Morality isn't something that religion teaches you, it's something that most of us have pre-installed. I won't go out and kill someone tomorrow because I don't believe in religion or its moral values.
You say that now, but you were born in a world dominated by the moral values that were largely dictated by Christianity. Look at the Middle East, they were under a different religion, and the radical ones have educated themselves to cultivate different moral values. Even without religion, a child born under the rule of ISIS would arguably have the instinct to kill much more well developed than you would, because of its initial fingerprint.
Funny you should say that because it's obvious that most if not all wars, terrorist acts, and massacres are caused by some form of religious extremism.
I find arguing these sort of topics to be pointless, so much of our views on them are subjective that it becomes futile. All belief systems work in the same manner, god included or not.
Yes... I'm a bit disappointed regarding this. The point of this tribe isn't to defend your belief system, it's to make arguments for and against things that you normally might not defend. I think it's a good exercise for the human brain to try to see what is in favor of the opposition too, rather than just feeding a possible confirmation bias.
Hell, I don't agree with most of the shit I've written here, but it did help me see what would normally go on through the mind of a person defending these things.
Hell, I don't agree with most of the shit I've written here, but it did help me see what would normally go on through the mind of a person defending these things.
It's a challenge, mostly when I have to find valid reasons for arguments that I know are incorrect.
It's why at one point I feel like in an actual argument, I'd have to be forced to take the political approach and sidetrack to a different topic that is deriving from the main subject, where I could actually find something I believe in to argue for.
While people involved in religion do teach "moral values", those same people that aren't involved also teach those same principles. Don't hurt people, don't be greedy, don't go around stealing stuff. Religion isn't needed for these essential moral values to be passed along to children while they are growing up. I won't commit murder not because I am afraid of hell, or any other repercussions promised to me I will not do it because I know its wrong. Same goes for any other morally questionable act. While I can agree that religion can be used as some sort of moral underlaying structure to help people with their daily lives guiding them towards whats right, I strongly feel that the same can be accomplished by non religious people doing the same sort of guidance.
NO. You cannot say for sure how things are going to develop in a society that does not live under the mark of religion, because it is all present in the mind of the people. Essentially, unless we find a way to imbue the human genetic code with morals at birth, then any human being is susceptible to being corrupted by any thoughts that come to mind. A human who is not born with a set of rules might develop instinctual habits that could end up hurting the ones around him (a theory just as potentially valid as the world where humans are naturally born with morals, which is what you suggest).
Religion isn't needed for this, non-religious people can raise their kids with the same morals and even open them up to the beautify of our universe and whats possible out there as there is no need to live in the box. You're forgetting that atheists are people with perfectly sound morals that live their lives sometimes even more thoughtfully than religious folk, free of the need to judge others and or believe in some higher power that will ultimately "judge" them. There is no need for a creation story, there is no need for a higher power to judge you, punish you, make you it's bitch if you make a mistake. Raise your kids with wholesome qualities and ideals and they won't need god to enforce those rules... 99.9% of humans are naturally good and will live moral and productive lives. Radicalized religions don't offer those same benefits for example.
This is a tricky topic because we live in a world that has been influenced by religion from the very beginnings of humanity.
At first, it's easy to dismiss your statement by saying all human beings have a moral code "pre-installed" since the moment they are born, which is true but it's widely ignored that our instinctive moral code isn't the same most of us would approve of. Instinctively, we know we shouldn't kill people, we should protect our family and close circles, and so on, but many other things we refer to as morally good have been determined by religion, such is the case for charity and compassion, both of which are the product of a Christian-centric society; if we were to look at us from a completely selfless position, we can see that those values are negative.
Speaking strictly in evolutionary terms, maintaining our species is the main goal, but even then killing a member of our own kin is justified as long as we can benefit from it. If a member of another tribe has a lot of food and you need food and they aren't willing to share, you have the "right" to kill them in order to feed yourself and your family. This primitive instinct of survival can still be seen in poor communities, and is the main cause of the high crime rates they have. But in a "civilized" environment it is something absolutely immoral for you to do, because it's not the other person's fault that you don't have food. If you were to kill somebody for this reason you would be punished, it is not approved by our society.
Why has this changed? One reason (though it's certainly not the only one) is Christianity and other Abrahamic religions. Christianity sees every human life as equal and thinks that the only one with the right to take a life is God Himself. The 6th commandment is "thou shalt not kill". When we realize this, it's easier to see how religion, reflected particularly in the form of the 10 Commandments, has changed our perception about certain things. Thou shalt not kill. Tho...
This is a tricky topic because we live in a world that has been influenced by religion from the very beginnings of humanity.
At first, it's easy to dismiss your statement by saying all human beings have a moral code "pre-installed" since the moment they are born, which is true but it's widely ignored that our instinctive moral code isn't the same most of us would approve of. Instinctively, we know we shouldn't kill people, we should protect our family and close circles, and so on, but many other things we refer to as morally good have been determined by religion, such is the case for charity and compassion, both of which are the product of a Christian-centric society; if we were to look at us from a completely selfless position, we can see that those values are negative.
Speaking strictly in evolutionary terms, maintaining our species is the main goal, but even then killing a member of our own kin is justified as long as we can benefit from it. If a member of another tribe has a lot of food and you need food and they aren't willing to share, you have the "right" to kill them in order to feed yourself and your family. This primitive instinct of survival can still be seen in poor communities, and is the main cause of the high crime rates they have. But in a "civilized" environment it is something absolutely immoral for you to do, because it's not the other person's fault that you don't have food. If you were to kill somebody for this reason you would be punished, it is not approved by our society.
Why has this changed? One reason (though it's certainly not the only one) is Christianity and other Abrahamic religions. Christianity sees every human life as equal and thinks that the only one with the right to take a life is God Himself. The 6th commandment is "thou shalt not kill". When we realize this, it's easier to see how religion, reflected particularly in the form of the 10 Commandments, has changed our perception about certain things. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. All of these are perfectly normal human behaviours, and they all serve an evolutionary purpose towards our survival, however, after thousands of years of religious influence we've come to regard them as reprehensible and immoral.
So you are right, people do need religion to keep in check with our modern concept of moral virtues.
One could argue the fact that those morals we attribute to religion are nothing more than a natural progress of human thinking and behaviour and that it was needed in order for us to thrive and get to where we are now. And one may be right. But it's useless to argue the hypothetical when in reality it was a product of religion.
We don't need religion, we just need other people and a reason not to bash each others' heads in the moment something gets sticky. We eventually self-govern to ensure overall happiness and social cohesion.
Join the Discussion
Morality isn't something that religion teaches you, it's something that most of us have pre-installed. I won't go out and kill someone tomorrow because I don't believe in religion or its moral values.
You say that now, but you were born in a world dominated by the moral values that were largely dictated by Christianity. Look at the Middle East, they were under a different religion, and the radical ones have educated themselves to cultivate different moral values. Even without religion, a child born under the rule of ISIS would arguably have the instinct to kill much more well developed than you would, because of its initial fingerprint.
Funny you should say that because it's obvious that most if not all wars, terrorist acts, and massacres are caused by some form of religious extremism.
That's a good point, it just goes to show how religion, even interpreted in the wrong way, augments the values that people stand for.
I find arguing these sort of topics to be pointless, so much of our views on them are subjective that it becomes futile. All belief systems work in the same manner, god included or not.
Excellent point.
You're right, everyone has their own belief system at the end of the day.
Yes... I'm a bit disappointed regarding this. The point of this tribe isn't to defend your belief system, it's to make arguments for and against things that you normally might not defend. I think it's a good exercise for the human brain to try to see what is in favor of the opposition too, rather than just feeding a possible confirmation bias.
Hell, I don't agree with most of the shit I've written here, but it did help me see what would normally go on through the mind of a person defending these things.
How do you feel about it?
About what exactly?
Being on that side of the argument.
It's a challenge, mostly when I have to find valid reasons for arguments that I know are incorrect.
It's why at one point I feel like in an actual argument, I'd have to be forced to take the political approach and sidetrack to a different topic that is deriving from the main subject, where I could actually find something I believe in to argue for.
It's understandable. Playing the devils advocate can be difficult, especially when it comes to something you have an opposite opinion of.
While people involved in religion do teach "moral values", those same people that aren't involved also teach those same principles. Don't hurt people, don't be greedy, don't go around stealing stuff. Religion isn't needed for these essential moral values to be passed along to children while they are growing up. I won't commit murder not because I am afraid of hell, or any other repercussions promised to me I will not do it because I know its wrong. Same goes for any other morally questionable act. While I can agree that religion can be used as some sort of moral underlaying structure to help people with their daily lives guiding them towards whats right, I strongly feel that the same can be accomplished by non religious people doing the same sort of guidance.
NO. You cannot say for sure how things are going to develop in a society that does not live under the mark of religion, because it is all present in the mind of the people. Essentially, unless we find a way to imbue the human genetic code with morals at birth, then any human being is susceptible to being corrupted by any thoughts that come to mind. A human who is not born with a set of rules might develop instinctual habits that could end up hurting the ones around him (a theory just as potentially valid as the world where humans are naturally born with morals, which is what you suggest).
Religion isn't needed for this, non-religious people can raise their kids with the same morals and even open them up to the beautify of our universe and whats possible out there as there is no need to live in the box. You're forgetting that atheists are people with perfectly sound morals that live their lives sometimes even more thoughtfully than religious folk, free of the need to judge others and or believe in some higher power that will ultimately "judge" them. There is no need for a creation story, there is no need for a higher power to judge you, punish you, make you it's bitch if you make a mistake. Raise your kids with wholesome qualities and ideals and they won't need god to enforce those rules... 99.9% of humans are naturally good and will live moral and productive lives. Radicalized religions don't offer those same benefits for example.
This is a tricky topic because we live in a world that has been influenced by religion from the very beginnings of humanity. At first, it's easy to dismiss your statement by saying all human beings have a moral code "pre-installed" since the moment they are born, which is true but it's widely ignored that our instinctive moral code isn't the same most of us would approve of. Instinctively, we know we shouldn't kill people, we should protect our family and close circles, and so on, but many other things we refer to as morally good have been determined by religion, such is the case for charity and compassion, both of which are the product of a Christian-centric society; if we were to look at us from a completely selfless position, we can see that those values are negative.
Speaking strictly in evolutionary terms, maintaining our species is the main goal, but even then killing a member of our own kin is justified as long as we can benefit from it. If a member of another tribe has a lot of food and you need food and they aren't willing to share, you have the "right" to kill them in order to feed yourself and your family. This primitive instinct of survival can still be seen in poor communities, and is the main cause of the high crime rates they have. But in a "civilized" environment it is something absolutely immoral for you to do, because it's not the other person's fault that you don't have food. If you were to kill somebody for this reason you would be punished, it is not approved by our society.
Why has this changed? One reason (though it's certainly not the only one) is Christianity and other Abrahamic religions. Christianity sees every human life as equal and thinks that the only one with the right to take a life is God Himself. The 6th commandment is "thou shalt not kill". When we realize this, it's easier to see how religion, reflected particularly in the form of the 10 Commandments, has changed our perception about certain things. Thou shalt not kill. Tho...
... Read FullWe don't need religion, we just need other people and a reason not to bash each others' heads in the moment something gets sticky. We eventually self-govern to ensure overall happiness and social cohesion.