|
|
qrter
from the future, and it works (Netherlands, The) on 2006-03-25 19:23 [#01867313]
Points: 47414 Status: Moderator
|
|
what the hell.
|
|
mylittlesister
from ...wherever (United Kingdom) on 2006-03-25 19:42 [#01867326]
Points: 8472 Status: Regular
|
|
"without a system of religion behind it it seems hard to determine why one thing is 'good' and another thing isn't."
what's wrong with our internal systems of human nature? and our internal moral beliefs?
|
|
uviol
from United States on 2006-03-25 21:02 [#01867343]
Points: 2496 Status: Lurker | Followup to mylittlesister: #01867326
|
|
nothing's wrong with them, however wouldn't you say that human nature is often instictively selfish and malicious? We obviously deny ourselves many of these instincts for a whole array of reasons, but if there's no divine, superhuman system dictating right and wrong, then the whole idea of morals just seems like an illusion. we have equivalents, like.. the reason we 'do unto others as we would have them do unto us' could also be attributed to the need for cooperation to ensure freedom, a high quality of life, interdependency, etc. However, in the end doesn't it all seem pointless without a God? As weird as this sounds, I am not using this as an argument for or against Christianity. It just seems silly to have 'morals' per se without also having religion. If you do, that's great.. but it shouldn't be because you think of any act being inherently good or bad.
|
|
qrter
from the future, and it works (Netherlands, The) on 2006-03-25 21:21 [#01867344]
Points: 47414 Status: Moderator | Followup to uviol: #01867343
|
|
why would you need the idea of a god to believe in morals? most morals come forth out of the idea that there are a lot of humans and we somehow need to be able to live together in a normal way - its genesis, if you will, is of a practical nature.
and if it's inherent to humanity to be selfish and malicious, it's not that hard to use 'the good book' and its rules in such a way that still benifit yourself over another.
|
|
fleetmouse
from Horny for Truth on 2006-03-25 21:23 [#01867345]
Points: 18042 Status: Lurker | Followup to glasse: #01867296
|
|
Did you ever fathom that for all of the scientific knowledge and enlightenment that we have, we are still just like a small boy standing by an enormous ocean with a tin cup?
"What's that? Small boy by the seaside, you say? I'll be right there!"
|
| Attached picture |
|
|
|
Rostasky
from United States on 2006-03-25 21:34 [#01867346]
Points: 1572 Status: Lurker
|
|
Come on kids, we were all Christian once.
|
|
r40f
from qrters tea party on 2006-03-25 21:41 [#01867347]
Points: 14210 Status: Regular | Followup to qrter: #01867344
|
|
yes, exactly. (the rest of my post is not directed to qrter - just the thread in general)
from a purely historical standpoint, "morality" in its many forms has existed before any judeo-christian religions. a religion merely exploits some of the basic, intrinsic elements of "morality" to benefit itself, adding whatever other rules it cares to in the process.
make no mistake - concepts like "good and evil" are relatively new to humans. people were around for a very, very long time without worrying about sinning and not eating pork. those things are brand new in the scale of human history.
|
|
uviol
from United States on 2006-03-25 21:57 [#01867351]
Points: 2496 Status: Lurker | Followup to qrter: #01867344
|
|
that's precisely what I'm saying.. we get along with each other because it fulfills some utilitarian need for mutual happiness and survival, and it wouldn't be practical at this point in human history to go around beating people up for their stuff or wives or cattle or whatever. However, and maybe this is just nit picking, but calling them morals or labeling acts as right or wrong seems almost superfluous if there's no divine accountability. You can be nice or civil to other human beings regardless of your beliefs, yet without a god or gods it seems there's no reason to feel any remorse for doing something selfish or mean.. it's just a breach of this totally artificial etiquette we've established.
|
|
r40f
from qrters tea party on 2006-03-25 22:05 [#01867352]
Points: 14210 Status: Regular | Followup to uviol: #01867351
|
|
yet clearly there are many very nice atheists in the world so i guess you're completely wrong.
|
|
uviol
from United States on 2006-03-25 22:19 [#01867354]
Points: 2496 Status: Lurker | Followup to r40f: #01867352
|
|
you're missing my point completely. alot of people are 'nice,' but it's a matter of whether you feel being nice is a 'right' or 'moral' act.. attaching meaning to it. trust me, I'm much more grateful for the nice athiests than I am for the dickhead Christians.
|
|
r40f
from qrters tea party on 2006-03-25 22:25 [#01867355]
Points: 14210 Status: Regular | Followup to uviol: #01867354
|
|
You can be nice or civil to other human beings regardless of your beliefs, yet without a god or gods it seems there's no reason to feel any
remorse for doing something selfish or mean..
that's what i was referring to.
|
|
uviol
from United States on 2006-03-25 22:36 [#01867357]
Points: 2496 Status: Lurker | Followup to r40f: #01867355
|
|
ok, but I still don't see why the phenomenon of 'nice athiests' disproves that. Doing nice things for people is great regardless of your religion (or lack of religion).. it just seems funny to me to call it 'right' and 'wrong' if for you there's no tree of good and evil to classify these acts. Maybe it's just a matter of the meaning of the word 'moral,'.. under your worldview it sounds as if morality can be equivalent to pre-Christian concepts of civility, the golden rule, etc. .. and if so, that's fine. I'll stop babbling. :)
|
|
r40f
from qrters tea party on 2006-03-25 23:52 [#01867364]
Points: 14210 Status: Regular | Followup to uviol: #01867357
|
|
morality is entirely subjective from culture to culture, time period to time period. i'm not defining it here by any religious standard, i'm simply using the word.
i think you're a bit caught up in the semantics of this argument, which doesn't interest me. i think we probably largely agree, but your other post was very misleading.
|
|
uviol
from United States on 2006-03-26 00:36 [#01867367]
Points: 2496 Status: Lurker | Followup to r40f: #01867364
|
|
i think you're a bit caught up in the semantics of this argument
I think you're right. I guess that's where I was going with the last post.. that I'm worrying too much about morality as a term. Still, I find that it has overly religious connotations, but in a living language such as English that is a bad point to make a case out of.
|
|
Ezkerraldean
from the lowest common denominator (United Kingdom) on 2006-03-26 07:12 [#01867469]
Points: 5733 Status: Addict
|
|
morality and religion are completely seperate. i am a proper fucking hardcore atheist, and i still help grannies cross the road and experience sympathy, compassion, guilt, and all that.
i remember seeing some american TV evangelist prick going on about "nonbelievers think its crazy to forgive others". its total bullshit. sometimes i think i forgive people too much, i know some of my friends say im just a pushover
|
|
Raz0rBlade_uk
on 2006-03-26 10:50 [#01867569]
Points: 12540 Status: Addict | Followup to Ezkerraldean: #01867469 | Show recordbag
|
|
i like you. let's be friends
|
|
obara
from Utrecht on 2006-03-26 11:33 [#01867597]
Points: 19377 Status: Regular
|
|
I've decided to stop posting here during lent and instead just read and absorb...
|
|
Messageboard index
|