Religion ≠ God Morality ≠ Law Religion could exist without god, and God could exist without religion. Therefore, there's no logical or intuitive reason to conclude that morality and religion are or should be inherently connected. Morality could exist entirely separate from law, and law could exist separate from morality. There's no reason to adhere to or forgo one in exchange for the other.
The fact that you can recognize things as right and wrong instinctively is an argument for theism. The logic being that even without a government telling you what to do every human has deeply seeded unbreakable morality planned in his conscious from God. The fact that everyone feels this hints at objective standards, or so goes the argument
That's all fine, but what happens when someone comes along who is naturally different than you? What about sociopaths? Even then, psychological studies show that if we lived as germans in the 40's, there is effectively a 100% chance that we would be supporters or member of the **** party. Look up the stanford prison experiment if you don't believe me. I'm not saying that depending on yourself for moral standards can't work, but what happens when it doesn't? ****'s thought they were helping the whole world by extinguishing the Jews. Were they wrong?
Right, and WITHOUT an objective standard I basically can disregard everything you just said because none of it matters to me. Why should I be subject to YOUR moral standard? My standard is that if something makes me happy it is justified. Prepare for rape buddy. Everything you could possibly say is going to boil down to this without a standard to set your morality on that doesn't derive from humans.
Ya know sometimes I like you guys. And then I look at how many of you voted for H5 for best mp. Kidding. Merry Christmas.
Look at these butt buddies, Multi and Xandrith agreeing again. They're basically the same person and they just perpetually brainwash each other pathetic
I've heard the sentiment of "I hate religion and love Jesus" many times, and I don't think it's the sentiment that Jesus would have us live by. First of all, if you obey the greatest commandment, to love the Lord thy God with all of your heart, then you will surely want to participate in the body of Christ, the church. I don't think Jesus would have taught sermons himself if he didn't want you to go to church. On the other hand, church or religion doesn't mean building or practice or anything of that sort. It's the idea of "gathering" which is reinforced by Matthew 18:20, which reads "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them." So yeah, church and therefore the religion of Christ is definitely important and it is explicitly stated that it is necessary for the maintenance and shaping of the soul, but it is absolutely not necessary for salvation.
I don't have too much time to explain fully, but basically that's where I believe good governance comes in. Ideally, the governments that society creates are designed to maintain and advance the well-being of the collective. While it may be morally right to yourself to rape because it makes you feel good, your actions would have a negative impact on another part of society (the people you rape), hence why rape should be and is illegal. As for the raper, if he morally thinks that rape is good because it makes himself feel good, I would say that man lacks a certain degree of empathy, which is sad, but there isn't much I can do for him except try to explain to him how and why his actions hurt others. But as evidenced by the various sociopaths etc. that have graced society, it's extremely hard to explain empathy to someone who doesn't have a personal understanding of it. This is why I believe so strongly that government should strive to be areligious in its policy-making. Too much of the specific moral code of religion isn't necessarily good for the collective, but rather just the believers of that religion. Now of course, governments in our world are far far far from what I personally believe is ideal, but that doesn't mean there isn't any reason to strive for it. Edit: I would also like to emphasize that I realize my understanding of all of this might be completely different than someone else's understanding. And as I hope that no one forces their religious or whatever beliefs on me, I strive to reciprocate that. I believe what I believe, but I will never intend to force you to think the same as me. I may not agree with someone's else's understanding of morality, but that doesn't necessarily mean I think it's inherently wrong simply because it's different than my understanding.
Yes that is good to clarify. My angle was simply that the routine practice of religion is often a tremendous barrier from the gospel.
Why do I get in good conversations like this when I'm at work and can't actually lay my thoughts out in a concise manner? We need to debate at different hours of the day.
Couldnt anything we believe or do be seen as an argument for theism, with that mentality? If we’re ‘programmed’ by God, then anything that happens is directly influenced by them.
So when you say things like "the rapist lacks empathy" or "his idea of good isn't good for the majority of society" you've already indirectly made the claim that your subjective standard of morality is the correct one.. Because you're claiming that someone else has the impersonal and unsympathetic approach. Why is pain bad? Why is suffering bad? Why aren't those good for the corrective society? Why is GOOD good for the collective society? Why shouldn't suffering and pain be considered good? Why should the government dictate morality? Are you saying that some random people in the government have a more important idea of what is morally correct than me? Why should I care what they think? Same problem, no basis to root your foundation on. Its also worth staying away from the word "good" when discussing morality unless you literally mean "the absolute moral good" because it gets confusing. I bought a good car. She is a good tennis player. It felt good to wake up early. Giving to the poor is good. I had a good drive to work. All different meanings. Just a heads up
I'm not arguing for the lack of free will if that's what you're hinting at. But rather that all humans are born with a natural disposition towards recognizing right and wrong without being told anything of it. Even most stout nihilistic atheists that embrace the lack of objective morality (as they should) they don't act on it. The few who actually delve deeply into nihilistic thinking generally end up becoming serial killers and rapists.
That's a super important distinction to make. Acted out truth is the best indicator for what someone believes, and often times doesn't match what people say.
Pain and suffering are bad because they inhibit one's ability to succeed and be happy. Making sure that everyone has the opportunity to succeed and be happy is the main goal of government. If that means dictating laws that prohibit one's ability to restrict someone else's opportunity to succeed and be happy, so be it. So things that are "good" are those that don't inhibit an individual's ability to succeed and be happy. Empathy is simply one's ability to recognize and relate with another person's feelings. It isn't objectively good or bad. I should correct myself and say that I believe everyone has the ability to empathize, it's whether they adjust their actions to ensure that they don't ignore their empathy that's the difference.
The fact that people still put clamber ledges all over their map is proof that we continue to stray further from God.
Humanity is a burden and being human sucks, so I strive to become a goldfish and separate myself from the flawed existence we all live