Agree or Disagree: Religion is needed to be a morally just person [or act as one].

Well I was asked this in one of my classes and I found it interesting, just as a food for thought kind of thing.

Personally, I agreed in some sense in that religion, almost universally, gives you a reason to act morally just, promising something like eternal salvation [Christianity], being reborn into a different Caste [Hinduism], and probably something different in Islamic and Buddhist religions, one that I forget but have learned about in school.

This in turn will cause people to act morally just because I suppose they have a motivating force to do so, such as the Ten Commandments, which are clear cut and literally set in stone.

However, is that to say atheists and agnostics, etc. are immoral ? Certainly not. While there is the same kind of force driving them, in the form of man-made laws of society [be it social norms] or ones imposed based on religion ["Thou shalt not kill" = clearly universally accepted and transcribed into laws], does the lack of religion hinder them ?

I would say that some aspects of acting morally are common sensical in that you would know, religious or not, that taking the life of a human being is bad. You would know this even if it was not a law, and chances are that if you had the chance to, you would not kill a person for no reason, or even for a good reason, without getting too particular. Is it essentially human nature ? Or have we just been taught that based on what we pick up from religions and what we have been taught and subsequently sanctioned [assuming we break what was aforementioned] by forces greater than us, such as the state ?

In short, I neither agree nor disagree. It is a mixed case for me.

Discuss.

Disagree.
Plenty of atheists and agnostics do just fine without religion: most people have ethics.

And then to provide an extreme example, you still get like those whacko religious terrorists who kill people because they think they'll end up with lots of women in their heaven or something, which is just ...

So no.

beatrixasdfghjk. wrote:Disagree.
Plenty of atheists and agnostics do just fine without religion: most people have ethics.

And then to provide an extreme example, you still get like those whacko religious terrorists who kill people because they think they'll end up with lots of women in their heaven or something, which is just ...

So no.

Good point. I had not even considered the opposite; religion can, in Islamic cases anyway, cause people to act immoral, albeit very few percentages of any religious group are fundamentalist in that they take word for word what is in their scripture. I doubt they would have done it had they not had a religious force telling them what to do.

Well played my friend.

disagree, it's the complete opposite, religion gives people a get-out-of-jail-free card for being bigoted backwards idiots

i'm not saying all religious people are bigoted idiots but "i hate fags because god told me so" is for some reason more accepted than "i hate fags"

You would be surprised what religious people do daily.

FC_Hollywood wrote:You would be surprised what religious people do daily.

What, pray?

Did we not have this thread on the old forum?And JuvenelCuore did you not argue that atheists couldn't be morally just?

No, he stated that religion gives people reasons to be ethical, though that doesn't mean that non-theistic people can't be ethical.

Atheistic would be a better word, but you know, there are fence sitters .__.

WELL THERE WAS AN ARSENAL LOBBY IN THE LAST FORUM, AND NOW THERE'S AN ARSENAL FORUM HERE, AND I DON'T MIND

JuvenelCuore wrote:

beatrixasdfghjk. wrote:Disagree.
Plenty of atheists and agnostics do just fine without religion: most people have ethics.

And then to provide an extreme example, you still get like those whacko religious terrorists who kill people because they think they'll end up with lots of women in their heaven or something, which is just ...

So no.

Good point. I had not even considered the opposite; religion can, in Islamic cases anyway, cause people to act immoral, albeit very few percentages of any religious group are fundamentalist in that they take word for word what is in their scripture. I doubt they would have done it had they not had a religious force telling them what to do.

Well played my friend.

Just saying, in no way does Islam endorse terrorism.

beatrixasdfghjk. wrote:No, he stated that religion gives people reasons to be ethical, though that doesn't mean that non-theistic people can't be ethical.

I meant on the thread in the old forum.

7amood11 wrote:

JuvenelCuore wrote:

beatrixasdfghjk. wrote:Disagree.
Plenty of atheists and agnostics do just fine without religion: most people have ethics.

And then to provide an extreme example, you still get like those whacko religious terrorists who kill people because they think they'll end up with lots of women in their heaven or something, which is just ...

So no.

Good point. I had not even considered the opposite; religion can, in Islamic cases anyway, cause people to act immoral, albeit very few percentages of any religious group are fundamentalist in that they take word for word what is in their scripture. I doubt they would have done it had they not had a religious force telling them what to do.

Well played my friend.

Just saying, in no way does Islam endorse terrorism.

Yes, I tried to avoid playing into that area, we're using extremists as an example, see. I know that most Islamic guys are perfectly fine. And it's not just Islam, you got people like Anders Behring Breivik, far-right wing Christian. And other non-religious guys, that I can't think of.

The reason why you can't say that atheists and agnostics are immoral is because religion isn't the 'founder' of morality and ethics. It has always been a part human psychology, it's the core and essential rule of behavior - conformity. It's all about finding the common ground and what we all can accept and somewhat relate to.

Religion has taken a sort of patent on morality because it was just the best 'technology' to use if you wanted to reach the masses and ensure a consensus of behavior. It's the perfect assimilation tool to use across different lands and cultures.

That of course doesn't mean that the moral guidelines coming out of religion are correct or appropriate. It just means that it was the best way to control people's behaviors at the time, in the way the founders and preachers deemed appropriate for their agenda.

Today it's not needed because behavioral conduct mainly happens through the media, which is the best platform for mass control.

Senor Penguin wrote:The reason why you can't say that atheists and agnostics are immoral is because religion isn't the 'founder' of morality and ethics. It has always been a part human psychology, it's the core and essential rule of behavior - conformity. It's all about finding the common ground and what we all can accept and somewhat relate to.

Religion has taken a sort of patent on morality because it was just the best 'technology' to use if you wanted to reach the masses and ensure a consensus of behavior. It's the perfect assimilation tool to use across different lands and cultures.

That of course doesn't mean that the moral guidelines coming out of religion are correct or appropriate. It just means that it was the best way to control people's behaviors at the time, in the way the founders and preachers deemed appropriate for their agenda.

Today it's not needed because behavioral conduct mainly happens through the media, which is the best platform for mass control.

I clicked on this thread and was like "great, I'll have to write an entire f*cking essay again", but you sort just said it all, already.

Senor Penguin wrote:The reason why you can't say that atheists and agnostics are immoral is because religion isn't the 'founder' of morality and ethics. It has always been a part human psychology, it's the core and essential rule of behavior - conformity. It's all about finding the common ground and what we all can accept and somewhat relate to.

Religion has taken a sort of patent on morality because it was just the best 'technology' to use if you wanted to reach the masses and ensure a consensus of behavior. It's the perfect assimilation tool to use across different lands and cultures.

That of course doesn't mean that the moral guidelines coming out of religion are correct or appropriate. It just means that it was the best way to control people's behaviors at the time, in the way the founders and preachers deemed appropriate for their agenda.

Today it's not needed because behavioral conduct mainly happens through the media, which is the best platform for mass control.

Well said.

Senor Penguin wrote:The reason why you can't say that atheists and agnostics are immoral is because religion isn't the 'founder' of morality and ethics. It has always been a part human psychology, it's the core and essential rule of behavior - conformity. It's all about finding the common ground and what we all can accept and somewhat relate to.

Religion has taken a sort of patent on morality because it was just the best 'technology' to use if you wanted to reach the masses and ensure a consensus of behavior. It's the perfect assimilation tool to use across different lands and cultures.

That of course doesn't mean that the moral guidelines coming out of religion are correct or appropriate. It just means that it was the best way to control people's behaviors at the time, in the way the founders and preachers deemed appropriate for their agenda.

Today it's not needed because behavioral conduct mainly happens through the media, which is the best platform for mass control.

Founders such as ?

beatrixasdfghjk. wrote:Disagree.
Plenty of atheists and agnostics do just fine without religion: most people have ethics.

And then to provide an extreme example, you still get like those whacko religious terrorists who kill people because they think they'll end up with lots of women in their heaven or something, which is just ...

So no.

I have to agree with you. While back I was waiting for my bus and an older guy came with the bible and wanted me to have one and I said no he asked me if I ever read the Bible I said no and he said I am going to hell lol I said OK see you there he wanted to fight me lol. Few minutes later he goes up to another older man and asked him if he has read the bible or if he wants one and the man said he has read the bible and he don't think its worth reading again omg the man started yelling and wanted to fight him.lol

RealGunner wrote:

Senor Penguin wrote:The reason why you can't say that atheists and agnostics are immoral is because religion isn't the 'founder' of morality and ethics. It has always been a part human psychology, it's the core and essential rule of behavior - conformity. It's all about finding the common ground and what we all can accept and somewhat relate to.

Religion has taken a sort of patent on morality because it was just the best 'technology' to use if you wanted to reach the masses and ensure a consensus of behavior. It's the perfect assimilation tool to use across different lands and cultures.

That of course doesn't mean that the moral guidelines coming out of religion are correct or appropriate. It just means that it was the best way to control people's behaviors at the time, in the way the founders and preachers deemed appropriate for their agenda.

Today it's not needed because behavioral conduct mainly happens through the media, which is the best platform for mass control.

Founders such as ?

Islam, for example, has Muhammad who's considered to be the 'founder' of the religion.

Senor Penguin wrote:

RealGunner wrote:

Senor Penguin wrote:The reason why you can't say that atheists and agnostics are immoral is because religion isn't the 'founder' of morality and ethics. It has always been a part human psychology, it's the core and essential rule of behavior - conformity. It's all about finding the common ground and what we all can accept and somewhat relate to.

Religion has taken a sort of patent on morality because it was just the best 'technology' to use if you wanted to reach the masses and ensure a consensus of behavior. It's the perfect assimilation tool to use across different lands and cultures.

That of course doesn't mean that the moral guidelines coming out of religion are correct or appropriate. It just means that it was the best way to control people's behaviors at the time, in the way the founders and preachers deemed appropriate for their agenda.

Today it's not needed because behavioral conduct mainly happens through the media, which is the best platform for mass control.

Founders such as ?

Islam, for example, has Muhammad who's considered to be the 'founder' of the religion.

i believe that is what you assume has happened ?

I believe that is what the texts SAY happened.

RealGunner wrote:

Senor Penguin wrote:

RealGunner wrote:

Senor Penguin wrote:The reason why you can't say that atheists and agnostics are immoral is because religion isn't the 'founder' of morality and ethics. It has always been a part human psychology, it's the core and essential rule of behavior - conformity. It's all about finding the common ground and what we all can accept and somewhat relate to.

Religion has taken a sort of patent on morality because it was just the best 'technology' to use if you wanted to reach the masses and ensure a consensus of behavior. It's the perfect assimilation tool to use across different lands and cultures.

That of course doesn't mean that the moral guidelines coming out of religion are correct or appropriate. It just means that it was the best way to control people's behaviors at the time, in the way the founders and preachers deemed appropriate for their agenda.

Today it's not needed because behavioral conduct mainly happens through the media, which is the best platform for mass control.

Founders such as ?

Islam, for example, has Muhammad who's considered to be the 'founder' of the religion.

i believe that is what you assume has happened ?

What do I assume exactly?

Religious texts don't have much to do with acting moral. It's pretty much common sense. However, some people might deviate because they could get away with killing someone with the law, but religious texts say God sees everything so you cannot escape from that punishment.

Disagree.

Most people are just born-or raised- to meet certain ethical standards, and most people cannot stray from those boyhood, set in stone standards in their mind- for the most part. Obvious exceptions can be obvious.

It's all about how your raised(well, notall, but you get what i mean) and how you think. Personally I'm agnostic but I can't stand to do a bad thing unless it's warranted somehow.

Religion works as a rather 'easy guide' to these ethical standards, as a simple way to teach them. Some can learn them by experience, some are taught by their parents to think that way. And then when you get older, you start making up your own extra ones, recycling or 'updating' older ones and tadaa, you've got your own standards you will teach your kids.

IMO, religion- in all of it's other ways- is a teacher for these standards. Of course I could also totally be wrong

Plenty of examples of morally strong people who were atheists or agnostics.

Another interesting question is if our morals did not come from a higher being? Where did they come from?

Some evolutionists say they are survival tactics but I disagree because think of it this way. Why would we find it wrong to rape an old woman? Where is the line, how does this help our survival?

MJGunner wrote:Another interesting question is if our morals did not come from a higher being? Where did they come from?

The question seems to indicate that morals are actually an ingrained part of us as human beings. While this is true to a certain extent, it's not the absolute truth. "Morals" are guidelines (or values) of behavior that differ from every individual to every culture and because of that they are not only product of nature but also nurture.

On the side of nature we have a thing called empathy, which - as far as I know - is located in the temporal lobe of our brains. Empathy is basically the reason why we abstain from doing certain things. It's the ability to put ourselves in the place of others and from that draw a conclusion on how we should behave. We can imagine the suffering of others and because of that we don't like to inflict it upon others - unless there are logical reasons to override this. That "logical" part of the brain is located elsewhere, though.

Empathy is something that healthy humans in general share and only those with brain damages or disorders, like psychopaths, don't. There's only an exception with children because it's believed they don't fully develop empathy until they reach a certain age. That's why morals are partially a product of nature and, most likely, evolution.

Nurture's influence on morals can be explained by the very fact that morals differ across cultures (as I kinda already summarized). It's the product of the environment individuals live in. For example, it's immoral (or sinful) to not wear Burkas/Niqabs in many Islamic countries while other places in the world it's a totally different story. That's a very short example but I think it clearly illustrates the influence of nurture on our behavioral conduct (morals).

Some evolutionists say they are survival tactics but I disagree because think of it this way. Why would we find it wrong to rape an old woman? Where is the line, how does this help our survival?

It's not just "survival": That's an oversimplification of the human psyche. It's probably a part of it, though.

I think part of the truth to the "rape" argument can be found in my explanation above. We find it wrong because empathy is what drives us as human beings. We know that raping someone is terrible, because we can imagine how horrible it must feel to be the victim of sexual assault. Rapists, on the other hand, probably don't have the same level of empathy as most of us do and therefor don't care about their victims in the same way. Some of them actually may have a healthy level of empathy but when it comes to rape there's something else that overrides it and makes them do it.

In fact, you could argue that by refraining from emotionally and physically hurting others, it's a way of survival. Human beings are a social specie and when we keep each other healthy we have a higher probability of survival.