Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 219
  1. #141  
    if it is true that modern law does come from the ten commandments , and if it is true that they exist, then yes the basis for all modern law is of a religious sect. On the other hand where did all the other laws come from? Men? The laws exist because of the mentality that is bread in each one of us... " it's not fair!" that why laws exist. I am not saying laws are wrong by any means, but come on, who is to say that someone got pissed after having his wife schtooped by his neighbor, that he didn't say " that's not fair!" "by the way write that one down" Religion is faith. And you can take it on faith that to be moral is religious or just right. Morals are handed down by generation after generation dating back to the beginning of time, whether thatís God's or Darwin's. Who was the first to say " the golden rule". I hold the door open for a lady, where in any religion does it explicitly say to do that. In some religions woman are considered dirty " killing the crops" and walk behind men, so where did opening doors for lady's come from. Who is there to say that there is a hell or not. It's faith and what one believes, and how are you going to feel if nirvana is just a wood box with worms... that you just seek to exist?
    for the initial question... Does Religion Make Us More 'Moral'? I say No, but it did influence or should I say ones faith in religion influenced it. Morals are personal laws, how would you like to be treated and can you treat others that way? Morals are personal and my morals may or may not differ from yours, but that's self awareness and the ability to decide for oneself. Society has dictated what should be moral whether it's felt as right or wrong.
    Puleez people, "Does Religion Make Us More 'Moral'? Rabbi's cheating on there wives, catholic priests fondling little boys, the whole damn middle east in an uproar about god killings. You decide, an atheist and a person who believes in eternal damn nation, can be just as moral as one another, it's what's inside not the reason why.
    There's always next year!
  2. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #142  
    Quote Originally Posted by scuzlebutt
    if it is true that modern law does come from the ten commandments , and if it is true that they exist, then yes the basis for all modern law is of a religious sect. On the other hand where did all the other laws come from? Men? The laws exist because of the mentality that is bread in each one of us... " it's not fair!" that why laws exist. I am not saying laws are wrong by any means, but come on, who is to say that someone got pissed after having his wife schtooped by his neighbor, that he didn't say " that's not fair!" "by the way write that one down" Religion is faith. And you can take it on faith that to be moral is religious or just right. Morals are handed down by generation after generation dating back to the beginning of time, whether thatís God's or Darwin's. Who was the first to say " the golden rule". I hold the door open for a lady, where in any religion does it explicitly say to do that. In some religions woman are considered dirty " killing the crops" and walk behind men, so where did opening doors for lady's come from. Who is there to say that there is a hell or not. It's faith and what one believes, and how are you going to feel if nirvana is just a wood box with worms... that you just seek to exist?
    for the initial question... Does Religion Make Us More 'Moral'? I say No, but it did influence or should I say ones faith in religion influenced it. Morals are personal laws, how would you like to be treated and can you treat others that way? Morals are personal and my morals may or may not differ from yours, but that's self awareness and the ability to decide for oneself. Society has dictated what should be moral whether it's felt as right or wrong.
    Puleez people, "Does Religion Make Us More 'Moral'? Rabbi's cheating on there wives, catholic priests fondling little boys, the whole damn middle east in an uproar about god killings. You decide, an atheist and a person who believes in eternal damn nation, can be just as moral as one another, it's what's inside not the reason why.
    "if it is true that modern law does come from the ten commandments "... is false.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #143  
    scuzlebutt, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi There's all sorts ancient inputs into 'modern laws'.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  4. #144  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Don't you decide for yourself? Don't you weigh what is right vs what is wrong, and decide? If someone else 'decides for you', don't you still analyze that decision and decide whether or not to conform?
    Of course we decide for ourselves which path - right vs. wrong - we take. I didn't think that was the question. I was asking about WHO decides what is right and what is wrong? Unless we believe that each person is a "law unto himself" and what is right is nothing more than what each person says is right.

    Also, whether a person "conforms" to a standard doesn't change the standard. People who decide not to "conform" to the posted speed limit don't determine what is right or wrong - they are just doing their own thing.

    I hope we don't conclude that right and wrong are merely individual contructs.
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #145  
    Quote Originally Posted by awerry
    Of course we decide for ourselves which path - right vs. wrong - we take. I didn't think that was the question. I was asking about WHO decides what is right and what is wrong? Unless we believe that each person is a "law unto himself" and what is right is nothing more than what each person says is right.

    Also, whether a person "conforms" to a standard doesn't change the standard. People who decide not to "conform" to the posted speed limit don't determine what is right or wrong - they are just doing their own thing.

    I hope we don't conclude that right and wrong are merely individual contructs.
    No, there are written laws. Are we interchanging morality with legality?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6. #146  
    Quote Originally Posted by JackNaylorPE
    To the original postulation....absolutely not. Who is more moral ?

    A. The avidly religious person who "does unto others...." because he is afraid of eternal damnataion.

    B. The atheist who "does unto others...." simply because it is the right thing to do.

    ....it's not A.
    All of these statements about those of religious affiliation do good deeds for selfish reasons makes them lack moral standing vs an atheist who does the same good deed are at best judgmental of the individual's motives.

    It is very easy for a one who has no religious conviction to lack the understanding needed to relate and emphasize with the devotion of one who is religiously inclined and the actions that come out of that.

    Just as it is often times hard for one who has always had a devotion to religion or a belief in God to relate to one who has always denied and fought against the mere possibility that God exists.

    It is a slippery slope indeed to judge the motivation of another's actions. I do not doubt that there are those on the religious side of the fence that help others due to the belief that they will receive their own reward, whether it be their place in Heaven or simply avoiding eternal damnation. In other words, their motivation is more for their own reward than for the pure desire to help the other person.

    I also do not doubt that many atheists would do the same act with an eye for their own benefit. Maybe they helped out a co-worker for the selfish reason of looking better to the boss with an eye to the upcoming promotion, without any real care in the world for the benefit of the co-worker they helped.

    It is also very possible that the one with a belief in God did that good deed with no thought for themselves, but due solely to helping out fellow people out of love and longing for their welfare over their own.....even if that lesson was originally learned due to their religious affiliation.

    Just as the atheist may have a compassionate streak where they helped their co-worker simply because they saw they needed help without thought to themselves.....in spite of the fact that if there was a God he would have shown that was the right thing to do.

    The point is, it is extremely challenging to wave the motivation flag to make the other side look bad, weak, dependent, delusional, selfish, etc... without taking the personal steps that can lead to arrogance, judgmental, close minded, etc....
  7. #147  
    thanks, quite a good read
    There's always next year!
  8. #148  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    No, there are written laws. Are we interchanging morality with legality?
    Are you saying there is no overlap between the two at least?

    Some would say that doing 95 mph through a school zone at the peak of activity is both illegal AND immoral.
  9. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #149  
    Quote Originally Posted by awerry
    Are you saying there is no overlap between the two at least?

    Some would say that doing 95 mph through a school zone at the peak of activity is both illegal AND immoral.
    I'm only saying that the thread subject is about religion and morality, so my points were rooted in that context.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  10. #150  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    I'm only saying that the thread subject is about religion and morality, so my points were rooted in that context.
    I think that is where I got confused when you took it that direction away from the thread subject.

    Is morality a matter of private choice? That is the question I was trying to get out. Sorry for the confusion.
  11. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #151  
    I think that morality is a system of ideas of "right and/or wrong" conduct. Some of these systems are based on religion, some on secular, and some combined. In a pluralistic and democratic society, we each choose our own system. I can live my life based on some religion's system of morality, or a secular system, or a combination or blending of one or more system.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  12. #152  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    I think that morality is a system of ideas of "right and/or wrong" conduct. Some of these systems are based on religion, some on secular, and some combined. In a pluralistic and democratic society, we each choose our own system. I can live my life based on some religion's system of morality, or a secular system, or a combination or blending of one or more system.
    I tend to agree with what you are saying here... but the question has and continues to be (from the OP) "Does religion in fact make us more moral?"

    That question seems, to me at least, to assume that "moral" is more or less an absolute and asks whether religion functions to get us closer to that absolute.

    If what you are saying is correct, then religion actually "creates" morality by the very fact that it DEFINES what is moral and what is not. Then, of course, religion in that sense "makes us more moral." But by the time we get to this point we have moved away from the original question because it was coming from the exact opposite orientation.
  13. #153  
    Morality according to Wikipedia

    Morality deals with that which is regarded as right or wrong. The term is used in regard to three contexts: individual conscience; systems of principles and judgments ó sometimes called moral values ó shared within a cultural, religious, secular, Humanist, or philosophical community; and codes of behavior or conduct derived from these systems.

    Personal morality defines and distinguishes among right and wrong intentions, thoughts or actions. Human conscience is widely acknowledged to encourage individuals to do right; its origins and role are the subject of much discussion. Belief in an effective system of divine judgment often helps with personal motivation, as classically seen in the success of Medieval codes of knighthood and the spread of Islam. The desire to conform to the behavior of a group to which an individual belongs or aspires to belong is also a powerful force, though it may generally apply to more general cultural norms and customs, where the dichotomy is between proper and improper behavior.

    Group morality develops from shared concepts and beliefs and is often codified to regulate behavior within a culture or community. Various defined actions come to be called moral or immoral. Individuals who choose moral action are popularly held to possess "moral fibre", whereas those who indulge in immoral behavior may be labelled as socially degenerate. The continued existence of a group may depend on widespread conformity to codes of morality; an inability to adjust moral codes in response to new challenges is sometimes credited with the demise of a community (a positive example would be the function of Cistercian reform in reviving monasticism; a negative example would be the role of the Dowager Empress in the subjugation of China to European interests). Within nationalist movements, there has been some tendency to feel that a nation will not survive or prosper without acknowledging one, common morality.

    Codified morality is generally distinguished from custom, another way for a community to define appropriate activity, by the former's derivation from natural or universal principles. In certain religious communities, the Divine is said to provide these principles through revelation, sometimes in great detail. Such codes may be called laws, as in the Law of Moses, or community morality may be defined through commentary on the texts of revelation, as in Islamic law. Such codes are distinguished from legal or judicial right, including civil rights, which are based on the accumulated traditions, decrees and legislation of a political authority, though these latter often invoke the authority of the moral law.

    In any society, actual behavior patterns diverge, sometimes seriously, from accepted notions of how one ought to behave. This dissonance is exaggerated for political effects by the pundits of hypothetical morals, who invite confusion as to the details and applicability of a group's fundamental moral code.
    Surur
  14. #154  
    I assume we are talking about personal morality. With morality the intention is important: Are we doing something because we believe its good, or are we doing it for our own benefit. If what we understand ti be right and wrong comes from religious teachings we are still acting morally, as long as our actions are not motivated by selfish desires e.g. if we learn from the church that one should care for others, and then do this instinctively out of compassion, that would be moral, but if we see a unfortunate situation and then act "to get our reward in heaven" we would not be acting morally.

    In this way, religion in a teaching role can promote morality, but in a motivating role it does not.

    Surur
  15. #155  
    So, knowledge of consequences (i.e. reward or punishment) determines morality? So just because one believes they know the consequences of their actions as it relates to their dealings with others, makes them by definition incapable of acting morally? If so ignorance really is bliss.

    But where religion may teach of both positive and negative consequences on an eternal scale, it could be argued that atheists act according to both positive and negative consequences on an temporal scale (i.e. immediate consequences here and now while alive on this earth). No difference, except for the time scale.

    Again, as I stated earlier, whether the person knows there is a possibility of a reward or punishment from going to church or living off the streets has no baring on the religious vs the non religious as both can act selfishly or selflessly even when temporal (i.e. immediate) and/or eternal consequences are known at the time of the action......the personal motivation is for the individual to judge.
  16. #156  
    Its the motivation thats important. Acting selflessly is more moral than acting for a reward. Knowledge of ultimate reward is not important, you yourself would know what motivated you.

    Surur
  17.    #157  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    But where religion may teach of both positive and negative consequences on an eternal scale...
    Including 72 virgins.
  18. #158  
    Exactly! Which was one of the specifics I also illuded to when I said:
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I believe that religion is a tool that can be used for both good and evil, just as anything else in this world. It certainly has been used as an excuse to achieve personal political agendas, greed, accusation of power, etc. ........

    ......But as I stated there are also others who have hidden behind the name of religion to get their selfish desires, whether it be political, money, power, land, revenge, etc. The Crusades and the current Islamic Extremists are two examples of this.

    Personal accountability is often times overlooked when the name of religion is called. And religion taking the fall for the actions of the individuals, even though the religion that their actions were done in be half of always condemned the actions taken by the individuals.
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #159  
    Quote Originally Posted by awerry
    I tend to agree with what you are saying here... but the question has and continues to be (from the OP) "Does religion in fact make us more moral?"
    No. Murderers can be religious.
    That question seems, to me at least, to assume that "moral" is more or less an absolute and asks whether religion functions to get us closer to that absolute.
    Again, its us. Religions give us the information and behavior patterns we may adopt, but in the end, its our choice. Look, this is a keystone concept in Christianity. It's about choice and faith, not destiny or acts. Being religious doesn't mean one is moral, or make them moral, not even a little bit.
    If what you are saying is correct, then religion actually "creates" morality by the very fact that it DEFINES what is moral and what is not. Then, of course, religion in that sense "makes us more moral." But by the time we get to this point we have moved away from the original question because it was coming from the exact opposite orientation.
    You're taking what I said way beyond its context. Please reread. Religious dogma is just one source of moral ideals. And again, religion doesn't create morality. I don't know how else to relate this.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  20. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #160  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    So, knowledge of consequences (i.e. reward or punishment) determines morality? So just because one believes they know the consequences of their actions as it relates to their dealings with others, makes them by definition incapable of acting morally? If so ignorance really is bliss.

    But where religion may teach of both positive and negative consequences on an eternal scale, it could be argued that atheists act according to both positive and negative consequences on an temporal scale (i.e. immediate consequences here and now while alive on this earth). No difference, except for the time scale.

    Again, as I stated earlier, whether the person knows there is a possibility of a reward or punishment from going to church or living off the streets has no baring on the religious vs the non religious as both can act selfishly or selflessly even when temporal (i.e. immediate) and/or eternal consequences are known at the time of the action......the personal motivation is for the individual to judge.
    Just a note. There's more out there than just the religious and the athiests. I know it simplifies the debate to draw a clear black and white distinction, but its not reality.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions