You can't live without religion.

Yeah, I mean you with the face, and everyone else who ever drew breath.

I know a great many people, nominally Christian or otherwise, see religion as rules & regs, but that's not what I mean by religion. "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this," said the Apostle: "to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." It does not seem to me improper to simplify even further, and define religion as doing the right thing as it's revealed in the moment.

Now obviously knowledge of "the right thing" has to come from some higher intelligence than one's own, but the sense of direction of the egotistically inclined is reversed; yet they need to feel justified in their wrongdoing, wherefore excuses are provided by what passes for a higher intelligence in their perception - the same dark intelligence that makes wrong look right in the first place, as well as making the egotist believe, if he's an atheist, that it's all his own idea.

So the bottom line is that there are exactly two religions, one good and one evil, and everyone becomes an adherent of one or the other sooner or later.

Any objections?

 

Many. firstly, it's not evenly remotely obvious that knowledge of the 'right thing' comes from 'higher intelligence'. first you'd have to define higher intelligence, then you'd have to verify how you know this, then you'll have to prove to others it actually exists. THEN it might be obvious, but only slightly, because you'd still need to demonstrate tangibly that any given thought or action is driven by this 'higher intelligence', and explain how this differentiation is made.

as for a reversal of morality .... when the atheist reads a story about innocents being slaughtered (for ANY reason), we respond in horror. when the monotheist reads the same story, they call it good. it's even worse if this reversal of morality is applied exclusively to a sole perpetrator's actions, while condemning the same actions in any other being or entity.

 

I"ve managed to do so for 50 years now, no strain at all, since I figured out, at age 12, that religion is all just bs for the weakminded.

 

you must be possessed by the DARK side

 

I don't live with religion but I rely on my relationship with God.

I haven't been in a church in years but I pray everyday.

 

Yes, this is true.

We are born selfish, and n dire need just to survive.

But when we get older, we ought give back, and do for others, and appreciate what we have received.
But society is based upon Selfishness.

Any Rand says Selfishness is a Virtue.
She claims that Selfishness makes sure each person gets their own fair share.'So society keeps us selfish, and even says it is "good."
Arguments which tell us this wrong are called religion.
People hate to be wrong.

They maintain their selfish ways and form that second "religion."

 

I contest the definition, I contest the obviousness of morality deriving from any higher intelligence and a couple of your subsequent conclusions, like there being two religions and so on.

 

Well, despite being an atheist, the biblical quote you used is probably my favorite, and definitely from my favorite book of the Bible. However, there is definitely a lot to disagree with here.

Good so far. I'd happily call myself "religious" if that were the core of it all.

And this is where it all falls apart. No, it is by no means "obvious" that knowledge of the right thing comes from a higher intelligence. Buddhists believe in living a life of compassion and mindfulness, doing the right thing as it's revealed in the moment, but they do not believe that any of this comes from a higher intelligence, and they certainly aren't "egotistically inclined" in their ethical thinking. And, of course, it is quite common for people to appeal to a belief in God in order to "[justify] their wrongdoing, wherefore excuses are provided by what passes for a higher intelligence in their perception".

Every time people on this forum start debating the moral atrocities described in the Bible we see theists abandon their consciences for the sake of their belief in God.

I write to prisoners, I visit and offer comfort to the dying and I mentor children. My conscience tells me these are good things and I feel a great sense of reward when I do. If you want to call that conscience "God", then fine. I see no reason to.

 

the problem is that you can't separate the dogma from the "higher power". Organized religion has way to much baggage to be distilled down to "doing the right thing".


I also do not believe that religion is the source of morality or ethical behavior. I believe that religions have merely codified human behaviors that developed over hundreds of thousands of years.

I think its a ridiculous idea that without religion everyone would be going around murdering and raping and plundering.
Social constraints abound with religion merely being one of them.

 

Absurd.

It's a simple fact that humans understand what harms them - harms others as well. In fact, that's one of the most basal human dictates.

To assume that a supernatural entity is needed to tell humans what is and what is not beneficial in their lives is fantastical thinking.

 

Unfortunately, not every atheist thinks like you. There's no one belief under the atheistic umbrella. So, although you believe that a supernatural entity is not needed to tell humans what is and what is not beneficial in their lives (and other atheists may agree), the circumstances behind such of a belief differ. For example: An atheist may not believe that God is needed for them to know right from wrong, but then an atheist would have no qualms with having sex outside of marriage or even having a child out of wedlock. However, this opinion is not universally shared among most atheists, but it certainly is shared among most theists. See what I'm saying?

 

The interesting thing about that is that new religions often allow those very things that we now discourage. Look at the Old Testament, Numbers 31:17-18, God/Jehovah/Father of the Jews and Christians, tells them to kill all the males, young and old, and to kill women who are not virgins, but to keep the young virgin girls for themselves. Spoils of war, if you please.

If we are to take that lesson to heart - we could easily condone the wholesale slaughter of innocents and the rape of young girls.

But, we don't. Because, despite the biblical dictates of the Hebrew god, we've grown to understand that virgin girls do not deserve to be raped, no matter if they are children of our enemy, and it's not right to kill women and the elderly males or male babies. We know that, because recognize that we would not want that kind of harm to befall us.

Before the first recording of the Ten Commandments, the Code of Hammurabi had already decided on the laws Moses most likely copied - and then added the spiritual commandments to.

You see - humans have an innate sense of right and wrong - although religion can make wrong seem right, as it has in the cases of the Inquisition, witch-burnings and today's ISIS.

Religion is used to justify wrongdoing.

For those who don't have religious beliefs, we understand that we have just one chance here - and we can either benefit society - or we can harm it. We just can't use our superstitious beliefs to make excuses for ourselves.

 

Oh My....why didn't anyone bother to tell me I was no longer alive.

And...by the way, evil is in the mind of the beholder.

 

Disagree.

 

How many theists end up having sex outside of wedlock, getting divorced, etc.?

And how many atheists in fact get married and stay married and act as good spouses and parents?

I don't think the statistics will be in your favor here. The differences here are immaterial and irrelevant. They make little if any practical, i.e. REAL difference.

 

The majority of people in the U.S. do not think that premarital sex is categorically wrong (link). Last I checked the majority of people in the U.S. also believed in God. Theists widely disagree about this issue just like they do with a whole range of moral issues. You are doing that thing again where you act like it is significant when atheists disagree, but that it isn't significant when theists disagree.

 

I read your own source, and it says that majority of those surveyed felt that having children out of wedlock is wrong.

On top of this, this survey doesn't seem to collect any data on whether the people they've surveyed were theists or not.

 

religion is just some man's idea of what is... myth

you can't live without what is .... regardless of what you think it is

if the bible made people be good we would not of had the inquisitions and witch burnings.... no one would of ever been stoned to death for picking up sticks on the weekend, the list goes on

.

 

I think he said "premarital sex" not "having children" out of wedlock, but I think most of us can agree that it's best not to have children until the parent(s) can afford to raise them.

 

thiests and athiests both can have religions or none at all, the only difference between most theist and atheists is the theists believe in one more God then the atheists do, they both disbelieve in all the others

 

Silly.

Morals were born the day that Og realized that it was more beneficial to his continued existence to band together with Moog rather than bash his head in.

Everything since then has been a collection of experiences of benefits and detriments to survival passed on from generation to generation. The only "higher intelligence" is a collective set of experiences.

Nothing cosmic. No gods or religion needed. Just life experiences.

Some of those have been codified into religion - like avoiding certain foods - more likely came from experience of sickness and death rather than some higher power saying not to eat those foods.

 

Instead of asking me, you should find the data and search for yourself.

 

On what basis?

By what?

What does anyone's belief have to do with the objective reality of the matter?

Fact not in evidence, as even an unimpeachable moral code can be rendered totally self-serving.

Your point being...?

So why would you listen to it if it's not the voice of a higher intelligence?

So the OP went clean over your head, thanks for making that plain up front.

You do understand that the history of mankind testifies overwhelmingly to the contrary, right?

hardly necessary, since the objective reality of that need is self-evident.

Damned if I can see anything unfortunate about it.

Please, you haven't got a clue as to what the lesson is in the first place.

Yes, this is one post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy atheists find particularly appealing.

 

Considering that the OT is obsolete and no one has to follow it any more, I think we're safe.

 

1) Yes, it does . . . so? It also says that the majority do not see premarital sex is categorically wrong, which seems at odds with your claim.

2) They have other surveys for that. Here's one from the same source: http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

Just look at the two together. Even if every single atheist says that premarital sex is okay, that isn't nearly enough to equal the 59% of people in the initial survey. Hell, we can even make this about Christians and non-Christians if you want. Look at the numbers again:

Percentage of the U.S. that is Christian: 78%
Percentage of the U.S. that says sex before marriage is always, or almost always wrong: 38%

So, even if every single person who claimed that sex before marriage is wrong was a Christian, that still leaves 40% of U.S. population that is Christian, but who do not claim that premarital sex is wrong. That's about 127.5 million premarital sex-positive Christians! But the real numbers are higher, remember, because we only got to 127.5 million by using the most conservative possible estimate and assuming that everyone who objected to premarital sex was Christian.