wo, wtf, overly open christian | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
(nobody)
...and 630 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614128
Today 0
Topics 127542
  
 
Messageboard index
wo, wtf, overly open christian
 

offline qrter from the future, and it works (Netherlands, The) on 2006-03-25 19:23 [#01867313]
Points: 47414 Status: Moderator



what the hell.


 

offline 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?


 

offline 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.


 

offline 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.



 

offline 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

 

offline Rostasky from United States on 2006-03-25 21:34 [#01867346]
Points: 1572 Status: Lurker



Come on kids, we were all Christian once.


 

offline 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.


 

offline 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.


 

offline 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.


 

offline 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.


 

offline 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.


 

offline 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. :)


 

offline 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.


 

offline 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.


 

offline 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


 

offline 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


 

offline 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