Man does not need God to be moral. Religion divides more than it unites. Religion is incompatible with Science. Scriptures are man-made and demonstrably false. God did not create man in his image. Man created God in his. amirite?
Religion is by no means incompatible with science. My brother is a devoted Catholic and physicist. Intelligent design encompasses both God and evolution. There are things that were once attributed to God or gods that are now explained by science, but that doesn't mean that you have to choose one or the other.
I agree.
1. Man does not need God to be moral.
2. Religion divides more than it unites.
3. Religion is incompatible with Science.
4. Scriptures are man-made and demonstrably false.
5. God did not create man in his image. Man created God in his.
Some I agree with, some I disagree with, and some I don't know how to vote on.
Honestly, I'm not even going to argue this. You can believe whatever you want. You can say that God isn't real and religion is a lie as if you know for sure, which you don't. I'm confident enough in my religion to not believe a single word of this post.
The difference between me and you is, I didn't say it wasn't true. I said I didn't believe it.
I love that line "God did not create man in his image, man created God in his." Did you come up with that yourself? Because it honestly sounds like something that Bertrand Russell or one of those other people who argued against religion would say.
I've always been confused about this though. Does a post get homepaged after a certain amount of homepage suggestions. Or after a mod or admin puts it on? Or a combination of both?
My comment is very, very old. I don't really recall, but I think I made that comment just because I thought it was a good post, not because it had a lot of upvotes. I was asking why people hadn't voted it to the homepage, not why it hadn't magically appeared there.
You are correct in the fact that you do not need religion to be moral.
But not all religions are false, dividing forces. Religion is the result of human creativity and curiosity - it helps us explain what simply can't be explained. Religious thinkers expanded on that to create truly diverse and interesting religions. As a nonreligious person, I find these things beautiful and something to be proud of.
The damn of religion is ending - but I'm starting to feel that people are hating of faith just because it's cool.
It's interesting that you say religion helps us explain things we can't explain. What I don't understand is why we have to create religious explanations for things at all. If someone wants to believe the scientific explanation for things then that's great but if there is something that can't be explained we have to make its explanation up? I am nonreligious too and this is what bothers me most.
I guess because it eases the conscious. Humans are really the only animals who know about the inevitability of death, which gives us a unique fear. And besides, humans are curious. What's out there? Who's out there? Why am I here? Especially before science was advanced, there needed to be an explanation. Religion gave - and in some cases, still gives - that. There's nothing wrong with it. In fact, it's natural.
Though this theory sounds nice there is a flaw. Do you think that once upon a time the universe, air, the stars, and everything else just appeared? they had to come from somewhere. Chances are is a larger being who put it all into action, maybe creating a domino effect such as evolution, but someone or something had to start it. Things like the universe itself couldn't have just appeared suddenly. If you think about it its kind of crazy
Then where did that supreme being come from? You could say that he was always there, but wouldn't it make just as muchif not more sense to say that the "stuff" required to make a universe was always there, no creation needed?
Well actually Religion unites people of the same faith, it also takes you out of a superficial life and has you thinking about something greater than yourself. If you believe there is nothing after life then you live your life the way you want to, not considering any consequences. If you believe there is a punishment if you're bad and a reward if you're good, then you try to achieve the latter and avoid the former. Also you're probably talking about Greek gods and goddesses, however if you do further research into Hindu or other religions you will find a number of "Gods" that don't even resemble humans in any way or form
People should do the right thing because it's the right thing, not because they're being threatened with punishment. If religion is the only thing stopping you from killing someone, I think you need to re-evaluate your life.
People can do the right thing to do the right thing and still have a religion. Just because someone doesn't believe in God, doesn't mean they're the only ones doing good deeds for the sake of doing good deeds.
No. Most of them were religious before they went to jail. They went to church every Sunday and stabbed people come Monday. Being religious does not make you moral.
I made that connection because people in prisons didn't think of the consequences. If they would have they wouldn't have done whatever got them in prison to begin with.
"If you believe there is nothing after life then you live your life the way you want to, not considering any consequences."
If that were the case with most people, why are 99% of people in prisons religious?
Not every religious person is good out of fear, and not every atheist just "lives life the way they want to." I consider the consequences because I don't like screwing my life up, and I consider others because I have empathy, which is just something that comes with being mentally stable.
Maybe religious was the wrong word. Most people in prison align themselves with a religion. They believe that there is a heaven and a hell and that there are divine consequences to their actions. But that did not stop them from getting into prison.
If it truly were religions that determined morality, then it would not matter who was the minority and who was the majority. Those of faith would simply not do anything to go to prison because they would be aware of the divine consequences.
Oh, I'm not saying the statistic really proves anything-- it's just a popular (though maybe false) rebuttal to people who say religious people are more moral. I'm just trying to show Captain_Kickass that religion and morality do not go hand in hand. When people look at the percentage of religious people in the community compared to the percentage of atheists, they will find that the percentages are the same in prisons. But if religion really did affect the morality of society as a whole, there would still be a higher percentage of atheists in prisons than in the general public.
Yep. I'm an idiot. Whatever.
My intelligence (or in this case, lack-there-of) does not change the fact that religion and morality do not go hand in hand, making your original statement-- "If you believe there is nothing after life then you live your life the way you want to, not considering any consequences" --false.
So you believe that everyone who does not believe there are consequences when we die just does whatever they please because nothing bad will happen?
Good people do good things. They don't necessarily believe in a reward for their earthly good deeds, they just do good because it is the right thing to do. That's why self proclaimed atheists don't go out and kill randomly.
Lolol REALLY? You mean to tell me churches haven't been burned down before, by athiests? With people inside it? And that's just in America, look up this little thing called China.
There is no such thing as, "good people" if people felt shitty about doing good deeds there will be a lot less "good people." Feeling good after doing a good deed is in fact a reward. The whole purpose of Chrisianity is being good for the sake of good, because you want to please God. It clearly says in the Bible that your god feds don't get you in heaven. So I'm not sure why everyone jumps on that bandwagon. And asfar as I know most religions promote similar ideals.
If a guy wore a superman costume and a person older than 5 believed it was actually superman, then it is safe to assume they are an idiot. I just threw what you said at her face... as the icing to the cake. Anyway, I started this conversation, so....
Well that was fun. My second and last comment will be this: "Pope says atheists pick & choose their morals. Today I will be frowning on child abuse & not having a problem with homosexuality."
Also, if you are going to bring up people who want to be remembered after they die, then lame point because that's just a specific person's aspirations, it differs from person to person, but part of being TRULY religious in most cases revolves around the life after death.
So all atheists burn down churches? What about the arson committed by Christians? Or by Muslims? The acts of a few do not define all the members of a group.
People feel shitty about doing bad deeds. Which is why most people do good things: it makes them feel good. Seeing people smile makes people happy, therefore, if you make someone smile you will be happier. It's really easy to understand. I don't see why you don't get it.
"being good for the sake of good, because you want to please God"- if you're being good to please God, you're not being good for the sake of good. Your sentence contradicted itself.
Things like killing the innocent, raping, stealing-- those are all universally immoral. They've been accepted by every civilization in known history to be wrong. Even in societies that worship no gods, or many gods, or just one god, those things are all seen as evil. If a society has never heard of your God, how does it know that killing an innocent man is wrong? We could play it off as coincidence, but when so many different societies with so many different beliefs all have the same basic morals, how can that be a coincidence? Core morals are formed by our instincts. We all know right from wrong, but that doesn't always mean we do the right thing.
One does not need to have a god to be moral. There can be a right and a wrong without divine intervention. Personal morality is subjective, but what humanity as a whole believes to be right and wrong never changes.
Actually if you have read anything or watched any interviews, you'll see there are a lot of killers out there that don't realize that killing is in fact wrong. There are a lot of criminals that don't realize their crime is bad. And there are people that wholeheartedly think being gay is wrong. These things are just learned traits.
But they're promised worldly rewards and brainwashed... not the same thing as doing it for His sake. Doing it to get with 72 virgins or for glory isn't the same as doing it for HIM
Most religious people believe in life after death, the consequences come after life of your actions in this life. If you don't understand that I was talking about that, then you are in fact an idiot.
Well... that's the thing. If there is no god and we are in fact alone, then we are making up these things as we go.
What if killing was in fact good?
Without a "god" to tell us what is good and what is bad, then we may or may not be bad... it's a totally unstable thing, because we are the ones giving words meaning.
Something being "universally immoral" doesn't mean it's actually immoral and also it could just be a flaw in the people. Also all this could come from a God, because for the most part we don't really have things we don't need. Even things that exist now, had a purpose at one point, this can be said for almost anything. Anyway, what would being good for the sake of goodness do for our survival? How is it necessary?
And what is humanity as a whole, but a collection of personal beliefs? For a long time gay marriage was considered bad, the earth was considered flat. Abortion is a good thing. But all that changes with time.
Whether or not the fact that morality is universal because of God or not is irrelevant to this specific conversation. The point is that a belief in a god is does not make someone more moral than a non-believer. In the long run, being good to other people is not good for our personal survival, but it is good for the survival of humanity and for generations to come. It is not necessary, but as humans we do a lot that is not really necessary but at the same time beneficial,
Humanity is everyone and everyone has the same base morals (murder is bad, stealing is bad, helping children is good, etc). Even serial killers know killing is wrong. However, knowing something is wrong does not keep people from doing it. Its these base morals that make up humanity that have remained timeless.
If you knew anything about serial killers, you would know that they think killing is okay because they are psychopaths.
Things like being gay and having an abortion are moral or immoral according to each individual person. Yeah, I know that. But you cannot deny that there are some things that are universally immoral, regardless of how a person was raised.
They're human, but they do not make up all of humanity. When it comes to humanity and morals, majority rules.
It doesn't say anything. You seem to not understand what I mean when I say "universal morality." These are things have always been around and have always been either moral or immoral. Murdering an innocent man has always been wrong. Stealing has always been wrong.
Among other things, yes.
Justice for those who were wronged and punishment for those who did wrong seem to be common themes as well. Every known society has lived with at least these base principles.
See that is so vague wrong used to be marrying outside of your race.... All over the world. Slavery was/is seen as a good thing. Racism is accepted in a lot of places
Those things were never universally accepted by the entire world at one time. Those are issues that have always and will always be seen as moral or immoral based on the times and the beliefs of the people in certain areas. But even racism and slavery were condoned by many religions. Didn't this whole conversation start because you said that religious people are more moral than non-religious people anyway?
There was a time killing = bravery and valor and how many people you killed made you a hero. Looting was promoted after war, which we still do. Killing and robbery is not universally bad or good, buddy.
So you still believe people who are honestly religous are more moral?
Killing an innocent man has always been bad. It's the meanings of innocent and man that have changed.
That's because they don't see them as real people. But when it comes how we treat people, we have always thought they at least deserved to live. It's just over time the definition of "person" has changed several times.
Spiritually changes a man? In what ways does being spiritual change someone to be more moral than an atheist?
Because spirituality is a journey of self improvement... how can someone who just is be as good a person as someone who is actively trying to improve themselves? Are you as good at football as a professional? Do you spend countless hours a day working out and practicing? Are sports and education the only thing that can be improved???
And are you serious? They didn't think of them as a person? Even if initially they might not have... I think when they penetrate the vagina with their penises and orgasm and see kids coming out of it, they'll realize they're not that different.
So atheists don't try to improve themselves as a person?
Yeah, you would think that. But there was a time not too long ago when black males were not considered "real" men. You'd be amazed at the number of people who were never really considered to be people.
No they can technically say they don't consider them as men, just for the sake of legality, but really I think we all knew that they knew
If an atheist tries to do the same thing, I feel like eventually they will go into spirituality... I think you can only self improve to a limited amount before you get into a spiritual world, because I feel as though the human is made up more than just the mind, body and all that crap and that it has a spirit, that needs just as much development.
If they new, then they wouldn't have been treated so poorly, now would they? It's much easier to look at something and treat it badly when you think it's subhuman.
That is utter nonsense. Even hardened criminals can be spiritual while still being a bad person. Your spiritual state does not determine your morality, your actions do.
Yes, but normally spiritual concerns are journeys are journeys of self improvement. If you can do the same thing without being spiritual then you can be just as good a person
If they can be just as good of a person, do you still stand by your original statement: "If you believe there is nothing after life then you live your life the way you want to, not considering any consequences"?
Well it'd be a different type of good, because they're not trying to please a higher being, but that ready has nothing to do with being good. That's just common sense, if you believe there is no Gos why live your life the way He wants? You can live your how you want. Which can include being good.
Because out would be to please Him, rather than self satisfaction. And that way it will be constant and not change every time the world changes it's mind about something.
Wow wow pikabeau, you're an idiot. Also take that! What Cherry Blossom said. I can pretend to be something I'm not and do something. For example, in Israel, their government fakes attacks from Islamic countries in order to attack them, they kill their own people. So does that mean Muslims actually attacked them? You would say yes. Of course they're Muslim. If you put on a superman costume, you must be superman, there are no liars in this world, I'm a stupid doo doo head, is what you are.
Please be a troll, because if you aren't then I'm sensing dangerous amounts of stupidity from your comments.
You said, "That's why self proclaimed atheists don't go out and kill randomly." but they do. That was your comment, which implies there are NO atheists that go out and kill randomly. Which is a complete lie.
In addition to that, let's ignore the fact that your argument that good deeds get you into heaven has been completely debunked and focus on your inability to comprehend simple sentences. When I said you do good things for the sake of good, that implies that you're doing it for the sake of God, since generally God is all that is good at least in the religions that I have studied. So doing something for his sake is doing it for sake of goodness. So when you do something to please him, you're not doing it because somebody's smile makes your heart skip a beat, you would do it even if somebody's smile felt like a slap in the face. We define good and bad as what inherently makes us feel good and what makes us feel bad, so it's all relative, but with a god, it's a definite thing. If killing people made the general population happy, it would still be considered bad under God.
Well, going to church doesn't make you religious, some people just go for the sake of conversing and others for their own reasons. They don't need a noble reason. Also, if there are more "religious" people than non religious people, chances are there will be more, "religious" people in jail, derp.
Religion is by no means incompatible with science. My brother is a devoted Catholic and physicist. Intelligent design encompasses both God and evolution. There are things that were once attributed to God or gods that are now explained by science, but that doesn't mean that you have to choose one or the other.
There's wayyy too many points trying to be made in this post
I agree.
1. Man does not need God to be moral.
2. Religion divides more than it unites.
3. Religion is incompatible with Science.
4. Scriptures are man-made and demonstrably false.
5. God did not create man in his image. Man created God in his.
Some I agree with, some I disagree with, and some I don't know how to vote on.
Honestly, I'm not even going to argue this. You can believe whatever you want. You can say that God isn't real and religion is a lie as if you know for sure, which you don't. I'm confident enough in my religion to not believe a single word of this post.
The difference between me and you is, I didn't say it wasn't true. I said I didn't believe it.
I love that line "God did not create man in his image, man created God in his." Did you come up with that yourself? Because it honestly sounds like something that Bertrand Russell or one of those other people who argued against religion would say.
I don't think they can take credit for it. I don't know who originally said it, but I've heard my band director say it before.
It was in the play "Inherit the Wind"
Why is this not on the homepage?
You realize you're responding to the person who made this site, right?
They were actually responding to the first commenter, AtheisticMystic.
ya but i was always under the impression that mods had the power to just choose which posts made it to the homepage.
I've always been confused about this though. Does a post get homepaged after a certain amount of homepage suggestions. Or after a mod or admin puts it on? Or a combination of both?
Combination, I think.
oh ok thanks for clearing that up. sorry if i came off as a dick then.
My comment is very, very old. I don't really recall, but I think I made that comment just because I thought it was a good post, not because it had a lot of upvotes. I was asking why people hadn't voted it to the homepage, not why it hadn't magically appeared there.
well either way the argument it doesn't have enough homepages doesn't really work.
that's not how the homepage system works. there are posts with like three votes on the homepage. it's all about whether a mod likes the post.
You are correct in the fact that you do not need religion to be moral.
But not all religions are false, dividing forces. Religion is the result of human creativity and curiosity - it helps us explain what simply can't be explained. Religious thinkers expanded on that to create truly diverse and interesting religions. As a nonreligious person, I find these things beautiful and something to be proud of.
The damn of religion is ending - but I'm starting to feel that people are hating of faith just because it's cool.
It's interesting that you say religion helps us explain things we can't explain. What I don't understand is why we have to create religious explanations for things at all. If someone wants to believe the scientific explanation for things then that's great but if there is something that can't be explained we have to make its explanation up? I am nonreligious too and this is what bothers me most.
I guess because it eases the conscious. Humans are really the only animals who know about the inevitability of death, which gives us a unique fear. And besides, humans are curious. What's out there? Who's out there? Why am I here? Especially before science was advanced, there needed to be an explanation. Religion gave - and in some cases, still gives - that. There's nothing wrong with it. In fact, it's natural.
Why don't you try posting one opinion at a time and seeing who agrees/disagrees with each?
Religion and science is compatible.
Though this theory sounds nice there is a flaw. Do you think that once upon a time the universe, air, the stars, and everything else just appeared? they had to come from somewhere. Chances are is a larger being who put it all into action, maybe creating a domino effect such as evolution, but someone or something had to start it. Things like the universe itself couldn't have just appeared suddenly. If you think about it its kind of crazy
Then where did that supreme being come from? You could say that he was always there, but wouldn't it make just as much
if not moresense to say that the "stuff" required to make a universe was always there, no creation needed?Well actually Religion unites people of the same faith, it also takes you out of a superficial life and has you thinking about something greater than yourself. If you believe there is nothing after life then you live your life the way you want to, not considering any consequences. If you believe there is a punishment if you're bad and a reward if you're good, then you try to achieve the latter and avoid the former. Also you're probably talking about Greek gods and goddesses, however if you do further research into Hindu or other religions you will find a number of "Gods" that don't even resemble humans in any way or form
People should do the right thing because it's the right thing, not because they're being threatened with punishment. If religion is the only thing stopping you from killing someone, I think you need to re-evaluate your life.
People can do the right thing to do the right thing and still have a religion. Just because someone doesn't believe in God, doesn't mean they're the only ones doing good deeds for the sake of doing good deeds.
No. Most of them were religious before they went to jail. They went to church every Sunday and stabbed people come Monday. Being religious does not make you moral.
I made that connection because people in prisons didn't think of the consequences. If they would have they wouldn't have done whatever got them in prison to begin with.
"If you believe there is nothing after life then you live your life the way you want to, not considering any consequences."
If that were the case with most people, why are 99% of people in prisons religious?
Not every religious person is good out of fear, and not every atheist just "lives life the way they want to." I consider the consequences because I don't like screwing my life up, and I consider others because I have empathy, which is just something that comes with being mentally stable.
Maybe religious was the wrong word. Most people in prison align themselves with a religion. They believe that there is a heaven and a hell and that there are divine consequences to their actions. But that did not stop them from getting into prison.
If it truly were religions that determined morality, then it would not matter who was the minority and who was the majority. Those of faith would simply not do anything to go to prison because they would be aware of the divine consequences.
Oh, I'm not saying the statistic really proves anything-- it's just a popular (though maybe false) rebuttal to people who say religious people are more moral. I'm just trying to show Captain_Kickass that religion and morality do not go hand in hand. When people look at the percentage of religious people in the community compared to the percentage of atheists, they will find that the percentages are the same in prisons. But if religion really did affect the morality of society as a whole, there would still be a higher percentage of atheists in prisons than in the general public.
Yep. I'm an idiot. Whatever.
My intelligence (or in this case, lack-there-of) does not change the fact that religion and morality do not go hand in hand, making your original statement-- "If you believe there is nothing after life then you live your life the way you want to, not considering any consequences" --false.
So you believe that everyone who does not believe there are consequences when we die just does whatever they please because nothing bad will happen?
Good people do good things. They don't necessarily believe in a reward for their earthly good deeds, they just do good because it is the right thing to do. That's why self proclaimed atheists don't go out and kill randomly.
Good deeds not god feds
Lolol REALLY? You mean to tell me churches haven't been burned down before, by athiests? With people inside it? And that's just in America, look up this little thing called China.
There is no such thing as, "good people" if people felt shitty about doing good deeds there will be a lot less "good people." Feeling good after doing a good deed is in fact a reward. The whole purpose of Chrisianity is being good for the sake of good, because you want to please God. It clearly says in the Bible that your god feds don't get you in heaven. So I'm not sure why everyone jumps on that bandwagon. And asfar as I know most religions promote similar ideals.
If a guy wore a superman costume and a person older than 5 believed it was actually superman, then it is safe to assume they are an idiot. I just threw what you said at her face... as the icing to the cake. Anyway, I started this conversation, so....
Well that was fun. My second and last comment will be this: "Pope says atheists pick & choose their morals. Today I will be frowning on child abuse & not having a problem with homosexuality."
Also, if you are going to bring up people who want to be remembered after they die, then lame point because that's just a specific person's aspirations, it differs from person to person, but part of being TRULY religious in most cases revolves around the life after death.
So all atheists burn down churches? What about the arson committed by Christians? Or by Muslims? The acts of a few do not define all the members of a group.
People feel shitty about doing bad deeds. Which is why most people do good things: it makes them feel good. Seeing people smile makes people happy, therefore, if you make someone smile you will be happier. It's really easy to understand. I don't see why you don't get it.
"being good for the sake of good, because you want to please God"- if you're being good to please God, you're not being good for the sake of good. Your sentence contradicted itself.
Things like killing the innocent, raping, stealing-- those are all universally immoral. They've been accepted by every civilization in known history to be wrong. Even in societies that worship no gods, or many gods, or just one god, those things are all seen as evil. If a society has never heard of your God, how does it know that killing an innocent man is wrong? We could play it off as coincidence, but when so many different societies with so many different beliefs all have the same basic morals, how can that be a coincidence? Core morals are formed by our instincts. We all know right from wrong, but that doesn't always mean we do the right thing.
One does not need to have a god to be moral. There can be a right and a wrong without divine intervention. Personal morality is subjective, but what humanity as a whole believes to be right and wrong never changes.
Actually if you have read anything or watched any interviews, you'll see there are a lot of killers out there that don't realize that killing is in fact wrong. There are a lot of criminals that don't realize their crime is bad. And there are people that wholeheartedly think being gay is wrong. These things are just learned traits.
But they're promised worldly rewards and brainwashed... not the same thing as doing it for His sake. Doing it to get with 72 virgins or for glory isn't the same as doing it for HIM
Meaning they don't actually believe the teachings of the church. Or implied meaning....
I'm not saying religion makes anyone immoral either. Religion is a neutral factor in morality.
Most religious people believe in life after death, the consequences come after life of your actions in this life. If you don't understand that I was talking about that, then you are in fact an idiot.
"Please be a troll"
^That's the pot calling the kettle black, is it not?
So you're saying all atheists are bad people and that it is only the truly religious people that have moral standards?
Well... that's the thing. If there is no god and we are in fact alone, then we are making up these things as we go.
What if killing was in fact good?
Without a "god" to tell us what is good and what is bad, then we may or may not be bad... it's a totally unstable thing, because we are the ones giving words meaning.
Something being "universally immoral" doesn't mean it's actually immoral and also it could just be a flaw in the people. Also all this could come from a God, because for the most part we don't really have things we don't need. Even things that exist now, had a purpose at one point, this can be said for almost anything. Anyway, what would being good for the sake of goodness do for our survival? How is it necessary?
And what is humanity as a whole, but a collection of personal beliefs? For a long time gay marriage was considered bad, the earth was considered flat. Abortion is a good thing. But all that changes with time.
Whether or not the fact that morality is universal because of God or not is irrelevant to this specific conversation. The point is that a belief in a god is does not make someone more moral than a non-believer. In the long run, being good to other people is not good for our personal survival, but it is good for the survival of humanity and for generations to come. It is not necessary, but as humans we do a lot that is not really necessary but at the same time beneficial,
Humanity is everyone and everyone has the same base morals (murder is bad, stealing is bad, helping children is good, etc). Even serial killers know killing is wrong. However, knowing something is wrong does not keep people from doing it. Its these base morals that make up humanity that have remained timeless.
If you knew anything about serial killers, you would know that they think killing is okay because they are psychopaths.
Things like being gay and having an abortion are moral or immoral according to each individual person. Yeah, I know that. But you cannot deny that there are some things that are universally immoral, regardless of how a person was raised.
Right because psychopaths aren't human.
And in US for a long time gay marriage was wrong. So what does that say?
They're human, but they do not make up all of humanity. When it comes to humanity and morals, majority rules.
It doesn't say anything. You seem to not understand what I mean when I say "universal morality." These are things have always been around and have always been either moral or immoral. Murdering an innocent man has always been wrong. Stealing has always been wrong.
So no killing and no sealing are the universal moral codes that have sustained man kind for all these years?
Among other things, yes.
Justice for those who were wronged and punishment for those who did wrong seem to be common themes as well. Every known society has lived with at least these base principles.
See that is so vague wrong used to be marrying outside of your race.... All over the world. Slavery was/is seen as a good thing. Racism is accepted in a lot of places
Those things were never universally accepted by the entire world at one time. Those are issues that have always and will always be seen as moral or immoral based on the times and the beliefs of the people in certain areas. But even racism and slavery were condoned by many religions. Didn't this whole conversation start because you said that religious people are more moral than non-religious people anyway?
Fake religious people = non religious people.
There was a time killing = bravery and valor and how many people you killed made you a hero. Looting was promoted after war, which we still do. Killing and robbery is not universally bad or good, buddy.
So you still believe people who are honestly religous are more moral?
Killing an innocent man has always been bad. It's the meanings of innocent and man that have changed.
Well instead of the word religious I prefer the term spiritual. And if you are spiritual then you can be outside of religion.
How has out always ben bad when an invasion occurs invaders kill, rape, and rob innocent men women and children, even though it isn't necessary.
So when a spiritual person and an atheist are the same in every aspect except their spirituality, you would deem the spiritual person more moral?
All morals go out the window in a time of war. I don't know why that happens, and I don't think it's right, but I know that it happens.
Yes, but even after the war the invading country's people usually treat other people shitty
They can't be the same in every aspect cos spirituality changes a man....
That's because they don't see them as real people. But when it comes how we treat people, we have always thought they at least deserved to live. It's just over time the definition of "person" has changed several times.
Spiritually changes a man? In what ways does being spiritual change someone to be more moral than an atheist?
Because spirituality is a journey of self improvement... how can someone who just is be as good a person as someone who is actively trying to improve themselves? Are you as good at football as a professional? Do you spend countless hours a day working out and practicing? Are sports and education the only thing that can be improved???
And are you serious? They didn't think of them as a person? Even if initially they might not have... I think when they penetrate the vagina with their penises and orgasm and see kids coming out of it, they'll realize they're not that different.
So atheists don't try to improve themselves as a person?
Yeah, you would think that. But there was a time not too long ago when black males were not considered "real" men. You'd be amazed at the number of people who were never really considered to be people.
No they can technically say they don't consider them as men, just for the sake of legality, but really I think we all knew that they knew
If an atheist tries to do the same thing, I feel like eventually they will go into spirituality... I think you can only self improve to a limited amount before you get into a spiritual world, because I feel as though the human is made up more than just the mind, body and all that crap and that it has a spirit, that needs just as much development.
If they new, then they wouldn't have been treated so poorly, now would they? It's much easier to look at something and treat it badly when you think it's subhuman.
That is utter nonsense. Even hardened criminals can be spiritual while still being a bad person. Your spiritual state does not determine your morality, your actions do.
So you're saying practicing stuff doesn't improve your skills?
It does. But honing in on your spirituality does not improve your moral skills. It just makes you more spiritual.
Yes, but normally spiritual concerns are journeys are journeys of self improvement. If you can do the same thing without being spiritual then you can be just as good a person
If they can be just as good of a person, do you still stand by your original statement: "If you believe there is nothing after life then you live your life the way you want to, not considering any consequences"?
Well it'd be a different type of good, because they're not trying to please a higher being, but that ready has nothing to do with being good. That's just common sense, if you believe there is no Gos why live your life the way He wants? You can live your how you want. Which can include being good.
So man really does not need God to be moral?
But would it be equally as good, or does believing in God make your goodness superior?
Well if there is a god, then the spiritual one I assume is the better one, since it's directed at the god. Otherwise there's a chance it can be equal.
And how is being good to please a God better than being good for the sake of being good?
Because out would be to please Him, rather than self satisfaction. And that way it will be constant and not change every time the world changes it's mind about something.
You know people murder in order to please a god, right? Since it makes their god happy, it's moral?
So that story in the Bible where the first born sons were killed wasn't for Him?
">some people just go for the sake of conversing and others for their own reasons."
The majority of people who go to church honestly believe in a big bad sky daddy that will send them to hell if they do wrong. Nice try though.
Wow wow pikabeau, you're an idiot. Also take that! What Cherry Blossom said. I can pretend to be something I'm not and do something. For example, in Israel, their government fakes attacks from Islamic countries in order to attack them, they kill their own people. So does that mean Muslims actually attacked them? You would say yes. Of course they're Muslim. If you put on a superman costume, you must be superman, there are no liars in this world, I'm a stupid doo doo head, is what you are.
Please be a troll, because if you aren't then I'm sensing dangerous amounts of stupidity from your comments.
You said, "That's why self proclaimed atheists don't go out and kill randomly." but they do. That was your comment, which implies there are NO atheists that go out and kill randomly. Which is a complete lie.
In addition to that, let's ignore the fact that your argument that good deeds get you into heaven has been completely debunked and focus on your inability to comprehend simple sentences. When I said you do good things for the sake of good, that implies that you're doing it for the sake of God, since generally God is all that is good at least in the religions that I have studied. So doing something for his sake is doing it for sake of goodness. So when you do something to please him, you're not doing it because somebody's smile makes your heart skip a beat, you would do it even if somebody's smile felt like a slap in the face. We define good and bad as what inherently makes us feel good and what makes us feel bad, so it's all relative, but with a god, it's a definite thing. If killing people made the general population happy, it would still be considered bad under God.
Well, going to church doesn't make you religious, some people just go for the sake of conversing and others for their own reasons. They don't need a noble reason. Also, if there are more "religious" people than non religious people, chances are there will be more, "religious" people in jail, derp.
Hmm... maybe they become that way after they get in jail? Just a thought. :)
Also, how did you make that connection.
Go to amirite.net/chat to see what that smilie is.
Oh... so it's better someone commits mass homicide than him/her being a religious person?