Religon - a flawed basis for morality?

nozzferrahhtoo

The Corinthian wrote: »

His point, I suspect, is that anti-Semitism is not simply born of religion. It pre-dates Christianity; the Romans persecuted the Jews, not so much because of religion, but because they were as an ethnic group a pain in the ass to govern.

Nor would I claim this, so I am not sure what the point is still. I was talking about modern atrocities as this is what you yourself brought up and to say that anti-semitism in, say, Nazi germany was not fuelled by Christianity and other religious notions would be tentative to say the least.

nozzferrahhtoo

Can I, as an aside, put this forward as another attack on putting words in peoples mouth and maybe suggest no one presumes to speak for anyone else in this or any other thread? Live and learn and all that?

The Corinthian wrote: »

His point, I suspect, is that

Jakkass wrote: »

Exactly, as The Corinthian said

The Corinthian wrote: »

Errr... not really what I said.

If we all speak only for ourselves and only reply to what the others have ACTUALLY said and not what you have invented for them, this might all go a tad smoother? I asked him something and he is more than capable of replying for himself. Answering for him can only lead to confusion. A point of order if you will.

nozzferrahhtoo

I am really starting to wonder what you think Secularism actually means or how you think it could have led to such things or is to blame in any way for such things.

All Secularism essentially is, is the desire to keep religion out of politics and I heartily support that as much as you would support it if a large group of people who believe in alien abductions wanted to get into politics and base their politics on this notion which they have not even shown is true etc. And to start setting up Alien defense funds, teaching about aliens in our schools, or basing our morality on what they think the aliens might want.

This might seem facetious, but explain to me where the difference lies?

I would extend this. If something can not be shown to be true it should be left out of politics, law and morality totally. I say that of everything.

If atrocities have been committed they are not because of this one small notion. There are other issues in these societies. Was there free and open democracy? Were women granted equal liberties and votes? Was there open skeptisism in place of wanton superstition? Was free speech supported and explored?

If your random examples of things like Russia had all of these, do you think it would have had the history it did solely because, oh god forbid, they were secular? Simply because they wanted something that had absolutely no basis in reality to be kept separate for the highest offices of the land? Seriously?

philologos

nozzferrahtoo: I have no disagreements with secularism as just that. I have disagreements with secularism being used as a pawn against peoples personal religious beliefs. You have an interest in going much further than mere secularism, you look forward to the dismantling of religion. People lump their own agendas in the middle of it, and that's why people start to be a bit more skeptical concerning it.

The US / Australian model of secularism, is much more friendly towards the belief systems of others than the European system. I suppose you'd be more supportive of the latter than the former.

If I may quote Kevin Rudd, the PM of Australia:

A [truly] Christian perspective on contemporary policy debates may not prevail. It must nonetheless be argued. And once heard, it must be weighed, together with other arguments from different philosophical traditions, in a fully contestable secular polity. A Christian perspective, informed by a social gospel or Christian socialist tradition, should not be rejected contemptuously by secular politicians as if these views are an unwelcome intrusion into the political sphere. If the churches are barred from participating in the great debates about the values that ultimately underpin our society, our economy and our polity, then we have reached a very strange place indeed.

This is my view of secularism, and what it should be really about.

nozzferrahhtoo

Jakkass wrote: »

People will get tired of your view that religion is a problem, particularly when such thinking is only normal within human beings.

Stalin killed people because they believed in God. He persecuted people who believed in God. He wanted nothing to do with it clearly.

Jakass,

I really do not care if people will get tired of what I say. What relevance does this have to anything?

Stalin killed people because they were religious? Well then that is not secularism. That is a mass political decision based on a religious basis. Secularism is the desire to keep religion out of politics, not out of everything. We do not CARE if you believe in god. Stalin was a dictator and he cared and you saw what he did.

Get this right: He killed for religious reasons. This is NOT secular. This is bigotry taken to the level of violence. Religion and god, if he was secular, should have had nothing to do with his actions.

Again: Secularism is ONLY the desire to keep religion and politics separate. The desire to kill those who believe in god is not secularly motivated. It is homicidally motivated.

This is all BEFORE you point out that Stalin was not killing because they believed in a god, but almost because they believed in a FALSE god. Similar to the god of the bible, he did not like this. He had his inquisitions, he had his claimed miracles of agricultural biology and he was the dear supreme leader that all must follow or else. Sound familiar???

nozzferrahhtoo

Jakkass wrote: »

nozzferrahtoo: I have no disagreements with secularism as just that. I have disagreements with secularism being used as a pawn against peoples personal religious beliefs. You have an interest in going much further than mere secularism, you look forward to the dismantling of religion.

Can you quote me having said this? I have never claimed I want to do away with all religion. Never. I think people who beleive this stuff are wrong and have no evidence, but so be it.

I merely want religion, which is a private thing, to be kept private.

So I ask not for the first time of you or of this thread: Keep YOUR words out of MY mouth as I have enough of my own. Do not presume to know me, as you do not.

But maybe what I AM saying is so damn strong that you have to attack what I am NOT saying instead to feel better?

Let me us an analogy to clarify what I am actually espousing and not what you have just wholly invented for me. I think the trousers people wear in golf clubs are absurd. Totally ridiculous looking. However I recognise they want to wear them and this is the rules of their club. More power to them!

If however these people come out of that club and start saying “Our club demands you wear these pants so we want everyone else to wear them too” we have a big problem. Huge.

Similarly if people, like the religious, do not want to engage in abortions or homosexuality or stem cell research this is fine. Don’t do it. If they want to think there is a god then that’s great too. Go for it.

However when they come out and want to stop US doing these things based solely* on this god of theirs, and they want to teach that this god is real in our schools, then THIS is what I am working against and no more.

*I say solely because I have NO issue with a person who is religiously motivated to think these things but can come out and argue for them with rational real world arguments. I refer you to Obamas 2006 keynote speech where he espouses that very thing better than me: http://irishcatholic.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=3

philologos

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I merely want religion, which is a private thing, to be kept private.

Religion is often a public part of peoples public identity.

I'm sure you'd claim to be an advocate of free speech, would you suggest that people evangelising on the streets should be put in jail?

Freedom of religion, and freedom of expression when put together, result in a freedom of religious expression. This is ultimately public.

Do you think that people should be permitted to be public about their atheism? If so why should religion be a private matter?

I'm not sure how compatible this notion is with secularism.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Get this right: He killed for religious reasons. This is NOT secular. This is bigotry taken to the level of violence. Religion and god, if he was secular, should have had nothing to do with his actions.

He killed in the promotion of state atheism. State atheism != Secularism.

This is dishonest. He did this because he wanted nothing to do with God in Russia.

nozzferrahhtoo

Jakkass wrote: »

people evangelising on the streets

I see, this is sort of my bad!

I think this may be a problem of language and not of you disagreeing with what I am actually saying.

When I say private I merely mean out of the Public Sphere. What I understand by that phrase is our politics, our schools, our Public Services.

What you seem to understand by it, and I hope I clarify what I mean now, is literally "in Public". Some guy walking down the road shouting verses from the bible and what not. This is not what I meant by Public and I apologise for the confusion. I honestly do not care what these people do.

However in our public institutions, if people stand up to set a law, decree on a morality, set our education curriculums and so on, I expect these all (in a perfect world to which we strive) to be based on things we know to be true and someone standing up in the Dail and saying “God does not like abortions so abortions need to be illegal” is just not acceptable to me unless said person can show god actually exists.

Or to use a recent example, if someone says we can not excercise free speech if it offends peoples religious sensibilities and you can be done for blasphemy, this is a problem, as why should one notion that has zero evidence be elevated above another with no evidence? How can we have a law that makes it illegal for me to offend people who think there is a god, but not to offend people who think they were abducted by aliens and experimented on? Both notions have the same amount of evidence (in fact arguably the aliens have slightly more!!!), which is to say none.

I hope I have made this clearler…

philologos

You mean a distinguishing between individual enterprise and the State?

I'd disagree with you heavily on the evidence issue though, as I believe there is evidence for Christianity.

nozzferrahhtoo

Jakkass wrote: »

This is dishonest. He did this because he wanted nothing to do with God in Russia.

Again this has nothing to do with secularism. Secularism is solely the desire to keep religion out of politics. Nothing more.

If someone went about murdering then they committed a crime and we are together in condemning it. Nothing in secularism promotes murder. Not a single piece of it. So any desires he had to kill were from something else. Bigotry, the desire not to have competition in being considered the ultimate leader, insanity, control, I do not know. Secularism however, it was not.

However you do get it right. "HE did it because HE wanted"..... This was all him and his messed up mind. That you wish to paint secularism which you are totally unable to point to ONE thing in that leads to murder, with this crime is really sick.

Contrast this to religion where I in fact CAN point to elements of it that potentially can and sometimes do lead to death, violence, despair and pain. I can actually point out these elements, and explain how and why they can lead to these things. You however can only point to secularism and say "I know someone who I think was secular who was a bad bad man, so there".

Yeah well I know 10 names of serial murders who all had mustaches. I guess I do not have to show mustaches lead to murder, as this is evidence enough. Please, if you learn nothing else, spot the difference between arguments from actual consequence, and arguments from mere association. To paint Secularism with the crimes of stalin you do not just associate the two. Show what in the first led to the actions of the second. Show me what you think secularism is and how you think it leads to mass murder. Where is the link?

nozzferrahhtoo

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd disagree with you heavily on the evidence issue though, as I believe there is evidence for Christianity.

I have heard there is, however in 20 years of asking for it no one has shown me a single shred of a scrap of it. So I think I can be forgiven my skepticism on the subject. You hardly expect me to think there is evidence for something, solely on the basis that someone out there firmly believes there is, do you?

Not just for Christianity mind you, but for the existence of ANY non human intelligence external to the universe which was involved in it’s creation. If you have any to present then I am, as ever, AGOG to hear it.

Until then, since the core premise of all religion is evidence free, you can understand my reluctance to use it as the basis of anything, let alone all morality.

nozzferrahhtoo

“Religion is as much a basis for morality as my piggy bank is a basis for my finances. That is to say: We get out of it exactly what we have put into it and no more. It offers nothing on its own merit. At least not until someone can show that its core basis, that there is some non human intelligence that created the universe and all morality, has any grounds for credence whatsoever. So far: Nadda.“

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't disagree with you here, which leads me to believe you didn't actually understand what I posted.

So let me get this straight. You agree that the morality of religion is just what we put into it. Further you have no evidence for the god that it is based on. So essentially morality is man made, dressed up in religion and we go with this man made morality.

I however say morality is man made so let’s go with this man made morality.

Where is the difference exactly????? You appealed to Occams Razor. As I said, if X works without Y then proceed without Y is essentially Occams Razor. So why not just proceed without the religion as a basis for morality?

Further if religion therefore adds nothing, since it is only what we put in anyway, then it is superfluous by definition. If it is superfluous then one SINGLE indictment of it, or one SINGLE harm caused by it puts it into negative usefulness. It adds nothing good but causes something bad. Therefore we are better without it.

And trust me, I have a LOT more than 1.

philologos

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

“Religion is as much a basis for morality as my piggy bank is a basis for my finances. That is to say: We get out of it exactly what we have put into it and no more. It offers nothing on its own merit. At least not until someone can show that its core basis, that there is some non human intelligence that created the universe and all morality, has any grounds for credence whatsoever. So far: Nadda.“

Again, I don't believe in this at all either. Christianity prompted a change in my life, you are suggesting that we are exactly the same before and after. I'd highly disagree with you. The way I regarded right and wrong now is radically different to what it was before I started to believe.

There are clear advantages to regarding morality as something universal rather than something relative that we've been through over the last few pages.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Where is the difference exactly????? You appealed to Occams Razor.

You're confusing threads now.

Further if religion therefore adds nothing, since it is only what we put in anyway, then it is superfluous by definition. If it is superfluous then one SINGLE indictment of it, or one SINGLE harm caused by it puts it into negative usefulness. It adds nothing good but causes something bad. Therefore we are better without it.

My point is religion adds something by dint of being dogmatic and authoritarian, in that it does not allow people to decide their own moral code. Secondly, where people can decide their own moral code, it leads to rationalization of anti-social behaviour and - even if by a minority - this can have a detrimental effect on a society.

Whether this outweighs the negatives of relation or any other dogmatic moral authority, or even if religion still has this power any more is another discussion.

nozzferrahhtoo

Jakkass wrote: »

Again, I don't believe in this at all either. Christianity prompted a change in my life, you are suggesting that we are exactly the same before and after. I'd highly disagree with you. The way I regarded right and wrong now is radically different to what it was before I started to believe.

There are clear advantages to regarding morality as something universal rather than something relative that we've been through over the last few pages.

Well as I said, since no one has shown a scrap of a shred of evidence for the central tenets of Christianity, such as the existence of its core power figure, I fail to see what you are arguing for.

However the issue here seems to be that you are mistaking my comments on our species as a whole with that of individuals.

My point is that as a species we can get anything more out of it than we put in morally speaking. Why? Because it is entirely man made, so everything that went in was man made and everything we get back out is just the same stuff and is open to the subjective interpretation of each person reading it.

At the end of the day all it is is a book and I have no doubt that INDIVIDUALS go to that book and get something out of it, like you claim to have. However I would make 2 points here:

1) The same can be said of ANY book, not just the one Christianity obsesses with. You can pick up any book and come away from it a changed person. If you do not then it was a seriously bad book. Any book can spark a person to change their life. Even a book on baking cookies can do that, as a person wasting their life might discover the joy of cooking, the of cooking for others and from there end up with a happy joyous life of pleasure and community

2) There is nothing in the bible that is useful that requires you to assume anything on insufficient evidence to accept. Take for example the golden rule. This core tenet of any good moral philosophy works entirely separately from the fantasy that a god set it up. Our morality appears to be entirely man made and varys with time in some cases. Basing it therefore on one single religion developed by Bronze Aged Peasants gives us nothing. We can take our morality from that AND other sources past present and future.

nozzferrahhtoo

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're confusing threads now.

Commenting on something you have done as a person does not indicate mixing up threads. You DID appeal to Occams Razor and that is all I said and in fact all I meant. However if it makes it any more clear to you you can change my words to “As someone who has been known to appeal to Occams razor…”. Not that I want to deprive you of a chance to take an opportunistic dig at someone at every given chance.

The Corinthian wrote: »

My point is religion adds something by dint of being dogmatic and authoritarian, in that it does not allow people to decide their own moral code. Secondly, where people can decide their own moral code, it leads to rationalization of anti-social behaviour and - even if by a minority - this can have a detrimental effect on a society.

Whether this outweighs the negatives of relation or any other dogmatic moral authority, or even if religion still has this power any more is another discussion.

You make it sound then that what religion adds is Authoritarian Dictatorship. Oh shudder at the thought people might think for themselves. God forbid! Literally.

If all religion adds is this, then you can keep it.

However I disagree that religion adds even this since this morality originally came from humans anyway. Morality appears entirely man made. So what religion does is in fact ALLOW people to come up with their own moral code, and then provides them away to attempt to enforce it on others.

Further to this religion is reluctant to change its moral position because of this fact you yourself just adumbrated. In a world where information is coming new every day from Science and Philosophy, trying to enforce and maintain a bronze aged moral code on a 21st century society is just dangerous.

On top of all that again, since there is no evidence fort he claims of religion (such as that there is a god) we are already on shakey ground as we are building a moral code from a foundation that has already started with a big fat lie. Do you really want your basis for morals to start with dishonesty? Is that really the ideal Square One for you???

philologos

If it offers people an opportunity to live fulfilling lives, then as far as I am concerned it is beneficial to people in general as well as individuals.

nozzferrahhtoo

But it is not doing this. PEOPLE are doing this. The religion is just the packaging. The product you are selling is the same one I am selling, a man made morality. You are just selling it in a packaging that is both harmful and thus far to my knowledge devoid of any evidence whatsoever.

There is nothing within it that requires anything like the assumption of a god in order to change lives. The same affect can be achieved without lies, assumptions and authoritarian attempts to enforce the contents of one book on the masses.

However do not get me wrong on this again, as it is in danger of having the same error made on it that I had to clarify before. If it changed YOUR life then more power to YOU on this and I would never want to take that away from you.

What I am talking about here is taking something as a basis for morality and enforcing it on everyone. If we are going to do that, then I would request that it at least have the attribute of some evidence to show it is true before we engage in it and also that it does not also come with some very inherently dangerous aspects and concepts that can lead people to violence, death, neglect and pain.

philologos

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What I am talking about here is taking something as a basis for morality and enforcing it on everyone. If we are going to do that, then I would request that it at least have the attribute of some evidence to show it is true before we engage in it and also that it does not also come with some very inherently dangerous aspects and concepts that can lead people to violence, death, neglect and pain.

Where was anyone discussing this? Of course I feel it is best to live according to God's standard, but irrespective of how much I wish it is still your choice to decide to.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You make it sound then that what religion adds is Authoritarian Dictatorship. Oh shudder at the thought people might think for themselves. God forbid! Literally.

Forgive my utilitarian approach to the dilemma. I was not aware I had an idealist in the audience.

aidan24326

Is religion a flawed basis for morality?

My answer - religion has no basis at all. Our morality emphatically DOES NOT come from religion. Never did, never will. It's astonishing how many people fail to grasp that.

All I can say is I'm glad I don't derive my moral framework from an old completely discredited book that has all the moral standing of a priest about to roger an altar boy.

philologos

By failing to grasp, you mean "disagree with you" I take it?

Nick_oliveri

So then Jackass, all morality is derived from religion? Thats like saying we never had feelings until we realized "god" gave them to us.

nozzferrahhtoo

Jakkass wrote: »

Where was anyone discussing this? Of course I feel it is best to live according to God's standard, but irrespective of how much I wish it is still your choice to decide to.

It is discussed every day. I have said before I would love to ignore religion and simply leave it and its adherents alone. I simply do not have a problem with people who want to think there is a god for whatever reasons.

However in EVERY area of discourse I currently have an interest in with no exception I simply am not let. Education, Morality, Sexuality, Politics and Media to give 5 examples, it is infested with some people attempting to enforce their morality and beliefs on others based on nothing, literally nothing, EXCEPT "I think this is what god wants"*.

All I do is request that they at least show their base premise is true before building further things upon it. Not a lot to ask really is it? Yet after 20 years of asking not one person, yourself included, has provided even a shred of a scrap of a small piece of evidence that this god entity even exists. They appear for all intents and purposes to be lying and making it up.

*I note yet again since if I do not I am always pulled up on it, that I have literally no problem with people who are religiously movtivated in their beliefs but can still make a real world argument.

nozzferrahhtoo

The Corinthian wrote: »

Forgive my utilitarian approach to the dilemma. I was not aware I had an idealist in the audience.

And I was not aware that we had an authoritarian dictator who does not want to allow people to think for themselves. We live and learn huh?

However as morality appears to be entirely man made and man decided, and we have no evidence for another source for it (and certainly none for the god people claim is a source for it) I honestly think that the only basis we have for deciding a moral code to live by with each other IS each other. It is up to people to come to their own conclusions, the same as we do in politics and law, and to come together as a species and decide it together. The power of democracy.

And where we get it wrong (or where new information comes to us), we re-evaluate, learn from it and change the moral codes... the practise of change being one that is rarely supported by authoritarian religions, especially those that want us to conform to the code that man came together and made in bronze age times and was in many areas flawed.

Chuck Stone

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again: Secularism is ONLY the desire to keep religion and politics separate. The desire to kill those who believe in god is not secularly motivated. It is homicidally motivated.

Can I presume you mean the politics of public affairs?

Is it not impossible to keep religion and politics separate? If religion is dictating to people that they must circumcise children what does politics have to say about this? it's a public affair is it not?

philologos wrote: »

If it offers people an opportunity to live fulfilling lives, then as far as I am concerned it is beneficial to people in general as well as individuals.

That may be true but it also offers them the opportunity to live destructive lives and allows them to harm others and be subject to harm themselves.

nozzferrahhtoo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Can I presume you mean the politics of public affairs?

Is it not impossible to keep religion and politics separate? If religion is dictating to people that they must circumcise children what does politics have to say about this? it's a public affair is it not?

I will defer to the 2006 keynote speech by Barack Obama to answer this one for me. He says it more eloquently than I. He uses the example of banning abortion but you can substitute in your allowing circumcision if you like and it will make the same amount of sense.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s?

Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application?

So before we get carried away, let’s read our Bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles.

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice.

Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences.

To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.

If there are reasons to hack off bits of children before the age of reason or consent that are therefore open and amenable to discourse and reasons, I am happy to sit here and hear those reasons.

If people want to do it because they think they hear some voice telling them to, then I am liable to resist that as best I can.

philologos

Chuck Stone wrote: »

That may be true but it also offers them the opportunity to live destructive lives and allows them to harm others and be subject to harm themselves.

I'd argue no more than any other form of philosophical thought when skewed including atheism. In fact I'd argue that it is a tiny minority of cases, unless you are suggesting that most of us are interested in suicide bombing.

Simply put my faith comes down to being thankful to God for the life that He has given me, and in being interested in using every moment I have to give Him the glory that He deserves whether that is in my work, in my relationships, my family, my friends, in everything I put my hands to.

Do I fail to do this? Certainly! However, it is a development and growth process to learn to put ones selfish interests aside and look to what is most important in all things. That for me is God.

prinz

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

All in my opinion, for course What do boardsies - particularly religious boardsies - think?

Flawed at times, like any other, and usually because of human nature (to corrupt, to hijack, to use the religion for whatever personal gain etc). However I have found it to be a much better basis than most (as a late comer to religion). If you know somebody is a serious committed member of x religion then it is far easier to gauge where on any given moral issue they will stand, than if they are a moral 'floater' for want of a better word. I also think having a solid moral foundation (religious based or otherwise) makes for a happier individual and as a consequence a more stable individual and society. In my opinion this is one of the major problems facing societies, especially Western, these days, the supremacy of the moral fluidity, relativity and subjectivism, whether it's the greed is good of the Gordon Gekkos of the world (as we have seen in this country lately) or other contradictory positions on similar problems.

drkpower

It is impossible to take seriously, as a basis for morality, any organisation that believes it is just that those who do not believe what they believe, should burn in agony for eternity, merely because of that (lack of) belief.

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

It is impossible to take seriously, as a basis for morality, any organisation that believes it is just that those who do not believe what they believe, should burn in agony for eternity, merely because of that (lack of) belief.

Which organisation would that be?

philologos

prinz wrote: »

Which organisation would that be?

No Christian organisation anyway. It's been explained to him numerous times that Christians don't believe anyone should go to hell. They should accept God's grace and accept His offer to help and guide them become who they were created to be.

irishh_bob

philologos wrote: »

I'd argue no more than any other form of philosophical thought when skewed including atheism. In fact I'd argue that it is a tiny minority of cases, unless you are suggesting that most of us are interested in suicide bombing.

Simply put my faith comes down to being thankful to God for the life that He has given me, and in being interested in using every moment I have to give Him the glory that He deserves whether that is in my work, in my relationships, my family, my friends, in everything I put my hands to.

Do I fail to do this? Certainly! However, it is a development and growth process to learn to put ones selfish interests aside and look to what is most important in all things. That for me is God.

you claim god has given you a ( charmed ) life , how about those who have a terrible life , were those people simply not worthy or is it that you are more special , this is one of the things i never get with religous people , they speak of how god is so wonderfull due to the fact that thier life is so blessed and possitive , i find it incredibly smug and condescending tbh

drkpower

philologos wrote: »

They should accept God's grace and accept His offer to help and guide them become who they were created to be.

And if they dont accept this offer from god (which would follow from not believing in that god), then it is just that the non-believer would burn for eternity? Isnt that correct Jakkass?

Prinz, are you not aware of this teaching with regard to those who do not believe?

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

Prinz, are you not aware of this teaching with regard to those who do not believe?

What organisation? If you are referring to the Roman Catholic Church then you are very much mistaken.

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

What organisation? If you are referring to the Roman Catholic Church then you are very much mistaken.

Take it up with Jakass; he strongly argues that a central tenet of Christianity is that it is just that an unrepentent non-believer will go to hell.

Is it your belief that the RCC teaches that the unrepentent non-believer does not go to hell?

nozzferrahhtoo

If brings to mind something I love, which is the whole "It is not a threat... it is god offering you a choice and if you choose to go to hell that's your prerogative" line of reasoning that is used by many in this context.

It brings to mind the comical image of a mugger saying "Look mate, I am not threatening to stick this knife into you, but you can choose to either give me all your money, or you can choose to accept the knife between your ribs"

philologos

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It brings to mind the comical image of a mugger saying "Look mate, I am not threatening to stick this knife into you, but you can choose to either give me all your money, or you can choose to accept the knife between your ribs"

No comparison. I would consider it more like going to court and being sentenced. It depends on whether or not you believe God's authority is legitimate or not. If the world is His or rather His creation, then yes He has authority over it.

He has laid down His standards for it, we've all chosen to rebel against Him. He offered us all a second chance. We can either choose to accept it or reject it. Ultimately it is our prerogative.

If God's authority is illegitimate then of course it's more like the mugger.

nozzferrahhtoo

Errrr yes there is a comparison. To the people who DO go with that line of reasoning. Maybe there is no comparison to YOUR line of reasoning, but I was not talking about you, I was talking about the people who do espouse what I wrote above... and to THOSE people the comparison is sound.

The point is that those people are saying there is some difference between "Do x or else Y" and "You can do X if you want, but if you don't Y will happen"

Both are still threats, one just sounds a little better on paper.

However given you have not even presented the first shred of even a scrap of evidence that such an entity even exists, I really have no cause to be concerned about it's wishes for how I act or not, or what it is threatening me with or not.

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

Is it your belief that the RCC teaches that the unrepentent non-believer does not go to hell?

Goalposts moved so fast it nearly knocked me right over. OK just to clarify now we are not talking about people who say just happen to not to Roman Catholic or theist (i.e. per your original statement of 'people who don't believe what they believe') now we are talking about people who let's say get to the pearly gates and decide themselves to head on somewhere else, after they have died?

The RCC teaches it is for God to decide the ultimate fate, but it also teaches that there is nothing stopping people who try to live as best they can (Catholics, non-Catholics, Richard Dawkins, whoever) from being eligible for eternal salvation.

philologos

The comparison as far as I see it still falls flat. Only if I accept your assumptions could it ever be true.

Ultimately if God exists and if He is the Creator of all things, then all things are His and He has ultimate authority over it.

If He isn't then He's none of this pertains to Him.

drkpower

philologos wrote: »

No comparison. I would consider it more like going to court and being sentenced.

Ok, lets go with that one (even though there are a number of flaws in the comparison).

Would you consider a judge who handed out a sentence of unbearable suffering for life, to a perpetrator of a thought-crime, to be a just judge?

Would you use that judge's directions as a basis for a system of moral values or would you look elsewhere?

(you really do shoot yourself in the foot quite often, Jakkass!)

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

The comparison as far as I see it still falls flat. Only if I accept your assumptions could it ever be true.

Ultimately if God exists and if He is the Creator of all things, then all things are His and He has ultimate authority over it.

If He isn't then He's none of this pertains to Him.

So can "God" be immoral? Essentially what do you think of the Euthyphro dilemma?

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

.... if.... if....If

Too many ifs. I do not deal in ifs. Establish the first shred of evidence that this entity exists and then we can worry about what authority it does or does not have. You attempted badly to do this before and I replied to you on a thread just last week about it. You as usual ignored the reply and ran straight for the hills however.

Again, there is no difference between saying "Do x or else I will do Y" and "Do X if you want but if you do not then Y will happen". A threat by any other name is still a threat.

So this is one of the main reasons..... to go back on topic.... when it is a flawed basis for morality. The very core premise on which most religions are based... the entity that many of them are based upon... is one for which we have not even got the first shred of an iota of a scrap of evidence to lend credence to.

I would find very flawed any basis that has literally no reason to think even exists. A better basis would be things we DO know exist. Such as society and each other.

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

Goalposts moved so fast it nearly knocked me right over. OK just to clarify now we are not talking about people who say just happen to not to Roman Catholic or theist (i.e. per your original statement of 'people who don't believe what they believe') now we are talking about people who let's say get to the pearly gates and decide themselves to head on somewhere else, after they have died?

The RCC teaches it is for God to decide the ultimate fate, but it also teaches that there is nothing stopping people who try to live as best they can (Catholics, non-Catholics, Richard Dawkins, whoever) from being eligible for eternal salvation.

I didnt see any golaposts move.... but I did see quite a long-winded and opaque answer to a simple question. Lets go again.

Does the RCC teach that an unrepentent non-believer, like my goodself, may go to hell, merely because of their lack of belief, and that that is just?

prinz

CerebralCortex wrote: »

So can "God" be immoral? Essentially what do you think of the Euthyphro dilemma?

That would cause a tear in the time-space continuum.

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You as usual ignored the reply and ran straight for the hills however.

No no no.... he said he was going off to think about your questions and that he would reply when he had time..... any sign of a reply yet....?:eek:

He said the same thing to me on an 'abortion' thread about a year ago. Sadly he never came back to me.....:(

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

So can "God" be immoral? Essentially what do you think of the Euthyphro dilemma?

I don't believe so if His standards are what we base what is good and evil upon. If we don't then sure you could but this is what makes this argument difficult because we're working on different base assumptions.

I believe that if this world is His, God has the right to enforce His standards concerning it. His standards being for our well being rather than our detriment. If we reject these we are liable to be judged by these standards.

It doesn't have to be this way in that God gave His one and only Son that we might have eternal life, that we might be forgiven through Him. We can start afresh and we can live according to His standards, or we can openly reject Him and be liable to His judgement. That's how I see it.

nozzferrahtoo: I've argued clearly time and time again on boards as to why I think God exists, you can look these up. The purpose of this thread is to discuss morality and how faith can be a basis for ethical action.

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

I didnt see any golaposts move...

Does the RCC teach that an unrepentent non-believer, like my goodself, may go to hell, merely because of their lack of belief, and that that is just?

You see the bolded word above and below? That's where the goalposts moved, and I have already dealt with it. The RCC teaches that any us, unrepetent non-believers or repentent believers MAYgo to hell, and that it is for God to decide. Any of us MAY also not go to hell, that's where trust in mercy comes in. There is an awful big difference in thinking something may happen, and thinking something should happen.

any organisation that believes it is just that those who do not believe what they believe, should burn in agony for eternity, merely because of that (lack of) belief.

nozzferrahhtoo

drkpower wrote: »

No no no.... he said he was going off to think about your questions and that he would reply when he had time..... any sign of a reply yet....?:eek:

He said the same thing to me on an 'abortion' thread about a year ago. Sadly he never came back to me.....:(

Probably due to the amount of time he spends on these forums, and the atheist forums, and the gay society forums doing that thing he does..... "witnessing" I think they call it?