BF2S Forums Under God

lowing wrote:

Hakei wrote:

Hmm, well that's another topic - I believe everything is pre-determinable and randomness doesn't exist. Though that train of thought can turn you insane over time, so I try to avoid it. :p

randomness does exist. Planes crash, boulders run down mountains hitting passing cars. No design in any of it and it definately is not pre-determained by anyone

I think he's talking about string theory and determinism.

lowing wrote:

Well, there has to be a point where it was decided killing an innocent person is wrong. We did not come to this conclusion by instinct,
If our morality is not instinct, then it is artifical and man made.

I didn't mean instinct...

What I meant is that, whether moral code has been born under conclusion of pile of shit or from someone's crying, it doesn't mean religion is behind it. Moral code what we have now is pretty much same everywhere in the world. There are exceptions from man to man (definitely) but generally our moral code is same everywhere. Since killing an innocent person is, and has somewhat always been 'taboo' everywhere in the world makes sense that religion is not to be behind this moral code. Religion was just better way of spreading moral code than whatever the "older" version was.

Basically Turquoise said it well~

These are ideas that could've come about purely without religion, but it is much more coercive to convince people that an all-powerful being will fuck you up if you don't follow these rules.

I don't trust religion(s) to be behind our moral code. Mere way of spreading it convincingly. I don't disagree in way how religion(s) affected in spreading it but I don't I agree religion to be (only?) source of it either. At least not with the information I have had during my life.

lowing wrote:

I disagree, the ancients committed murder in the name of their religons through sacrifices to please the Gods. Religion has always dictated behavior. In that case, they would be punished if they DID NOT sacrifice to the gods. Consequences

While it is true that the earliest religions tended to have human sacrifices, this was tied mostly to reactions to uncontrollable events.

For example, whenever it flooded in the Fertile Crescent, people assumed the gods were angry.  Some religions assumed a sacrifice would appease the gods and keep flooding away for a time.  Sometimes, this involved an animal sacrifice, sometimes a human sacrifice.

Still, these actions were out of fear, not out of instinct.  To a degree, we have instincts that discourage killing each other.  Certain factors can result in us killing each other (whether out of rage or desperation), but without those circumstances, most of us would not naturally desire to kill others.

Logically, we can imply that religion has not always been around, but certain forms of spirituality have.  Man does have a natural desire to have an explanation for things that happen around him, and before science, religion and folklore became these explanations.

Still, moral codes for society likely occurred out of a necessity to maintain order in combination with beliefs in stories passed down about things we didn't fully understand.  From that perspective, you could say religion created our morality, but those who created the religion itself likely had practical goals in mind.

Obviously, we'll probably never know exactly how religion came about, but I would bet that practical logic still began the process.  Rational self-interest has a morality unto itself.

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

I disagree, the ancients committed murder in the name of their religons through sacrifices to please the Gods. Religion has always dictated behavior. In that case, they would be punished if they DID NOT sacrifice to the gods. Consequences

While it is true that the earliest religions tended to have human sacrifices, this was tied mostly to reactions to uncontrollable events.

For example, whenever it flooded in the Fertile Crescent, people assumed the gods were angry.  Some religions assumed a sacrifice would appease the gods and keep flooding away for a time.  Sometimes, this involved an animal sacrifice, sometimes a human sacrifice.

Still, these actions were out of fear, not out of instinct.  To a degree, we have instincts that discourage killing each other.  Certain factors can result in us killing each other (whether out of rage or desperation), but without those circumstances, most of us would not naturally desire to kill others.

Logically, we can imply that religion has not always been around, but certain forms of spirituality have.  Man does have a natural desire to have an explanation for things that happen around him, and before science, religion and folklore became these explanations.

Still, moral codes for society likely occurred out of a necessity to maintain order in combination with beliefs in stories passed down about things we didn't fully understand.  From that perspective, you could say religion created our morality, but those who created the religion itself likely had practical goals in mind.

Obviously, we'll probably never know exactly how religion came about, but I would bet that practical logic still began the process.  Rational self-interest has a morality unto itself.

I read it twice and forgive me for asking, but, do we agree or not??

I believe we agree on how religion came about.  I think we may disagree on what really motivates morality.

For example, you could say that the average American is motivated by religion for morality.

However, the Founding Fathers were mostly intellectuals, so logic guided them more than anything else -- even most of the religious ones.

This suggests that our society's morals were not really representative of Christianity so much as they were representative of the beliefs in liberty that the Founders had.

That being said, you'll have to explain if we agree or not, because I'm not fully sure what your stance actually is.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

While it is true that the earliest religions tended to have human sacrifices, this was tied mostly to reactions to uncontrollable events.

For example, whenever it flooded in the Fertile Crescent, people assumed the gods were angry.  Some religions assumed a sacrifice would appease the gods and keep flooding away for a time.  Sometimes, this involved an animal sacrifice, sometimes a human sacrifice.

Still, these actions were out of fear, not out of instinct.  To a degree, we have instincts that discourage killing each other.  Certain factors can result in us killing each other (whether out of rage or desperation), but without those circumstances, most of us would not naturally desire to kill others.

Logically, we can imply that religion has not always been around, but certain forms of spirituality have.  Man does have a natural desire to have an explanation for things that happen around him, and before science, religion and folklore became these explanations.

Still, moral codes for society likely occurred out of a necessity to maintain order in combination with beliefs in stories passed down about things we didn't fully understand.  From that perspective, you could say religion created our morality, but those who created the religion itself likely had practical goals in mind.

Obviously, we'll probably never know exactly how religion came about, but I would bet that practical logic still began the process.  Rational self-interest has a morality unto itself.

I read it twice and forgive me for asking, but, do we agree or not??

I believe we agree on how religion came about.  I think we may disagree on what really motivates morality.

For example, you could say that the average American is motivated by religion for morality.

However, the Founding Fathers were mostly intellectuals, so logic guided them more than anything else -- even most of the religious ones.

This suggests that our society's morals were not really representative of Christianity so much as they were representative of the beliefs in liberty that the Founders had.

That being said, you'll have to explain if we agree or not, because I'm not fully sure what your stance actually is.

No one is born moral, Morality is not instinct, it is taught. That is why, even if you are not religious, you still know the difference between right and wrong. Even the most notorious crininal knows what he is doing is wrong or he would not go to great lengths to keep from getting caught.

You used the founding fathers, some where Christian some were not. Those that were not practicing Christian were still taught right and wrong based on a religious moral code.

The chicken or the egg analogy was used. My opinion is, religion came first then morality. Logic does not dictate stealing is wrong. Logically, if you want or need something, in order to get it, you take it and then you have it. Morality dictates if you want or need something you give something else up to get it.

Don't anybody fucking dare touch the "Under God".

FFS even if you don't believe in God the 10 (well 8 if you don't believe in God) are codes you should live by anyway if you want to be happy. The USA was founded by Christians, (otherwise it would be as fucked up as England) who didn't want the British rules and stuff because every man is equal.

Just leave it there it's not going to hurt anybody!

You really think I've going to read 87 posts?

I don't actually really care as I live in Switzerland but FFS why go to all the trouble? There will be so much voting and protests and crap. Going through with it would be a political/religious nightmare. Think about it!

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I believe we agree on how religion came about.  I think we may disagree on what really motivates morality.

For example, you could say that the average American is motivated by religion for morality.

However, the Founding Fathers were mostly intellectuals, so logic guided them more than anything else -- even most of the religious ones.

This suggests that our society's morals were not really representative of Christianity so much as they were representative of the beliefs in liberty that the Founders had.

That being said, you'll have to explain if we agree or not, because I'm not fully sure what your stance actually is.

The chicken or the egg analogy was used. My opinion is, religion came first then morality. Logic does not dictate stealing is wrong. Logically, if you want or need something, in order to get it, you take it and then you have it. Morality dictates if you want or need something you give something else up to get it.

I disagree.  People lived as tribes and communities before religion.  Basic moral codes of right and wrong were developed as a necessity for people to be able to survive living together.

I can't prove it, but I doubt people that lived in tribes before religion actually held court for stealing or murder

I personally think it should be taken out, it doesn't make any sense to have any religion in politics to me.

Uzique wrote:

Bradt3hleader wrote:

Don't anybody fucking dare touch the "Under God".

FFS even if you don't believe in God the 10 (well 8 if you don't believe in God) are codes you should live by anyway if you want to be happy. The USA was founded by Christians, (otherwise it would be as fucked up as England) who didn't want the British rules and stuff because every man is equal.

Just leave it there it's not going to hurt anybody!

excuse me, are you implying that our country is fucked up (which is arguable in itself) because we have complete separation of church and state? our state, government, legislative and every other parliamentary process is just as influenced by common christian morality and western philosophies as your american government is. if we're fucked because of that basis, then your beloved usa is just as fucked. it's not quite the same political and religious landscape that it was when the founding fathers hopped on their pilgrim-boat and legged it away from the discrimination-- and in fact i would argue that your america is more fucked up than the uk because of your still-remaining religious influence. look how goddamn backwards an entire strata of your actively-voting society is; look at palin, look at the neocons, look at the close-minded rednecks. none of our major political parties are anywhere near as backwards and retarded as that.

He's actually lives in Switzerland.

Simple solution, get rid of the whole pledge. There's only 2 reasons you need one, becoming a citizen, or joining the army, the rest of the time its just meaningless drivel.

Last edited by DrunkFace (2009-09-02 15:44:48)

lowing wrote:

No one is born moral, Morality is not instinct, it is taught. That is why, even if you are not religious, you still know the difference between right and wrong. Even the most notorious crininal knows what he is doing is wrong or he would not go to great lengths to keep from getting caught.

Wouldn't that imply some of morality actually is instinctual?...  When morality is taught, it usually involves religion.  You used an example of someone knowing right and wrong without having religion, so if morality is taught, he/she has to be getting it somewhere.

In all honesty, I halfway agree with your assumption here.  I believe some specifics of morality are taught.  However, I also believe that some basic morals are natural.  I think most people have an innate bad feeling when they witness suffering or are the cause of said suffering.  The few people that lack this nature are usually considered sociopaths.

So, IMHO, I think religion is just a more organized and codified version of this innate morality.  It provides a coercive rationale for being consistent in behaving morally.  It also makes more specific rules that aren't innate.

I think one of the areas where religion forwards a moral value that isn't innate is the immorality of homosexuality.  I do not believe that most people would innately feel negatively toward homosexuals without first being exposed to societal prejudices against them.  So this is a case where I think morality is taught.

lowing wrote:

You used the founding fathers, some where Christian some were not. Those that were not practicing Christian were still taught right and wrong based on a religious moral code.

The chicken or the egg analogy was used. My opinion is, religion came first then morality. Logic does not dictate stealing is wrong. Logically, if you want or need something, in order to get it, you take it and then you have it. Morality dictates if you want or need something you give something else up to get it.

I believe Agent's explanation is what actually happened.  Religion in a collective sense took some time to develop with the advent of civilization.  Before that, humans worked together as communities in caves and the like.

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-09-02 18:46:25)