|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:24 am
Randomly Ridiculous Honney Boy clockwerksentinel I myself am not a religious person so i guess id say replace that with science? That would imply that people cannot live with both science and religion. How would science give people morals, or provide them with the comfort they need to live in a harsh world? (Not trying to be mean, but I think topics like this need to be discussed.) What morals does science support?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:26 am
LabTech Kestin Honney Boy LabTech Kestin Honney Boy LabTech Kestin Who says you need religion to have morals? If you rely on archaic literary travesties written by toga-wearing solipsists on acid as your primary source for morality, then your sense of right and wrong is skewed. People should form their worldviews by opening their eyes and seeing what's around them, and making their own informed decisions, rather than by blindly subscribing to the supposed words of a mass delusion perpetuated by ignorance. Ignoring what people thought of as right and wrong back in the toga days isn't an act of willful ignorance? No, it shows the common sense required to acknowledge that the right and wrong of yesteryear aren't necessarily the be-all-end-all for today's society. Completely tossing out anyone's point of view, if even only as a history lesson, as you said, is not an act of education. Take any positive step towards a more civilized culture -- slavery abolition, women's rights, you name it. Why did it come about? Because people looked at the pervading point of view and decided, "You know what? This is wrong, and we need to move past it instead of letting it continue to drag us down." Yet if we don't remember why we stopped, for example, many people cited that slavery was unholy, and nothing replaces whatever gave us the values needed to stop, then what would stop people not only from doing it again, but stopping the next time around?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:32 am
Violent Waffles However the Atheists do it. They seem fine. Hitler was a vegetarian, virginal, and many think he may have been an Atheist. The last may be a stretch, and certainly nothing that can be confirmed at this point, however, he was not a religious person, nor would many say moral. Have you ever heard the expression, "There are no Atheist in a foxhole?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:34 am
Little Miss Fortune How does it harm them?
If they'll like... kill themselves without religion or something they can still go ahead and believe whatever they want, even if they know it's not true. I'd just like for their beliefs to stop affecting other people. That might be nice, however, it would imply that no ideas or beliefs would be able to touch another person. Everyone would be alone, forever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:21 am
Honney Boy Little Miss Fortune How does it harm them?
If they'll like... kill themselves without religion or something they can still go ahead and believe whatever they want, even if they know it's not true. I'd just like for their beliefs to stop affecting other people. That might be nice, however, it would imply that no ideas or beliefs would be able to touch another person. Everyone would be alone, forever.
Lol, yep, that's exaaaactly what I meant rolleyes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 9:49 am
Honney Boy Randomly Ridiculous Honney Boy clockwerksentinel I myself am not a religious person so i guess id say replace that with science? That would imply that people cannot live with both science and religion. How would science give people morals, or provide them with the comfort they need to live in a harsh world? (Not trying to be mean, but I think topics like this need to be discussed.) What morals does science support?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 9:54 am
Randomly Ridiculous Honney Boy Randomly Ridiculous Honney Boy clockwerksentinel I myself am not a religious person so i guess id say replace that with science? That would imply that people cannot live with both science and religion. How would science give people morals, or provide them with the comfort they need to live in a harsh world? (Not trying to be mean, but I think topics like this need to be discussed.) What morals does science support? And religious people have the ability to toss morality out the window should they choose to do so. I've found, but cannot state as a fact, that people often need a pretext to behave nicely, even if it's simply, "I don't want to let myself down."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:50 am
Honney Boy Violent Waffles However the Atheists do it. They seem fine. Hitler was a vegetarian, virginal, and many think he may have been an Atheist. The last may be a stretch, and certainly nothing that can be confirmed at this point, however, he was not a religious person, nor would many say moral. Have you ever heard the expression, "There are no Atheist in a foxhole?" It bugs me that you give one example of an evil possible atheist and give the implication that the entire group of them are bad. And with the thought process of atheists being 'alone' I think is just stupid. They have friends, family, classmates, pets, and themselves. Who cares if they additionally don't believe in a higher power, I'm not atheist myself but I know plenty of them and they seem to do fine just as Violent Waffles said. If religion did for some reason die out, which it won't, then I think we'd get by just fine. Because if it died out then it'd be because people didn't feel like they needed it anymore. That they could rely on themselves instead of the higher power or whatever they believed in before. But in the end people will still believe things, it's my thought process that everyone has their own 'religion' of sorts even if they don't belong to a specific one. Their own set of beliefs make up their religion. I honestly don't understand why atheism isn't considered a religion, since it's a set of beliefs of non-existence of a deity and has a large group of followers. So why isn't it a religion?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:53 am
Jikoniau Honney Boy Violent Waffles However the Atheists do it. They seem fine. Hitler was a vegetarian, virginal, and many think he may have been an Atheist. The last may be a stretch, and certainly nothing that can be confirmed at this point, however, he was not a religious person, nor would many say moral. Have you ever heard the expression, "There are no Atheist in a foxhole?" It bugs me that you give one example of an evil possible atheist and give the implication that the entire group of them are bad. And with the thought process of atheists being 'alone' I think is just stupid. They have friends, family, classmates, pets, and themselves. Who cares if they additionally don't believe in a higher power, I'm not atheist myself but I know plenty of them and they seem to do fine just as Violent Waffles said. If religion did for some reason die out, which it won't, then I think we'd get by just fine. Because if it died out then it'd be because people didn't feel like they needed it anymore. That they could rely on themselves instead of the higher power or whatever they believed in before. But in the end people will still believe things, it's my thought process that everyone has their own 'religion' of sorts even if they don't belong to a specific one. Their own set of beliefs make up their religion. I honestly don't understand why atheism isn't considered a religion, since it's a set of beliefs of non-existence of a deity and has a large group of followers. So why isn't it a religion? I was only trying to show that people who choose there own morality don't always choose the way you want them too. Atheist can be just as good, and just as bad as anyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:00 am
The 9/11 attacks were prompted by religious people.
The Holocaust may have been prompted by people who were anti-religion.
The Communist Revolution in China and Russia was determinedly anti-religion.
What a person thinks they are doing, and why,does not make them good people, or bad people.
What they do because of these ideas, that is the only way to measure in this world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:26 pm
Jikoniau But in the end people will still believe things, it's my thought process that everyone has their own 'religion' of sorts even if they don't belong to a specific one. Their own set of beliefs make up their religion. I honestly don't understand why atheism isn't considered a religion, since it's a set of beliefs of non-existence of a deity and has a large group of followers. So why isn't it a religion?
It isn't a religion because atheists don't really have a set of shared beliefs. The only thing in common is that they don't believe in gods. Religions (and plenty of other types of groups) usually form because of shared beliefs, not because of an absence of a certain belief. Like, a book club will form because all the people in it like to read. But there'd be no point in making a club full of people who don't like to read because that isn't really something that would bring the people in the group together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:55 pm
Little Miss Fortune Jikoniau But in the end people will still believe things, it's my thought process that everyone has their own 'religion' of sorts even if they don't belong to a specific one. Their own set of beliefs make up their religion. I honestly don't understand why atheism isn't considered a religion, since it's a set of beliefs of non-existence of a deity and has a large group of followers. So why isn't it a religion?
It isn't a religion because atheists don't really have a set of shared beliefs. The only thing in common is that they don't believe in gods. Religions (and plenty of other types of groups) usually form because of shared beliefs, not because of an absence of a certain belief. Like, a book club will form because all the people in it like to read. But there'd be no point in making a club full of people who don't like to read because that isn't really something that would bring the people in the group together.If you look at it that way, that does make a lot of sense. Thanks =D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 8:29 am
Firstly I don't really get what you're asking at any rate.
But here is what I have to say.
Most people who have morals do not have them because of their religion, they have them because they believe them moral. While their religion may reinforce that, it does not appear to be the cause. Why do I say this? Because people who wish to murder or otherwise put aside morality will do it anyway, regardless of their religion. I read somewhere (I can't remember where) that about 85% or more of criminals in America's jails are christian believers. Their religion has clearly not stopped them doing crimes that are in most cases again the beliefs expressed by their religion.
As for replacing religion, I for one do not think it would happen, people have always needed something to explain things they did not understand. For example before people understood diseases they were often attributed to things like evil spirits, in fact some people still believe that some illness is caused by evil spirits. There is no way to really replace religion because people will always believe what they wish to believe, banning religion or whatever wouldn't work, as has been said early, it has been done before and so those practices just go underground.
Should a time come when people no longer have religion it will be because people have decided they no longer need.
Also, at the example of Hitler, he may have not been very religious but he was in fact catholic. And he did promote a type of pagan/christian church within Germany during his years in power, and he very much believed it himself (apparently). Also, more atrocities in the world have been committed in due to religion than any other cause. This thus showing that being religious does not confer morals to a person or people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
