1.) That's not the meaning in my post. Since morals are based upon society, and societies differ in regions around the world, morals are subjective. I never implied they were objective. 2.) Why the **** would anybody care if Obama was a muslim? If he is, so what? Would the police arrest someone for being a muslim? That is a very ignorant view on others.
people will always serch for answer to what happens after death the want te security of after life right or wrong people will always want the comfort of thinking there will be more than the life they live in they go to religion for this science has yet to allow one to live forever without disease or pain and probaly never will
Us Atherists have a very plausible reason for not going on a rampage, and that's the same as yours: Consequences, which you said there would not be... Let me show you. Say you go on a rampage: murder, rape, assault, all that: You lose friends, respect, power, you go to jail, you're disliked, you live in terrible conditions, you're hung, etcetera. See my point? Punishment isn't exclusive to this "hell" place you all love talking about.
Of course, if you believed that as soon as you died you'd live in never-never land with god, it's easy for people to rationalize doing terrible things for the "greater good": killing women, blowing up abortion clinics, blowing up buses, blowing up towers, blowing up foreign countries... How great it is to be a Transhumanist, a Hard Determinist, a Materialist, an Immortalist, a Physicalist, a Singularitarian and an Atheist.
yes i think religion will last as long as man kind cause i don't believe in the scientology crap cause thats pretty much no is blasfimy (spelt wrong) cause it goes against the catholic/christian beliefs and i am catholic and cause people are still going to turn to God or whatever their fake gods are i believe in one God father of almighty creator of heaven and earth and so on and so on.
This was supposed to be a thread starter, but I did not know there was already a thread started. I do not feel like editing it. Now, I think this is fair enough to start. Especially since Nitrous' god thread has gone on for so long. Before I start, I AM NOT SAYING "ZOMG ALL RELIGIONS MUST DIE". I am proposing that we, as a human race, are ready to move on from religion. Religion has been used for thousands of years as a method to control society. Primitive soiciety's that would believe the "priests" because they had nobody else telling them what to do or what they wanted to hear. It's much easier to believe in something than nothing. 2 examples of religion controlling society, in case you were wondering: When the Aryans(inb4 racist, Hitler used them as a MODEL) first invaded India over 2000 years ago, they brought with them simple gods which are also known as Vedic gods. The Aryans were a very violent warrior race, and therefore weren't very intellectual. They're gods weren't well thought out such as the roman gods whom had many stories written about them. There was an Aryan god of Fire, Thunder, The moon, and others. The simplicity of these gods made it easier for the Indians to accept the religion. Then, the Aryans introduce the caste system as part of a "religious system" which behind the strings was to control society. You were born into a caste, which would decide the value of your life. There were 5 caste's, and the lowest, the untouchables; were only allowed to work at night because if a higher caste were to touch their shadow, they would become impure. Know you may be asking, what does this have to do with religion? Well, when the Aryan religion mixed with the religions of the Indus river valley, Hinduism was born. Hinduism is the main fuel behind the caste system. Hindus belive that if you lead a pure life, maybe in the next life you can move up a caste. So in essence, devote your life to what religion tells you, and you will be better off. The second example may be easier for you to relate to. Catholicism. Now, I used to be christian, and I know that as a christian, you don't think that YOUR relgion could do anything "bad". That you are a more "modern" religion. Well, let's go back to the medieval times in Europe. A time where YOUR ancestors might have actualy experience it first hand. Have you ever wondered why the Noble classes/Monarchs were so closely linked to the church? Well, it is because they would tell the people who visited the church every Sunday that the Nobleman/Monarchs were there because that is where god wanted them to be. They also told them that if they disagreed with, or tried to overthrow the said individual, that they would go to hell. Now back to the subject. John Lennon once proposed an interesting statement: "Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue with that; I'm right and I will be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus now; I don't know which will go first - rock and roll or Christianity." If you look at "rock and roll" as a figurative word for innovation, as at the time, the music style was just becoming popular. Then you can understand that what he was saying is religion, is holding society back through the protestation of innovation. Some examples of this are: Stem cell research, Abortion, Gay Marriage, the Middle east's innability to modernize, and many, many more. So the debate here is, how much longer do you think that we, as a race must rely on religion? We have many advanced forms of government all over the world that control society very efficiently, and in my opinion, religion is no longer needed and is only a vehicle of destruction and a reminder of how ignorant our race is. If you do not think that religion will die, please explain why. PS. After this thread I promise I will never ***** about somone's religious avatar/signature, or anything religious in halo 3 again. Given it gets some attention
Religion will probably last as long as the human race, because EVERYONE is scared too think there is no afterlife. What if death is the end?
Religion (at least all of them I've seen) isn't JUST an afterlife. I guarantee if every atheist here got that through their heads it would save me so much time debating.
Yes, but the fact there might be no afterlife makes more people join religions. Also, the fact that most people used too be in a religion, because the Ruler was in a religion and made it a law too be in that religion, makes more people join.
Religion doesn't have to exist for morality to come from religious values. For example, religion can die out, but the morals are still there. As a Christian I believe all even if someone is an atheist they can follow Christian morals / Biblical principles (which is so obviously true, don't even get me started). I appreciate that you took the time to know what you're talking about before you bothered debating it. /sarcasm 1. God doesn't condemn people to eternal damnation 2. Honestly, don't act like you know what "salvation" is if you don't. Its blatantly obvious you don't. 3. Yeah, God does have the power to save people from eternal damnation. There's an enormous difference between having potential to save someone if they simply ask just once and not being able to save someone if they spit in your face, denied you, and never bothered getting to know you. That my friend is ignorance. 4. I love how you generalize Christianity by fear-mongering. Please learn. 1) Oh but other atheists here have. Subjective morality cannot differ from society to society due to the fact if America says "don't kill dudes" and I kill people I will still go to jail even if I thought what I did was right. What if you lived in a country that strongly believed in the opposite of what you did? That's not subjective morality. Hmm... If morality were subjective, then morality wouldnt even exist. It wouldnt exist whatsoever. Moral subjectivity is a way of saying "personalized morality" or "custom-made morality" Its saying, "I have rationalized this belief because its more self-serving to do so." Morality cannot exist relatively. Under the mentality of subjectivity, anything and everything can be rationalized as a morality, as a virtue, as a caveat, as an exception, as a mitigating circumstance. This is biased, and untrue by very definition. Morality exists, if it exists at all, completely objectively. It should not be subjectified. We should not make arbitrary exceptions. It does not depend on the situation, on who the "perpetrating" person is, on who the "victim" is, or on what day of the week it happens to be. Truth can only be found if we slough off our own biases and bigotries, quit diluted ourselves, quit rationalizing, quit being hypocrites. Those who advocate for subjectivity usually hold double standards... "its okay if I do it, its not okay if Im a victim of it"... they would rather remain morally stagnant, unchanging, and comfortable in their preexisting, self-serving ideologies. You see, if we pretend to assert moral subjectivity, we'd might as well not have a morality at all. We should quit enforcing law, quit adhering to social standards... allow complete social and moral anarchy. Because that is what moral subjectivity is doing to us. What are the rules of objective morality? I wont pretend to know the full set of rules that are morally right. I wont. Does objective morality exist? Yes, only if morality exists at all. Which culture or religion is right? Is any? I dont know. I dont know a lot. But one thing I do know is that morality is not subjective. I believe in an unbiased pursuit of truth. Not what typically happens in our society... which is using bits of truth here and there, and our intellectual capacity to rationalize, in order to reinforce prejudices and untrue rationales. No one in our society, particularly those who advocate subjectivity, are interested in the unbiased truth. They are interested only in finding reasons to believe in their own truth. That is what subjectivism is about... does it sound like its without bias? Does it sound like it pursues moral truth? Have you ever heard a moral subjectivist say that they did something wrong? That they were evil? Full of regrets? Most assert that regret is a bad thing, a hindrance for personal happiness. I have never heard a subjectivist admit to being a wrong-doer. They instead claim their morality is subjective, or that what they did wasnt wrong in that situation. Anything that can be subjectified on a whim is objectively meaningless. If moral subjectivism is true, hypothetically, it needs to be proven to be such first. And citing cultures and religions (human institutions of rationalized beliefs) as holding moral differences... doesnt constitute proof to subjectivity... only proof to human ignorance. 2) Its funny because you're one who started arguing to me about Obama being muslim. All I did was present a point to diablo. Good job ending this nonsense argument.
Im assuming that this is a reference to the bombing of japan? Well if it is, just to let you know, Hitler's racism was adopted from the Aryans, of whom had racism in their religion. You cannot deny that Japan would have most likely not gotten involved if it weren't for germany starting the war. All violence can be traced somehow to religious roots.
No, he used the Jews as an excuse to start the war... He bent religion to appear to be on his side... And also, Japan had been planing on invading China for years before the war even started...
Violence is nature. Death is important. What makes murder sound wrong? Religion. If religion didn't exist, people wouldn't think it was wrong. But seeing as people have been tought good/evil for hundreds of millenia, it seems wrong.
The bible says you shall not kill. If morality is objective, then was it right for americans to start a civil war to free the slaves knowing they were going to kill people?
There are two assumptions that are incorrect here. Your assumption that all morals are based within religion, that would imply that only the religious are moral. Second, this whole seeming nonsense is ludracris. It either is or isn't wrong there is no in between. The sky doesn't seem blue, it is blue. As for Dow's violence comment. I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say that for the moment we will assume the infallibilty of evolution. We see carnivorous animals today, so let's assume that our supposed ancestors were carnivorous too or at least violent in some manner. That would mean violence would have existed within the humans before they established religion. Anyways, the root of all evil does not lie within the texts of a particular dogma, but rather within ourselves. The root of all evil is selfishness.
That line made me laugh. Not cause I agree with killing being ok, but idk, the way you said that made me chuckle lol. ;P And as for the last line, religion itself may not manifest into some form and physically kill people, but people kill people based on their belief on why the person must die. So religion might not directly be out assassinating people, but religious thoughts and beliefs certainly lead people to kill people. And I'm not saying religion is the only thing in the world that has ever led anyone to murder. I'm saying however, that religion caused people to be responsible for the deaths of thousands, possibly can say millions of people over the centuries. Oh and I wouldn't say Diablo that the world wars were started and fought in the name of religion, but religion played a part in who was chosen to be persecuted and killed in Germany. Specifically, the jews and homosexuals. I think some people forget that not just the jews were persecuted in the Holocaust. And I think homosexuals wouldn't have been included if the Bible didn't state that its wrong for two people who love each other to love each other because it's wrong to someone else. But thats another debate. Anyway, I don't doubt religion played no part in starting the wars, but religion played a part in who was killed, and is responsible for many deaths. This may be, however, the fewer amount number of deaths would be better. And the fact of the matter is that without religion, there would have been far fewer deaths throughout history, not to say humankind would be perfect, but better off. It's not a stale argument. Maybe if someone tried saying its the only cause of deaths, but when Religion tries to portray itself as peaceful and righteous and just, and its not, I think that then, it isn't a stale argument. It's not arguing that its the only cause of deaths, but that religion isn't as great and peaceful as it hypes itself up to be.
That wasn't the point of my post. I know the causes, hell I'm taking american history right now (ap exams are coming up). I was pointing out that morality is not objectional by using that example. Think about the war from the soldier's perspective. The average soldier was uneducated, and the main reason they were fighting was from issues they could relate to. Mostly on the issue of slavery. So, since the soldiers were doing most of the killing, I'll restate the question: "America in the 19th century was mostly a christian nation. If one of the commandments were: thou shall not kill, was it right for the soldiers to fight to free the slaves, knowing they were going to kill others?"
joining the military was optional, everyone who joins the military knows they will kill, and those who fight for freedom go to heaven. Those who fight for evil go to hell.