religion and morality

[okalb 104]

Quote

Quote

Sombody also forgot to convey it to all the pedophile priests, there are exceptions on all sides

They are not claiming to be morally superior due to evolution.

They are homosexual, pedophile, con men, who use their position of authority to get what they want.

I don't remember any gang bangers here claiming to be morally superior. If anyone is claiming to be morally superior it is the priests. You also don't see a lot of civilians defending the gang members, but you sure do see a lot of the catholic church defending the pedophile priests.

I think you got the point I was trying to make but you chose to ignore it. There are always people on all sides that fall outside of the norm. The original discussion was about the need for religion to have morals. The priests are religious, most of the gang bangers are not and don't claim to be.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[Royd 0]

Quote

I am saying that our most basic morals have evolved over time, because _having_ those morals keeps us alive

Unless your name is Gengis Khan.

Quote

Those are morals all people feel, and are thus pretty universal (or, as Paj refers to them, absolute.)

In other words, someone must have a wrestling match with themselves, so to speak, in order to lie, cheat, or steal, even if no one has ever taught them good from bad?

Prison rehabilitation should consist of telling someone to look inside themselves and do the right thing.

[Royd 0]

Quote

The priests are religious, most of the gang bangers are not and don't claim to be.

Your point of veiw, or those of the atheistic thinkers in this thread is that we have morals built into our DNA through evolution. No need for any outside guidance or correction.

I would dare say that alot of gangbangers scoff at religion and the need for any kind of moral structure concerning the society around them.

You sure don't see the edification of lives or property in places where these people exist.

[billvon 2,991]

>Unless your name is Gengis Khan.

Uh, in terms of evolution, Genghis Khan was one of the most successful humans ever. He fathered hundreds of children, and his genes got spread all over Asia. Which is why "don't have sex with women" is NOT an inherent drive in males; indeed, the opposite is true.

>In other words, someone must have a wrestling match with themselves,
>so to speak . . .

If they are breaking one of the "absolute" morals (like don't kill your children) - correct. Even someone who has never heard of morals would have a hard time strangling their five year old son.

>in order to lie, cheat, or steal, even if no one has ever taught them good
>from bad?

No. Those are morals we created later. They're good for society, not for individual survival. (A successful thief is a human that will do a better job of reproducing, at least back when we were evolving our current behaviors.)

>Prison rehabilitation should consist of telling someone to look inside
>themselves and do the right thing.

??

[billvon 2,991]

>Your point of veiw, or those of the atheistic thinkers in this thread is
>that we have morals built into our DNA through evolution. No need for any
>outside guidance or correction.

No one has claimed that. Perhaps a quick re-read of this thread will provide some illumination.

[Royd 0]

Quote

If they are breaking one of the "absolute" morals (like don't kill your children) - correct. Even someone who has never heard of morals would have a hard time strangling their five year old son.

>in order to lie, cheat, or steal, even if no one has ever taught them good
>from bad?

No. Those are morals we created later. They're good for society

Please post your commandments of absolute morals so that we will never have to wonder what they are. God did that.

[billvon 2,991]

>Please post your commandments of absolute morals so that we will never
>have to wonder what they are. God did that.

Like I said, re-read the thread. I believe you have a misconception concerning what we have been discussing.

[philh 0]

did he? So there is nothing wrong with slavery then as god didnt make any commandment that says "though shalt not keep slaves"

[billvon 2,991]

> So there is nothing wrong with slavery then as god didnt make
>any commandment that says "though shalt not keep slaves"

Indeed, the bible gives instructions on the proper treatment of slaves, so it is not even proscribed.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

> So there is nothing wrong with slavery then as god didnt make
>any commandment that says "though shalt not keep slaves"

Indeed, the bible gives instructions on the proper treatment of slaves, so it is not even proscribed.

"Not even proscribed"? Seems more like an endorsement.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[okalb 104]

Quote

Indeed, the bible gives instructions on the proper treatment of slaves, so it is not even proscribed.

Well, as long as they are treated properly it should be fine and you will still get into heaven, which is all that really matters anyway

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

Indeed, the bible gives instructions on the proper treatment of slaves, so it is not even proscribed.

Well, as long as they are treated properly it should be fine and you will still get into heaven, which is all that really matters anyway

"'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. " Leviticus 24:44

Of course, we'll call them "guest workers".

[pajarito 0]

Quote

did he? So there is nothing wrong with slavery then as god didnt make any commandment that says "though shalt not keep slaves"

Why is slavery permitted in the Bible?

Slavery was permitted in the Bible because of sin in the world. It existed before the Jews were formed as a nation and it existed after Israel was conquered. God allows many things to happen in the world such as storms, famine, murder, etc. Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God. Instead, it is allowed. Where many nations treated their slaves very badly, the Bible gave many rights and privileges to slaves. So, even though it isn't the best way to deal with people, because God has allowed man freedom, slavery then exists. God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly.

The Bible acknowledged the slave’s status as the property of the master (Ex. 21:23; Lev. 25:46),
The Bible restricted the master’s power over the slave. Ex. 21:20).
The slave was a member of the master’s household (Lev. 22:11)
The slave was required to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deut. 5:14)
The slave was required and to participate in religious observances (Gen. 17:13; Exodus 12:44; Lev. 22:11).
The Bible prohibited extradition of slaves and granted them asylum (Deut. 23:16-17).
The servitude of a Hebrew debt-slave was limited to six years (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12).
When a slave was freed, he was to receive gifts that enabled him to survive economically (Deut. 15:14)
The reality of slavery cannot be denied. Slaves were "slave labor played a minor economic role in the ancient Near East, for privately owned slaves functioned more as domestic servants than as an agricultural or industrial labor force."1

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

Quote

>You wouldn't have al the Catholic Hospitals.

And without atheists you wouldn't even know that our life is based on DNA - and we'd be decades behind in medical research.

I'm aware many scientist are atheist, but did atheism fund science, the way the church funded hospitals, schools, orphanges, and artists?

If by "atheism" you mean secular instuitions (either private or governmental) I think yes is the correct answer to your question.
As a matter of fact it's safe to say that most of what we call "science" has been funded by atheism, and very little by any church whatsover.
Cheers,

Vale

[jakee 1,489]

I thought the bible focused more on perfect, unattainable ideals when it came to morality not "Well shit, I guess if you're going to do it anyway then its ok." Seems like a horrible compromise to me.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I thought the bible focused more on perfect, unattainable ideals when it came to morality not "Well shit, I guess if you're going to do it anyway then its ok." Seems like a horrible compromise to me.

God's moral law does. Man's attempt at moral law falls short. Context is important when reading the Bible as with anything else.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

did he? So there is nothing wrong with slavery then as god didnt make any commandment that says "though shalt not keep slaves"

Why is slavery permitted in the Bible?

Slavery was permitted in the Bible because of sin in the world.

Nice SPIN there. Slavery is more outrageous than working on the Sabbath or coveting your neighbor's ass donkey.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Man's attempt at moral law falls short.

The Bible is man's attempt at moral law?!

Say it again, I think I just fainted.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Nice SPIN there. Slavery is more outrageous than working on the Sabbath or coveting your neighbor's ass donkey OIL.

There.. that is so much better

I wonder what the repercussions of the whole BEARING FALSE WITNESS against our neighbor Saddam and friends will be....


I guess we can get PLENTY of excuses for killing thousands of innocent people as collateral damage too.

Personally I think the magnitude of breaking at LEAST these three commanments is going to take Georgieboy off to a hell he had not bargained for.. since he believes in that sort of thing apparently... you gotta take the REALLY BAD when you screw up with the voices in your head.... personally I think he was getting the WRONG voices... it was from the OTHER GUY.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>You wouldn't have al the Catholic Hospitals.

And without atheists you wouldn't even know that our life is based on DNA - and we'd be decades behind in medical research.

I'm aware many scientist are atheist, but did atheism fund science, the way the church funded hospitals, schools, orphanges, and artists?

If by "atheism" you mean secular instuitions (either private or governmental) I think yes is the correct answer to your question.
As a matter of fact it's safe to say that most of what we call "science" has been funded by atheism, and very little by any church whatsover.
Cheers,

Vale

No, I was referring to organizations. Christian (Catholic) hospitals weren't started by "Christians" they were started by "groups" or "denominations" same with Universities such as Harvard, Yale, Oxford, etc.

Any GROUP of atheists offer the world anything?

steveOrino

[billvon 2,991]

>Any GROUP of atheists offer the world anything?

The USA, a secular country, has done a fair amount for science, math, engineering etc.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Any GROUP of atheists offer the world anything?

Strawman.

Aside from a few small groups with narrow agendas, there really is no "group of atheists" in anything other than the mathematical sense: a category whose members consist of whatever portion of the human population that is not theist. Atheism is an absence of X, not a presence of "Anti-X." A mere absence of a religious mission is not an anti-religious mission.

Having said that, many secular institutions have offered the world plenty.

[steveorino 7]

Yep, but again (for the second or third time) I must state what my original posts were about. I wasn't saying atheists didn't offer anything to society or Christians offered the most, or the best, or the first. I was responding to sweetmoose who said the world would be better off w/o religion. While I accepted the fact that much harm has been done in the name of God by Christians and Christian groups we shouldn't negate the good churches have done. [/explaining] because if you haven't got it by now you ain't getting it.

steveOrino

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>You wouldn't have al the Catholic Hospitals.

And without atheists you wouldn't even know that our life is based on DNA - and we'd be decades behind in medical research.

I'm aware many scientist are atheist, but did atheism fund science, the way the church funded hospitals, schools, orphanges, and artists?

If by "atheism" you mean secular instuitions (either private or governmental) I think yes is the correct answer to your question.
As a matter of fact it's safe to say that most of what we call "science" has been funded by atheism, and very little by any church whatsover.
Cheers,

Vale

No, I was referring to organizations. Christian (Catholic) hospitals weren't started by "Christians" they were started by "groups" or "denominations" same with Universities such as Harvard, Yale, Oxford, etc.

Any GROUP of atheists offer the world anything?

Then your question is clearly a strawman. You know as well as I do that even if atheism is considered by some to be a religion (maybe a better, non controversial definition would be a "religious stance"), there is no such thing as an "Organized Church of Atheism (TM)".
Therefore you are comparing the merits (perceived or otherwise) of the Christian church(es) to the merits, or lack thereof, of an opposing, but unfortunately also non existant, entity.
In other words, you are setting the argument up in such a way that it's impossible for you side to lose, which makes debating it utterly pointless.
Cheers,

Vale

[billvon 2,991]

>While I accepted the fact that much harm has been done in
>the name of God by Christians and Christian groups we shouldn't
>negate the good churches have done.

I agree with you there. Indeed, religion has underpinned so much of our past history (good and bad) that the world would be pretty unrecognizable today if we hadn't had it. Would it be better or worse? I suppose that depends on your frame of reference, and arguments could be made for both. But it would certainly be radically different.