[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Wednesday, May 16 2012, 00:20)

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Tuesday, May 15 2012, 17:22) QUOTE (Irviding @ Tuesday, May 15 2012, 15:13) And those rights or wrongs historically came from religious teachings. right and wrong - morality itself - long predates religion. there was morality before religion. people knew what was right or wrong before religion. to say otherwise is supremely ignorant. I'm aware of that. Are you seriously going to tell me, however, that we knew from the getgo, the beginning of human existence, that nailing your neighbor's wife is wrong? That tattling is wrong? Honor your mother and father? I mean come on. If you were to study common law, you'd notice that a lot of it comes from old Christian morals. Again, I am not some ultra religious fanatic, but I find the hatred and sheer disrespect for religious people on this topic to be disturbing.

If these morals are a product of the Abrahamic religions, then why do they exist readily and frequently in the societies and cultures with little to no contact with Judaism, Christianity and Islam? Why do societies who have had contact with Western moral values only comparatively recently- like those of Japan, Nepal ect have by and large the exact same values?

[Vercetti27]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Tuesday, May 15 2012, 22:13)

QUOTE parents teach them right or wrong, even non religious families. And those rights or wrongs historically came from religious teachings. Look, like I said, it seems you Europeans have some strange hatred of religion that I don't quite understand. Not all churches brainwash people. And you and I know pretty well that even if they do, kids make the choice to stay with the church or not by the time they get out of college. Many choose not to. It's that simple. This isn't some kind of societal brainwashing that you need to be opposed to and practically hate anyone who practices a religion. It's just wrong in every way, especially from el diablo, who the rest of the time is a liberal.

you europeans? what the hell are you getting at? some of the most outspoken atheists come from America.
And your theory that religion spawned morality is very amusing

[PrometheusX]

QUOTE (El Zilcho @ Monday, May 14 2012, 20:51)

5. The God of the Bible (or for that matter, the Torah and Qoran) is a megalomaniacal, self absorbed and infantile brute. While his wishy washy reforms of the New Testament can be seen to reconcile some of his actions, his insistence on humanity repressing it's own nature (that he apparently created) smacks of petty excuses we as a species have dreamt up to justify his flawed creations.

Mystery of Kaaba is shocking NASA

That doesn't look really flawed does it?

[3niX]

Well...

QUOTE

That's why if someone lived in Mecca, then he will live longer, healthier, and not much influenced by many forces of gravity. Therefore is when we are around the Kaaba, it is as though we are in re-charged by a mysterious energy, and this is a fact that has been scientifically proven.

What?

Many forces of gravity? Who the f*ck researched this.. Bill O'Reillys muslim twin?

[Irviding]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, May 16 2012, 02:07)

QUOTE (Irviding @ Wednesday, May 16 2012, 00:20) QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Tuesday, May 15 2012, 17:22) QUOTE (Irviding @ Tuesday, May 15 2012, 15:13) And those rights or wrongs historically came from religious teachings. right and wrong - morality itself - long predates religion. there was morality before religion. people knew what was right or wrong before religion. to say otherwise is supremely ignorant. I'm aware of that. Are you seriously going to tell me, however, that we knew from the getgo, the beginning of human existence, that nailing your neighbor's wife is wrong? That tattling is wrong? Honor your mother and father? I mean come on. If you were to study common law, you'd notice that a lot of it comes from old Christian morals. Again, I am not some ultra religious fanatic, but I find the hatred and sheer disrespect for religious people on this topic to be disturbing. If these morals are a product of the Abrahamic religions, then why do they exist readily and frequently in the societies and cultures with little to no contact with Judaism, Christianity and Islam? Why do societies who have had contact with Western moral values only comparatively recently- like those of Japan, Nepal ect have by and large the exact same values?

Because those moral values diffused to Japan during the Meji Restoration and the Age of Imperialism. Abrahamic morals and customs now permeate many areas of the world, but that was not true 200 years ago.

Vercetti, you are missing the point and you're just attacking me with ad hominem hyperbole. I'm not saying morality itself is a product of religion, I'm saying many of the mores that exist today, and take as normalcy come from religious teachings. As humans progressed, they turned to religion for their answers. While not many do today, it's still hard to dispute that many moral values are things that came from religion and were codified into the laws of the Church, then come the reformation and renaissance, the laws of the various new nation states, etc. These codified practices were intrinsic in everyone not because we just realized as humans, "hey, it's pretty dick to tattle on people" or "f*ck man, my wife got nailed by my neighbor, that's f*cked up". It's because the people who wrote these religious texts, and furthermore, as it was not really until the renaissance that people started to actually even read the bible, the priests who gave sermons who had these moral opinions and pressed them onto people.

Take this read here by a sociologist. It was written some time ago but it is still very intriguing and may shed some light on where I am coming from.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:...ZUGEwPVKI2o68vA

[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Friday, May 18 2012, 18:49)

I'm not saying morality itself is a product of religion, I'm saying many of the mores that exist today, and take as normalcy come from religious teachings.

this statement doesn't make any sense.

you acknowledge that religion is not responsible for morality.
then you say "but look at all the moral teachings that society has in common with religious text."

... so what is your point??
mankind already had morals, we evolved them, and so we wrote them down in some of our religious books (right alongside a bunch of stuff that is horrific and anything BUT moral). so the fact that religious teachings contain any morality at all is thanks to humans who had morals before religion. definitely NOT the other way around...

QUOTE

it's still hard to dispute that many moral values are things that came from religion

but just because some people first heard about morality in a religious context doesn't mean religion taught them moral values. they already had those values. the Bible might have been their first exposure to morality that was put into words and given illustration, but it wasn't their first exposure to morality.

it also doesn't mean that they wouldn't have been moral without religion.
they would have been just as moral (or amoral) if that religion had never come along.

QUOTE

These codified practices were intrinsic in everyone not because we just realized as humans ... It's because the people who wrote these religious texts, and furthermore, as it was not really until the renaissance that people started to actually even read the bible, the priests who gave sermons who had these moral opinions and pressed them onto people.

I'm sorry but you've descended into nonsense again.
this is nonsense.

those "codified practices" were intrinsic in everyone because they ARE intrinsic in everyone. period. not because religious people wrote them down.
religious teachings had - and have - nothing to do with it.

priests who gave sermons about morality didn't "press" it into anyone who didn't already have it.
it's not like priests were putting themselves at great risk by going into dangerous, lawless, immoral hell holes to preach. they preach to people who are already listening. they preached to the poor and illiterate who gladly crowded into these large, majestic Roman Catholic-style cathedrals in order to get a few hours away from their cold/miserable lives and perhaps some free bread and cup of wine.

no one went to church in order to learn about morals that they didn't already have.

This post has been edited by El_Diablo on Saturday, May 19 2012, 06:35

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Saturday, May 19 2012, 02:49)

Because those moral values diffused to Japan during the Meji Restoration and the Age of Imperialism. Abrahamic morals and customs now permeate many areas of the world, but that was not true 200 years ago.

Care to provide some evidence for this? It seems to be entirely contrary to recognised history; take your example of marriage and monogamy. That's existed since well before the Heian period (750AD-1200 or thereabouts) and even then in Japanese culture was a marriage between two equals. None of this subjugating women crap that you get in the Abrahamic religions. In fact, I'd argue that pre-Feudal Japan had a stronger moral code, and one that current societal morals are more in tune with, than even Enlightened Christian societies of the Age of Imperialism. Explain Shugendō, the quasi-Buddhist spiritualist religion that is still followed by some to this day, which created a strict moral code almost identical to (and in some places considerably stronger than) that of the Abrahamic religions, but before they had left their cradle.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Saturday, May 19 2012, 03:54)

QUOTE (Irviding @ Saturday, May 19 2012, 02:49) Because those moral values diffused to Japan during the Meji Restoration and the Age of Imperialism. Abrahamic morals and customs now permeate many areas of the world, but that was not true 200 years ago. Care to provide some evidence for this? It seems to be entirely contrary to recognised history; take your example of marriage and monogamy. That's existed since well before the Heian period (750AD-1200 or thereabouts) and even then in Japanese culture was a marriage between two equals. None of this subjugating women crap that you get in the Abrahamic religions. In fact, I'd argue that pre-Feudal Japan had a stronger moral code, and one that current societal morals are more in tune with, than even Enlightened Christian societies of the Age of Imperialism. Explain Shugendō, the quasi-Buddhist spiritualist religion that is still followed by some to this day, which created a strict moral code almost identical to (and in some places considerably stronger than) that of the Abrahamic religions, but before they had left their cradle.

I didn't bring up Japan as an example, you did. The point I was making is that Japan, after trying to keep itself closed to foreigners for hundreds of years, began to open up to Western ideals and customs. I don't, however, agree with your point that western values were present in Japan since the Heian period. Do YOU have documentation of that, since you made the claim?

Diablo, you made the exact point I am making. I said MORES not morals. I said exactly as you just said. People had these morals and then codified them into religious texts and due to the indoctrination and the widespread practice of Christianity in past times, we saw those morals become commonplace. What you wrote in your post is what I have been saying in this topic all along.

QUOTE

because they ARE intrinsic in everyone.

I don't think that's true. I don't see how that argument can ever be made in any way shape or form. Nature does not confer upon us morality from our birth.

As for the rest of your post, that is the nonsense. If you honestly think people went to church not to learn morals and to "end up in heaven", then I don't know where you get off.

Look, the ultimate fact of the matter here is that you guys seem to have a strange hatred of religion. I don't know where it comes from, but it is just unnecessary. Why do you care if people choose to be religious?

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Saturday, May 19 2012, 21:24)

I didn't bring up Japan as an example, you did. The point I was making is that Japan, after trying to keep itself closed to foreigners for hundreds of years, began to open up to Western ideals and customs. I don't, however, agree with your point that western values were present in Japan since the Heian period. Do YOU have documentation of that, since you made the claim?

Heian and other pre-Feudal Japanese ethics and societal norms are heavily drawn from Confucianism, which in itself is a fantastic counter-argument to the idea that modern ethics have been solely spread the Abrahamic religions- humanism, the enshrined sanctity of marriage, respect for one's elders, all enshrined in a working quasi-national structure at a time when the Christian and Islamic worlds didn't even exist, and Judaism was little other than chaotic conquest, Babylonian captivity and exile with no defined organisational structure, no hierarchy and nothing really resembling a developed society. Confucianism has had more impact on ethics than the Abrahamic religions have, in my view- and most definitely has a far greater enduing legacy. These days, even the most devout Christians are equal parts humanist. Confucianism is also extremely meritocratic; encouraged knowledge, defined human relationships and promoted humility and benevolence at a time when such ideas barely even existed further West. It's not like they are, for instance, shown in Roman morality or social structure, is it?

But I digress- yes, I can provide a reasonable insight into Japanese morals and ethics before contact with the Western, and most notably Christian, world.

There's an excellent, and fully referenced, brief history of Heian period Japanese culture that can be found here. Of particular note are the areas which discuss the institutions of society, social norms and the relationship between men and women. Also worth reading is "The Encyclopaedia of Religion" (there's a slightly dodgy Google Books version here). Page 485-6 are again worth noting, as they cover the ethical developments from early Japanese society to the 1200s. In both of these, as well as Confucianism, you will see dramatic similarities to those most basic of moral instructions, the Ten Commandments.

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Saturday, May 19 2012, 20:57

[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Saturday, May 19 2012, 13:24)

QUOTE because they ARE intrinsic in everyone. I don't think that's true. I don't see how that argument can ever be made in any way shape or form. Nature does not confer upon us morality from our birth.

it is absolutely true.
it is undeniably true.

that argument is made (successfully) every day in every biology and philosophy class in the world. and just about any history or comparative religious class will tell you the same thing. nature provided us with morality through evolution. this is not a dogmatic belief, this is an observable truth.

morality is an evolutionary response.
you think our species would have survived to this point if we didn't know that lying, cheating, stealing, raping, and killing was wrong??

that is supremely ignorant.
I've already said it once but apparently it went over your head so I'll repeat it.
I urge you to read this carefully and think about it before replying with more nonsense.

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Tuesday, May 15 2012, 17:28)

mankind existed in it's modern form (opposable thumbs, almost no body hair, roughly 5 lb. brain, etc) for at least 100,000 years before the onset of Christianity. some say as many as 250k years, some say as little as 50-75k years. either way, it's a helluva long time. society and language and all sorts of belief systems were flourishing well in advance of the supposed Jesus of Nazareth [or any major religion]. the only reason mankind survived as a species and escaped the damning confines of Africa is because even those people knew how to respect each other and help each other for the sake of doing so. because helping others helped them. they didn't need 2 hefty stone tablets to tell them that. it was just obvious. it was inherent. as morality is inherent in all people. the ones who do not display common morality are put in their rightful place: sociopaths, psychopaths, mentally deficient, etc.

also, there's this

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Tuesday, May 15 2012, 17:28)

Jesus even spoke of a man who did good deeds merely for the sake of doing good. it was the story of the Good Samaritan. how could Jesus speak about a man who had inherent morals unless the man existed before Jesus? and if the man existed before Jesus and the "revelation" of Christianity, then where did he get his morals? the bible, as with most religious texts, is filled with these illogical loopholes.

morality was evident in human beings long before any of the major, modern religions began preaching en mass.
morality is an evolutionary response to survival.

we depend on others and our community to survive.
we are not solitary beings. we are one of the most social species on the planet.

we existed as a species for numerous millenia before anyone even began to think about writing down and distributing religious texts.
nature is amoral in the sense that nature depends on survival of the fittest. but we developed morals in nature because our survival depended (and still depends) on each other.

QUOTE

If you honestly think people went to church not to learn morals and to "end up in heaven", then I don't know where you get off.

I don't think that, I know that.
for all the reasons I've just given you. no one goes to church to learn morals.

but if you honestly think that people go to church in order to learn morals, then you're hopelessly foolish.
people aren't raping and stealing and killing, then going to church, and suddenly saying "oh, gee, you mean I wasn't supposed to be doing those things? really?"

that's retarded.
no one learns morals from their church. they might go there to feel like they're reinforcing their values, but they're not learning anything they didn't already know.

QUOTE

Look, the ultimate fact of the matter here is that you guys seem to have a strange hatred of religion. I don't know where it comes from, but it is just unnecessary. Why do you care if people choose to be religious?

I think the only fact of the matter is that you are blindly defending religion to no avail.
you're ignoring our point and putting words in our mouth.

I've explained several times why morality is inherent in our nature.
you've ignored it and insist otherwise.

I've explained that I don't hate religion, I just wish it would stay in it's proper place (the home, the family unit, the church; and nowhere else).
you've ignored this as well and insisted that my opinions are without rationale even though I've provided it for you more than once.

I suggest you do not reply further until you go back and actually read the things we have written in response to your accusations.

[Irviding]

QUOTE

no one learns morals from their church. they might go there to feel like they're reinforcing their values, but they're not learning anything they didn't already know.

Once again, I respectfully disagree, and I don't think there is something either of us can do to prove that either way. Do you have some sort of proof to substantiate that, because I can't think of a way to prove it either way.

Ultimately, your post is really just full of a misunderstanding of what I am saying. Let me try to rephrase it again and tell me if you agree or disagree, I'll make it a two sentence thesis.
Religious teachings, whether through sermons or scripture, helped to spread morals, which ultimately became mores as they were passed on, for vast amounts of the population. While many of these morals existed amongst certain people before their widespread adoption by large amounts of the populace, religion, since it was something almost all people took part in, helped to widely spread it and furthermore turn it into regular mores for these peoples' descendents.

I feel as if I am ignoring all of what you said, but I am trying not to. I don't even want to counter any of what you said because it isn't the belief I am trying to substantiate, therefore addressing it would be futile.

This post has been edited by Irviding on Saturday, May 19 2012, 22:47

[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Saturday, May 19 2012, 15:43)

Once again, I respectfully disagree, and I don't think there is something either of us can do to prove that either way. Do you have some sort of proof to substantiate that, because I can't think of a way to prove it either way.

I'm afraid the fundamental misunderstanding is on your part.
I've essentially proven my position by simply acknowledging the history and reality of the human race.

I don't know how else to say it. if you don't get it, I guess you don't get it.
humans existed for millenia before any of the major, modern religions proliferated. they wouldn't have existed that long without their own inherent sense of decency and morality.

religion didn't teach morality to anyone who didn't already possess it.
this was true 100 thousand years ago, it's true today.

QUOTE

Religious teachings, whether through sermons or scripture, helped to spread morals, which ultimately became mores as they were passed on, for vast amounts of the population. While many of these morals existed amongst certain people before their widespread adoption by large amounts of the populace, religion, since it was something almost all people took part in, helped to widely spread it and furthermore turn it into regular mores for these peoples' descendents.

this is nonsense again.
I don't know why it's so hard for you to escape.

you even contradict yourself while saying it.
people had morals... but religion helped spread morals?

no. this is not a sound argument.
I dare say that wherever religion went, morals and common-law and a system of values had already been there. otherwise "there" wouldn't exist. there wouldn't be any place for religion to go and preach if morals hadn't already arrived. because no village/town/city or society can sustain itself without a system of values and laws in place. the human species wouldn't have survived to this point if we didn't have an inherent sense of morality.

religion spread a system of morals that was attached to a doctrine.
it didn't introduce morals - as something brand new - to anyone that didn't already have them.

[Irviding]

QUOTE

humans existed for millenia before any of the major, modern religions proliferated. they wouldn't have existed that long without their own inherent sense of decency and morality. religion didn't teach morality to anyone who didn't already possess it. this was true 100 thousand years ago, it's true today.

Absolutely, I'm not saying morality as a whole is a product of religion. If you think I am saying that, then you are misunderstanding me. I'm saying certain morals come from religion. Why do many Americans hate gays? Is that something we realize from birth? I don't think so, because in many ancient societies before the advent of Christianity, homosexuality was common and accepted. While many societies had realized that eating a baby was wrong without religious doctrine, they would not have realized homosexuality is bad (per religion, not my view obviously).

QUOTE

religion spread a system of morals that was attached to a doctrine.

Yes. That's what I've been saying all along. The rest of your post quoting what I said is, once again, not what I mean so I am not going to defend it.

QUOTE

people had morals... but religion helped spread morals?

People had morals, but religion introduced new ones and spread those morals to larger amounts of people. Make sure when you're reading my post you differentiate mores and morals.

[3niX]

Well...

QUOTE

People had morals, but religion introduced new ones and spread those morals to larger amounts of people. Make sure when you're reading my post you differentiate mores and morals.

Im not saying youre wrong but how are you so certain that it isnt just correlation rather than causality?

I mean, there are plenty of good sociological reasons why people wouldnt/shouldnt 'covet thy neighbours wife' and 'not commit adultery'. Also, a lot of stuff in christianity comes from buddhism... and buddhism itself is essentially just a collection of reasoned ideas which people started following.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (3niX @ Saturday, May 19 2012, 19:36)

Well... QUOTE People had morals, but religion introduced new ones and spread those morals to larger amounts of people. Make sure when you're reading my post you differentiate mores and morals. Im not saying youre wrong but how are you so certain that it isnt just correlation rather than causality? I mean, there are plenty of good sociological reasons why people wouldnt/shouldnt 'covet thy neighbours wife' and 'not commit adultery'. Also, a lot of stuff in christianity comes from buddhism... and buddhism itself is essentially just a collection of reasoned ideas which people started following.

But once those people started following those collected ideas, it spread to others and thus the morals of a few became the mores of an entire society. That's the point I'm trying to make here.

[Jeeebuuus]

I think most reasonable people will conclude that if there exists some kind of deity then at least on one level he is not separate from Universe. Taking the Genesis story, what existed before "God" created the "Heavens and the Earth"? Since that is the very beginning of the Bible then we have to say that God is the only thing that existed. So the only thing he could use to make the "Heavens and the Earth" was himself. Pantheism. This is an all inclusive way to view everything. It would be a good start to have people come together and bridge the gap from religion and science in the west I think. We don't have to agree on every detail or that even a certain religion or philosophy or idea of the divine is the Truth. Our arrogance combined with our ignorance divides us and seems to be the source of most of our problems. We have to find common ground. It is the wise thing to do.

[S5L3T0]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Saturday, May 19 2012, 22:43)

I feel as if I am ignoring all of what you said, but I am trying not to. I don't even want to counter any of what you said because it isn't the belief I am trying to substantiate, therefore addressing it would be futile.

But he's listening to what your arguments state? you can't say "I'm religious and i know i'm right" without listening to opposing theories or views. you can't say your favorite color is red if you don't know what blue or green is. Try to understand where he's coming from, then respond. You're ignoring (Valid and sensible) points and repeating the same thing over and over.

EDIT: and i'm sorry, but "learning" to hate gays isn't a moral, it's ignorant and proves religions absurdity even more.

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Saturday, May 26 2012, 06:55

[Viperman]

Other than page 1 I have not been through the topic. Just the way I see it briefly.

As far as I'm concerned, atheist, Christian, Jew, anything, makes no differences. To me it's all points too faith and being happy. No proof needed, or supplied on either side of the argument. This marvelous, beautiful, dynamic rock we all live on is our god in a sense.

If you want to believe that a god created it, and that's what gives you closure, that's upto you.

I'm an atheist, because I'm perfectly happy with accepting, and believing that our version of evolution is fairly correct. From big bang, to evolution of stars, planetary systems, chemistry, then the biology to me sitting tapping this touchscreen. And yeah it might not whole picture, or 100% correct but I'm willing to always learn new science. I'm content with know that I'm nothing on a grand scale, and around for a short time with no afterlife. In a strange way that is my closure, we ain't here long, so enjoy the ride!

[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (Viperman @ Thursday, Jun 7 2012, 18:12)

our version of evolution

our version?
you say that like religious people have their own

religious people tried to resist evolution for as long as possible.
just like they try to resist every other progressive advancement in science and culture. they fight scientific discoveries tooth and nail until the evidence becomes so overwhelming that they simply give up. and THEN they have the arrogance to try and take credit for it.

they waged war on evolution under the guise of teaching "intelligent design" which is asinine pseudo-science at best.
when they finally realized that this was never going to work (at least anywhere outside of Texas...) they just gave up AND tried to claim it as their own at the same time.

"oh, well, obviously evolution is another one of god's marvelous tools."
is what they say now.

it's pretty sad.
all they can do is wait for science to reveal ACTUAL truths and then they swoop in and attempt to ascribe these truths to their celestial dictator of choice.

[El Zilcho]

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, Jun 8 2012, 02:32)

it's pretty sad. all they can do is wait for science to reveal ACTUAL truths and then they swoop in and attempt to ascribe these truths to their celestial dictator of choice.

Believing in an Omnipotent Gods is akin to deliberately placing your faith in a "celestial North Korea" - an authoritarian, omnipresent dictatorship which expects you to love the Father and the Son. You're afforded free will, as long as you use it exactly as Generalissimo God states. Not very free, is it? How anyone could voluntarily believe and enjoy such a delusion in our modern times amazes me. Free yourselves.