the knowledge of morality. Without a moral law giver, there would be no absolute basis for moral law making it entirely subjective.

Edited by GrandMaster Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

god created in our hearts the knowledge of morality. Without a moral law giver, there would be no absolute basis for moral law making it entirely subjective.

this is ridiculous.

 

there's no magic code that says God has to exist in order for their to be absolute morality.

saying that god "created in our hearts" the ability to comprehend or practice morality is fanciful storytelling.

 

evolution provides innumerable opportunities for absolute morality to be defined and grounded in nature.

it might depend on the species, but human beings do not need "god" in order to understand or practice morality. any child will grasp morality until some other influence (like their bigoted/racist/sexist/jackass parents) interferes and corrupts it.

 

morality does not come from 'on high.'

it comes from within and it always has.

Edited by El Diablo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith

 

god created in our hearts the knowledge of morality. Without a moral law giver, there would be no absolute basis for moral law making it entirely subjective.

this is ridiculous.

 

there's no magic code that says God has to exist in order for their to be absolute morality.

saying that god "created in our hearts" the ability to comprehend or practice morality is fanciful storytelling.

 

evolution provides innumerable opportunities for absolute morality to be defined and grounded in nature.

it might depend on the species, but human beings do not need "god" in order to understand or practice morality. any child will grasp morality until some other influence (like their bigoted/racist/sexist/jackass parents) interferes and corrupts it.

 

morality does not come from 'on high.'

it comes from within and it always has.

 

 

 

I would argue that with an absence of a moral law giver there can't be absolute morality. I'm not sure how a natural process such as evolution could produce an abstract law anyhow considering humans would be the ones who dictate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

I would argue that with an absence of a moral law giver there can't be absolute morality.

that's not an argument.

that's just you saying that.

 

you have to elaborate and/or provide some kind of example, preferably evidence based.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith

 

I would argue that with an absence of a moral law giver there can't be absolute morality.

that's not an argument.

that's just you saying that.

 

you have to elaborate and/or provide some kind of example, preferably evidence based.

 

 

Without an absolute law giver humans would be the dictators of morality given a natural process couldn't produce an abstract law- on one side they could say being caring to all will ensure our survival, yet on the other end of the spectrum they could use survival of the fittest as justification for genocide.. it'd render morality entirely subjective if humans were the moral law makers. Of course we are freewill creatures and are able to listen to or ignore our conscious which would be why god gave humans the ten commandments.

Edited by GrandMaster Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fonz

 

 

I would argue that with an absence of a moral law giver there can't be absolute morality.

that's not an argument.

that's just you saying that.

 

you have to elaborate and/or provide some kind of example, preferably evidence based.

 

 

Without an absolute law giver humans would be the dictators of morality given a natural process couldn't produce an abstract law- on one side they could say being caring to all will ensure our survival, yet on the other end of the spectrum they could use survival of the fittest as justification for genocide.. it'd render morality entirely subjective if humans were the moral law makers. Of course we are freewill creatures and are able to listen to or ignore our conscious which would be why god gave humans the ten commandments.

 

Firstly, morality actually is somewhat subjective, as it depends largely on the sociocultural context, meaning that different societies have different ideas as to what constitutes morally sound behaviour. Of course, there are values and actions that are universally praised or reprimanded (e.g. wanton murder is unanimously seen as an evil deed), but, as you see, divine figures are not necessary to instill these values. Until there's any evidence corroborating any holy books' claims, they should all be taken with a grain of salt.

 

Secondly, the fact that you believe that any moral guidance can be extracted from religious texts (particularly the Bible) indicates to me that you haven't actually read them. If you wish to get an idea of what despicable, heinous, inhumane behaviour is, you'd be hard-pressed to find better illustrations. Many great thinkers had well established ideas for morality long before Abrahamic religions gained widespread popularity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

a natural process couldn't produce an abstract law-

This is meaningless drivel. You blurting that out ad nauseum isn't helpful. Why do you think physical processes can't produce information? What's the basis for that?

any child will grasp morality until some other influence (like their bigoted/racist/sexist/jackass parents) interferes and corrupts it.

No, morality is learned. Empathy is inherent, but morality exists on a different scale to empathy. Feral humans definitely aren't "moral."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

No, morality is learned. Empathy is inherent, but morality exists on a different scale to empathy. Feral humans definitely aren't "moral."

well sure.

bad morality is learned ;)

 

but assuming that you were born with all if your chemicals in balance, good morality is evidently inherent within our species. the survival instincts that were required for us to evolve to this point are predicated on community and compassion. we didn't make it this far by raping and pillaging based on who was the strongest; not as individuals. as individuals we are social- and comfort-seeking, largely not concerned with or seeking out conflict.

 

most kids on the playground get along.

the ones that don't - the bullies, etc - almost unanimously have some obvious influence of bigotry happening in their private life. they learn this and bring it to their social interactions.

 

no one is born with bigotry.

you have to 'educate' a child about how to hate or distrust groups of people.

you have to demonstrate how to disrespect women.

 

no one is born hating black people.

no one is born hating gays.

no one is born thinking it's cool to punch their girlfriend.

 

your "feral humans" example doesn't hold much water, either.

truly 'feral' children/people found in the wild are very rare. the cases when this occurs can usually be linked to some kind of initial trauma that caused the separation of the victim from their family and/or original living conditions. calling them 'feral' is tenuous at best. it's not a strong argument. it doesn't really show how a "wild" person would naturally behave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fonz

@Melchior and El Diablo

You two are actually agreeing to some extent. Empathy is inherent, but a balanced learning of morality and its benefits is mostly acquired through contact with one's sociocultural environment. This also refines many of the other, less evident elements of morality.
Of course bigotry is learned, but someone who has had limited contact with civilisation will lack many crucial skills and intellectual faculties, and, despite not being an exact example of a truly "wild" human, may still display aggression based on survival instincts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

Of course bigotry is learned, but someone who has had limited contact with civilisation will lack many crucial skills and intellectual faculties, and, despite not being an exact example of a truly "wild" human, may still display aggression based on survival instincts.

that's fine.

but it's not a scientific example. it wouldn't hold up in a test.

 

'feral humans' do not provide evidence for how a truly "wild" human would behave naturally. in this day and age it would be impossible to perform such an experiment.

Edited by El Diablo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.