A world without religion.

Do you think the world would be a better place without Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc.?

Of course, religions are cancer

Where's Unleashed when you need him

Without Islam, yes

Most people are simpletons without the fear of god in there hearts they would lose all morality sadly.

Find your inner J e s u s
praise god

Escrito por Guest, 11.05.2017 at 13:09

Of course, religions are cancer

However, we have received many of our morals and ethics from religions. Without religions, surely these morals would vanish.

Escrito por Sanguinare, 12.05.2017 at 01:54

However, we have received many of our morals and ethics from religions. Without religions, surely these morals would vanish.

That doesn't mean these ethics are truly moral or that we can't be able to develop our own.

My mom's slipper taught me more then church...

Escrito por Goblin, 12.05.2017 at 06:53

My mom's slipper taught me more then church...

Didn't the old ass priest at your closest church ever teach you a couple tricks during your childhood?

We need philosophy not religion

Escrito por Goblin, 12.05.2017 at 09:49

Escrito por RaulPB, 12.05.2017 at 08:57

Didn't the old ass priest at your closest church ever teach you a couple tricks during your childhood?

My first confession when i was like 8
...
Priest: did you... have sexual relations with yourself or others?
Me: yes
Priest: ...
Me:
Priest: with... with yourself... or... or with others?
Me: both!

Nice pedo confession....

Escrito por RaulPB, 12.05.2017 at 06:32

Escrito por Sanguinare, 12.05.2017 at 01:54

However, we have received many of our morals and ethics from religions. Without religions, surely these morals would vanish.

That doesn't mean these ethics are truly moral or that we can't be able to develop our own.

We wouldnt though sadly, like I said alot of people need the fear of eternal hell fire in order to retain there humanity. Without religion many would simply go mad. Even if I don't need religion in order to follow my own moral code some people do, so iv come to understand religion is neccassary untill we developed further as a species. I learned that from talking about islam with that bosnian guy extermination.

Escrito por RaulPB, 12.05.2017 at 06:32

That doesn't mean these ethics are truly moral or that we can't be able to develop our own.

How can you develop a "truly moral" ethics on your own? That's a contradiction in terms. If it's your own it's not truly moral. If it's truly moral it's not your own.

Either there is a natural law separate from humanity (i.e-God), or else it's just a code of ethics you and I develop out of convenience

Escrito por Helly, 11.05.2017 at 15:49

I envy the simpletons...

Escrito por Guest, 12.05.2017 at 15:04

I envy the simpletons...

Escrito por Acquiesce, 12.05.2017 at 14:28

Escrito por RaulPB, 12.05.2017 at 06:32

That doesn't mean these ethics are truly moral or that we can't be able to develop our own.

How can you develop a "truly moral" ethics on your own? That's a contradiction in terms. If it's your own it's not truly moral. If it's truly moral it's not your own.

Either there is a natural law separate from humanity (i.e-God), or else it's just a code of ethics you and I develop out of convenience

ew creationalist.

Escrito por Acquiesce, 12.05.2017 at 14:28

Escrito por RaulPB, 12.05.2017 at 06:32

That doesn't mean these ethics are truly moral or that we can't be able to develop our own.

How can you develop a "truly moral" ethics on your own? That's a contradiction in terms. If it's your own it's not truly moral. If it's truly moral it's not your own.

Either there is a natural law separate from humanity (i.e-God), or else it's just a code of ethics you and I develop out of convenience

One can live by their own code of conduct, and develop it as they mature/grow up. Maybe i was just fortunate to grow up in a community where this was the norm - but many people, (most in my neck of the woods) don't need a gun toting police force or bible thumping priests to force them to accept an external 'moral code' that orders us under fear of imprisonment/excommunication not to kill and rape one another. (Ironically, the one or two kids that did, ended up in the army or a police force.)

Morals develop and evolve, and at times there are discussions with others, but authentic morality is tested when no one is watching - when you are totally free to do whatever you want, and no one exerts control over you - and with that free will, you still choose to do something useful. You only truly exercise free will when you choose from within, not react based on external circumstances.

On your own.

================= >

People are often unreasonable, illogical, and self-centered.
Forgive them anyway.

If you are kind,
people may accuse you of selfish ulterior motives.
Be kind anyway.

If you are successful,
you will win some false friends and some true enemies.
Succeed anyway.

If you are honest and frank,
people may cheat you.
Be honest and frank anyway.

What you spend years building,
someone could destroy overnight.
Build anyway.

If you find serenity and happiness,
they may be jealous.
Be happy anyway.

The good you do today,
people will often forget tomorrow.
Do good anyway.

Give the world the best you have,
and it may never be enough.
Give the best you've got anyway.

Escrito por Permamuted, 12.05.2017 at 18:43

ew creationalist.

1) This discussion is unrelated to the origins of the universe
2) Not an argument
3) Suck a potato

Escrito por brianwl, 12.05.2017 at 19:13

One can live by their own code of conduct, and develop it as they mature/grow up. Maybe i was just fortunate to grow up in a community where this was the norm - but many people, (most in my neck of the woods) don't need a gun toting police force or bible thumping priests to force them to accept an external 'moral code' that orders us under fear of imprisonment/excommunication not to kill and rape one another. (Ironically, the one or two kids that did, ended up in the army or a police force.)

Morals develop and evolve, and at times there are discussions with others, but authentic morality is tested when no one is watching - when you are totally free to do whatever you want, and no one exerts control over you - and with that free will, you still choose to do something useful. You only truly exercise free will when you choose from within, not react based on external circumstances.

On your own.

Cute story, but it doesn't address my point in the slightest. Whether or not people need cops and priests to do good is a question for another day. The question here is how do we determine what is "good" in the first place? How do we determine what is "useful"? And why is "usefulness" even desirable? Your beliefs about right actions are essentially a wishywashy Christianity without the dogma. Which is fine, you're probably a very pleasant person to know, but don't pretend there's some ideological foundation or justification for what you think. You have no metric by which to measure your personal code of conduct against say Stalin's, beyond "muh feels".

Escrito por Acquiesce, 12.05.2017 at 19:32

Cute story, but it doesn't address my point in the slightest. Whether or not people need cops and priests to do good is a question for another day. The question here is how do we determine what is "good" in the first place? How do we determine what is "useful"? And why is "usefulness" even desirable? Your beliefs about right actions are essentially a wishywashy Christianity without the dogma. Which is fine, you're probably a very pleasant person to know, but don't pretend there's some ideological foundation or justification for what you think. You have no metric by which to measure your personal code of conduct against say Stalin's, beyond "muh feels".

Thats a nice crude and reductive view on morality. Do you disagree that it is good useful and even desirable that i don't find and axe murder you?

Escrito por Permamuted, 12.05.2017 at 20:04

Thats a nice crude and reductive view on morality. Do you disagree that it is good useful and even desirable that i don't find and axe murder you?

Actually it's your view that is reductive. You're implying that all that's required for something to be morally true is consensus. If I agreed that it would be good, useful, and desirable for you to find an axe and murder me, according to your logic that would be perfectly acceptable.

Escrito por Acquiesce, 12.05.2017 at 20:23

Escrito por Permamuted, 12.05.2017 at 20:04

Thats a nice crude and reductive view on morality. Do you disagree that it is good useful and even desirable that i don't find and axe murder you?

Actually it's your view that is reductive. You're implying that all that's required for something to be morally true is consensus. If I agreed that it would be good, useful, and desirable for you to find an axe and murder me, according to your logic that would be perfectly acceptable.

Not at all, if that were my logic then a group of murderers could all get together and agree that they're a bunch of lovely guys. As you said about convenience that would indeed be great for them but not necessarily objectively true. We evolved as social animals over millions of years and all possess an instinct for what is right and wrong. There is empirical evidence that suggests this. We also possess the capacity to sit back and try to objectively determine why this is right or wrong. Me deciding not to murder you is a much more complicated decision than merely "muh feels" or convenience.

Escrito por Permamuted, 12.05.2017 at 20:39

Not at all, if that were my logic then a group of murderers could all get together and agree that they're a bunch of lovely guys. As you said about convenience that would indeed be great for them but not necessarily objectively true. We evolved as social animals over millions of years and all possess an instinct for what is right and wrong. There is empirical evidence that suggests this. We also possess the capacity to sit back and try to objectively determine why this is right or wrong. Me deciding not to murder you is a much more complicated decision than merely "muh feels" or convenience.

You're correct that it's a complicated decision. But you're dead wrong that it's an obvious one. You and I have been brought up in a very specific civilization and culture and because you are so used to people having these shared understandings regarding good and evil you think, well duh it's just so obvious that raping and murdering is bad. What's the big deal? Well I hate to break it to you but it isn't obvious at all. The idea that every human life has value. The idea that men should not be bought and sold like cattle. These are revolutionary concepts. And very intelligent people smarter than you and I can very well sit back and "objectively determine" that these actions are perfectly rational, moral, and excusable.

Escrito por Acquiesce, 12.05.2017 at 18:17

Escrito por Guest, 12.05.2017 at 15:04

I know someone who thinks that too

Escrito por Guest, 12.05.2017 at 23:27

you cant disprove solipsism

Mfw when such an interesting, philosophical and relevant discussion happens on AW...and it was started by someone in SP Police...

Escrito por Helly, 12.05.2017 at 13:26

We wouldnt though sadly, like I said alot of people need the fear of eternal hell fire in order to retain there humanity. Without religion many would simply go mad. Even if I don't need religion in order to follow my own moral code some people do, so iv come to understand religion is neccassary untill we developed further as a species. I learned that from talking about islam with that bosnian guy extermination.

Hell made them fear God and religion's own set of ethics and moralities. What they achieved was homogenizing those rules, but that doesn't mean people were mad before that happened! You need to remember that humans have gotten along pretty well in communities for quite some time. Religion was needed to control the masses in the benefit of the powerful, not to develop the average citizen nor the species, for example with christianity or islam.

Escrito por Acquiesce, 12.05.2017 at 14:28

How can you develop a "truly moral" ethics on your own? That's a contradiction in terms. If it's your own it's not truly moral. If it's truly moral it's not your own.

Either there is a natural law separate from humanity (i.e-God), or else it's just a code of ethics you and I develop out of convenience

Answer: because you have your own morals. All religion did was imposing a set of morals to a group of people. Something will be moral to a person as long as he knows what he's doing and that he knows he has made the right choice in his benefit. That's not really hard to develop, even babies can follow this simple logic.

Who said there must be a convenience or superior order to stablish morals? You can convince people of something being moral or immoral, but it's always down to personal judging. That being said, morals are something individually developed and sometimes imposed. That's what society does most of the time with its laws and prejudices.

Even if there were a god there is no objective morality. The idea that some people need religion to be moral is ludicrous really. Invisible is right.

Although I'm friends with many atheists and they're perfectly normal people, I have found that people with a serious grudge to religion are usually unhappy with themselves and see it as the "go to" topic to exert their negativity.