Religion and Morality

Um...yes, no, maybe, hows that for an opener....
I am not sure how you constructed this as asking for an alternative form of morality?
I do disagree with any claim that morality follows religion as that is reversed from reality.

A moral is 'created' by a belief, which is the result of a 'value' based conclusion, in which a person binds their actions. Ethics is the philosophical study of morals and is not interchangeable with morals, though we use it as a tool to analyse morals. A person combines their morals as a set of principles that they live by, the process of binding to ones morals and living it classifies it as a religion and as more people see how great ones morals are that combines to create a culture.

Respect is essentially repeating the old axiom do unto others as you would do unto yourself. (But then some people are highly self destructive so......) Anyway the problem with respect is exactly what we are experiencing now with our religious establishment, the overreaching secular humanist government, as an example businesses are now required in some states to properly state ones gender identity to respect their choice of gender, or be subject to legal repercussions, fines and penalties. Respect has already trespassed on the rights of one while stomping on the rights of another right out of the gate which is to say it does not work since who can assign boundaries to it?

We already have a system for that for many years, and though its vaporizing as the state takes more control its called equity, or do not harm cause no one damage. I see no way to adjudicate respect in any court, however the system as it stood before the new wave secularists took over set a fairly good precedent for dealing with inequitable behavior.

Another problem with using respect as the highest good which the state invariably uses to forcibly remove God from the individual the individuals ability to make their own value judgments placing it in the hands of the state. They have already done a great job hijacking religion by claiming in some circles that to be a religion the individual must have a group practicing the same religion, which in essence robs the individual of their religion voiding it as invalid if a mob does not agree with ones religious moral compass. These are rabbit holes used to hijack the religion of the 'individual'.

The best road found yet is 'injury in fact', not to say it cant be expanded to some extent but not to the point where the govmt joins forces with one religion to stomp another as it is now.

That said, God works, respect does not, which is why the people reserved their right to exercise their religion and gave the state no authority to regulate it what so ever.

Yes forcing people to hold reverence to a state symbol and making punishable by law without question creates a state based religion. Where is the respect for the persons religion? One needs to ask the question 'who is injured' by burning a flag? No one will sustain injury from burning a flag in a protest. Burning a flag is purely a 'political' action, which of course is religion gone public. No injury, no crime committed, to make it a crime the state violates the constitution and forces their religious beliefs on to the people. This is a case of disrespect for a state that advertises the ability to disrespect it as an integral of its success, at least lip service.

 

Everything is a slippery slope looked at in that light. For instance, your "injury" standard... these days we have liberals on college campuses fighting against "microaggressions"; things like, "his face darkened," are now considered racist. How long before someone says using what used to be a standard phrase is "injuring" him/her? One of my law professors said you can create a whole system of law starting from anywhere, like, "Don't walk on the grass." Okay, don't walk on the grass... what about running on the grass? What about someone passing out on the grass? What about those who walk on the grass to assist someone who has passed out on the grass? Etc. So, yes, you could start with an "injury" motif and create a whole system of laws out of it, but then I could equally argue that there a whole slew of laws out there that aren't covered by your injury standard, such as no parking zones. We make no parking zones to allow emergency vehicles to gain access, but the actual need for an emergency vehicle to gain access is small, so the odds of someone actually causing injury by parking in a no parking zone is also small. But we don't want to run that risk. I like the respect standard better because most of the laws we have now fit into that paradigm without any changes required. You can justify all kinds of left-wing nonsense using "injury" as your standard. As for government religion, I disagree that "everything" or every system of morality counts as a religion. The Soviet Union had a system of morality, twisted as it was, but it did not have a religion. We have an official religion in the US today, called secular humanism, but I don't believe our sense of morality originates with secular humanism.

 

It is only my opinion but I believe that any moral code originates with what the rest of the tribe will allow.

Cannibals have existed in the past without shame, babies have been killed, slavery accepted and all these and more have been considered "moral" by the tribes of the times.

Nothing religious about it except that some were performed to appease whatever gods were in vogue at the time.

To claim morality as an imperative is just false when you look at history.

 

The guy must have just taken his first philosophy class because he certainly wants us to be impressed with his ability to regurgitate texts. His constant appeals to authority become tiresome. Do some people think morality stems from religion? Yes. Do some people think differently? Yes. Who is right? In order to prove one or the other point, ask yourself the Rawlsian question. What would you do if your mind was a blank slate in regards to morality, religion and culture and were stranded alone on an island when all of a sudden, a group of people arrive. How would you treat them? If your answer is that you would kill them or flee, your morality would be based upon fear and self-preservation. If your answer would be to treat them as if you would have them treat you, you just created the morality of do no harm or do unto others as they would do unto you. Now you cannot make a non-decision, you must choose. Either way you choose, you have made a personal moral decision without any benefit of prior knowledge or belief systems to guide you. What is the natural state of man? Is it fight, flee or cooperate? What does this exercise tell us about the origins of morality eons before religions were codified? It tells us that mankind figured it out due to an urge to survive. Some fought, some fled, some cooperated. Religions have their origins in the mystical, the unknown, the world, death, birth, catastrophes, happiness, pain, suffering and long, long nights with no TVs, books, lights, radios or anything else to while away your time but your immediate clan, your fire, your cave and the wonderful night sky.

 

The singular issue I have with following a religion for ones morality is the vast majority of mainstream religions if you actually followed them would make you immoral at most and look like someone whose insane in the least.

Bible: Torah texts and OT if followed as per the laws in the books makes you a criminal in the eyes of normal people and the NT you would act the fool Jesus taught a lot of strange things to from a flat Earth to the Flood happened and one didn't need to wash their hands before eating and you could pray if you believed and could move mountains and do miracles greater than Jesus did.

Koran: See OT notes above ISIS is following the book to the letter and everyone is calling them barbaric and war criminals using their reading of the text.

Hinduism: Encourages a Caste system which violates the principles of freedom and free choice and is intrinsically unjust making some people better than other people due to birth nothing more or less.

So morality my rear end add in most Christians don't read the book they say they believe in or magically forget the bad parts or do some dance to make the bad parts somehow acceptable and this also is a flaw in other religions to some degree more or less.

So if one is building a moral system why not keep it simple using things most humanity can agree on equality is good, slavery is bad, murdering and theft bad, intolerance of others is bad, protecting children is a good thing, education for people is a good thing, having access to medical care a good thing etc. etc. All these enshrined by UN treaties and other instruments of governments to show what is moral and what rights people should have and what we should deem as major thing humanity should focus on from time to time. Civilized governments follow these after agreeing to them and barbaric ones don't.

 

+1

 

I tend to agree with most of this. Religions can mess you up, or they can help you become a better person. Many Catholic men and women have issues with sex, even within marriage. I'm not really sure if anything other than the Song of Songs? addressed sex. If you are a Catholic, or Christian, the rules are simple. We seem to add our own ideas and mess things up.

Good intentions ruin lots of things. Oh, and I'm one of those who doesn't read the bible as often as I should, though that was never taught when I was being educated. Doesn't matter. It's more anecdotal than anything. It's up to me. I'm an adult.

I don't remember reading anything about Jesus teaching flat earth or the flood, but it would be easier to hear him mention the flood than the flat earth. It's up to each of us to discern. Those folks who teach that will answer for themselves and be held to a higher standard.

It's pretty simple, really.

Any interpretation which does not contain these, is wrong. How can it get easier?

 

Since religion is the composite of your choices I agree, it can mess you up if you choose incorrectly.

 

flat earth you sure about that? Never heard that one.

 

Please explain, "the composite of your choices".

 

may I ask you if you know of any Philosophers who have written works which are Pro-Establishment? Any Philosophers who are not Pro-self and anti-Establishment?

Because all of the Political philosophers I have heard about were mostly 'anti-Establishment' but very 'pro-Individual'.

I think that even the Ancient Philosophers, such as Socrates and Plato, were anti-Establishment although Plato a little less than Socrates. I forget.. Sorry.. It might have been the other way around..


Yes, I was mistaken.. Socrates was the more Pro-Established.

http://www.philosophybasics.com/philosophers_socrates.html

Socrates (c. 469 - 399 B.C.) was a hugely important Greek philosopher from the Classical period (often known as the Socratic period in his honour). Unlike most of the Pre-Socratic philosophers who came before him, who were much more interested in establishing how the world works, Socrates was more concerned with how people should behave, and so was perhaps the first major philosopher of Ethics.


Plato:

In his works, especially his many dialogues, he blended Ethics, Political Philosophy, Epistemology, Metaphysics and moral psychology into an interconnected and systematic philosophy. In addition to the ideas they contained (such as his doctrine of Platonic Realism, Essentialism, Idealism, his famous theory of Forms and the ideal of "Platonic love"), many of his writings are also considered superb pieces of literature.

http://www.philosophybasics.com/philosophers_plato.html

 

Yes, if you choose incorrectly for yourself, it can cause problems.

There is no universal 'correct'.

 

First, there must be agreement on the definitions. One cannot argue a point they don't believe. Using secular terms to describe meanings of words when discussing how they relate to religion is disingenuous at best and an outright intentional work of deception and misinformation.

I do not know how to rectify this quandary. I will have to think about it. I offer you some definitions in the interim.

 

Depends directly upon your beliefs. This is partly the reason for the confusion in our nation and in the world. You really can't have anything, but subjective morals, if you are atheist. Therefore, justice, though elusive anyway, can not be achieved with atheism.

 

If there is a choice of gods, surely you make a subjective choice of which god you believe in? So since your choice of god is subjective your choice of morals is subjective.

 

That was a leap of faith, getting there.

 

Sorry, not sure what you mean?

 

Where exactly do you get these definitions from? They can be argued a true but can equally and easily be argue to be false. Depends on ones predisposition toward religion. As for me, I have not such predisposition and consider your quoted statement to be false and manufactured at best.

 

There are links there. I'm not sure why you had to tell me you don't believe me? I am not attempting to convert anyone. Maybe you are trying to prevent what you see as an attempt at conversion?

 

If you could read and comprehend, you would see that there is nothing that I have to convert to. Making up stuff is the typical response of one with no purpose other than to convert everyone to their point of view.

 

Now, I truly am confused? I guess you are saying, because you are an atheist, you have no religious beliefs and nothing to "sell"? Aren't you selling nothing for a price?

As far as making up stuff, there are links there, I think. Let me check........yeah, man. Nothing to make up.

What you are saying then is that you want to stop me from having free speech? I'm not forcing you or anyone to read the thread. I wouldn't know how.

 

What an incoherent mess. Here is what your OP fails to do.
1. Show that objective morality exists.
2. Show that objective morality is created by God.
3. Show that a biblical God exists so that we know objective morality is true.
4. How the term "religion" is at all meaningful if you have stretched it to be almost synonymous with "belief" and whether your definition has anything to do with the ones used by the general public or our founders.
5. How some values on some atheist webpage reflects all of atheism in general.
6. What the separation of church and state in the second amendment has anything to do with religion, atheism, and morality.
6. Whether globally atheists act less morally than religious people do.

 

You of course can provide quotes where I say what you claim, right?

No, then they are just lies made up to make yourself feel better.

Case closed.

 

What case? You can't explain what you mean, so you think you have proven what false? Or, you think, because I have no clue what you are talking about and it makes no sense, you are correct that I am making things up? Your posts make no sense. I don't know how you could think you have closed anything? lol Be on your way child. Go back to playing your video games.

 

Yes, I like this idea a lot.

Christians follow their own interpretation of the Bible. They work hard to reinterpret the Bible as we advance in our understanding of issues such as the rights of man, slavery, the morality of slaughtering men, women and children, the equality of women, the terrorism of Jericho, etc.

And, we have to have the grace to recognize that Muslims do the same with the Koran.

Our own constitution shows how our forefathers made significant changes that furthered good governance - changes that have nothing to do with religion.

The rights of man, the separation of powers, separation of church and state, etc. These didn't come from Jesus. They came from an evolution of secular government in the West over a long period of time - not all great, but at least getting us to where we are today.