The Future Right-Wingers Want....

[EasternVol]

Then explain why EVERY SINGLE tribe or people ever discovered has had some form of religion. Looks like if religion wasn’t necessary for human society then there should have at least been ONE atheistic tribe that merely had a general code of conduct not backed up by some linkage to a higher power.

I don't know that every single people has had religion but if that's true then has every single people not been dicks to each other? I'll wager than very many have been and are being whole bags of said appendage to each other, for example the cannibals of the South Seas.

 

[hog88]

Meh... there are a lot of religions that didn't necessarily even teach that. Take Greek mythology as an example.

EDIT: The control the masses belief on religion comes straight from Karl Marx and Communism Ideology by the way

They believed in basically the same thing, good people went to Elysium.

Communism is for all purposes a religion itself, it demands obedience to the state.

 

[hog88]

Interesting theory. But not all religions believe in eternity.

All that I can think of. Yes some believe in reincarnation but even the Buddhists believe you can eventfully reach Nirvana.

 

[volbound1700]

I don't know that every single people has had religion but if that's true then has every single people not been dicks to each other? I'll wager than very many have been and are being whole bags of said appendage to each other, for example the cannibals of the South Seas.

I think you are going off a point here. Humans, are by nature, capable of evil regardless of the situation (I think they are also capable of good).

If you look at nature, it is very cruel by nature as well. Predators typically target the weak and children and not full adults due to them being easier kills. Animals torcher their pray and can be ruthless towards each other.

At the same time, you put them in a healthy, domesticated environment, and they lose a lot of their cruelty.

One issue with Earth and part of the cruelty of man is that their are finite resources. Most wars in the Ancient and Medieval world, for example, were desperate people targeting others to get the necessities of life through the sword. Hence the "Barbarians" we see.

 

[EasternVol]

Meh... there are a lot of religions that didn't necessarily even teach that. Take Greek mythology as an example.

EDIT: The control the masses belief on religion comes straight from Karl Marx and Communism Ideology by the way

Marx picked up on that by observation. Not all his ideas were wrong.

 

[OrangeTsar]

All that I can think of. Yes some believe in reincarnation but even the Buddhists believe you can eventfully reach Nirvana.

The interesting thing for me about Buddhism is that (at least the way I understand it) is that the goal is to reach a state where you desire nothing. But at the same time, Buddhists actively DESIRE to reach that state.
But it is a very attractive belief. If I were not a Christian, I would probably chose Buddhism.
But no religion has ever been able to match what I see when I look at Christ.

 

[OrangeTsar]

I think you are going off a point here. Humans, are by nature, capable of evil regardless of the situation (I think they are also capable of good).

If you look at nature, it is very cruel by nature as well. Predators typically target the weak and children and not full adults due to them being easier kills. Animals torcher their pray and can be ruthless towards each other.

At the same time, you put them in a healthy, domesticated environment, and they lose a lot of their cruelty.

One issue with Earth and part of the cruelty of man is that their are finite resources. Most wars in the Ancient and Medieval world, for example, were desperate people targeting others to get the necessities of life through the sword. Hence the "Barbarians" we see.

The interesting question posed by CS Lewis is that, if there is no moral law reflecting the desires of a God, why does man have a concept of “good” and “evil”? A simple division between “beneficial” and “harmful” would be much simpler and pragmatic. But man will sometime choose to do something “good” even when it is harmful to one’s own interests.

 

[OrangeTsar]

I don't know that every single people has had religion but if that's true then has every single people not been dicks to each other? I'll wager than very many have been and are being whole bags of said appendage to each other, for example the cannibals of the South Seas.

Because the flip side of religion (and the exact point that Christianity addresses) is that man is broken and absolutely incapable of meeting God’s moral law). Yet mankind in general persists in believing that that law exists and should be met.

 

[EasternVol]

I think you are going off a point here. Humans, are by nature, capable of evil regardless of the situation (I think they are also capable of good).

If you look at nature, it is very cruel by nature as well. Predators typically target the weak and children and not full adults due to them being easier kills. Animals torcher their pray and can be ruthless towards each other.

At the same time, you put them in a healthy, domesticated environment, and they lose a lot of their cruelty.

One issue with Earth and part of the cruelty of man is that their are finite resources. Most wars in the Ancient and Medieval world, for example, were desperate people targeting others to get the necessities of life through the sword. Hence the "Barbarians" we see.

I don't see how all that's pertinent. What is going off a point? It was snidely put forth that 'we need religion to be good to each other' (major paraphrase). I said 'nuh huh'. In reply the man said 'so then why does every people have religion?'. And then you answered my reply to that. My original point was that we don't need religion to be humane or moral.

 

[EasternVol]

Because the flip side of religion (and the exact point that Christianity addresses) is that man is broken and absolutely incapable of meeting God’s moral law). Yet mankind in general persists in believing that that law exists and should be met.

That doesn't lead us to religion being necessary for morality and humanity though.

 

[MemphisVol77]

My original point was that we don't need religion to be humane or moral.

Micro/sure.
On an individual level? Sure, we probably all know atheist or strongly agnostic people that seem to be of high moral character.

That doesn't lead us to religion being necessary for morality and humanity though.

Macro/maybe.
Doesn't that remains to be seen on a societal level for any kind of sustained duration though?

 

[Majors]

So how do we fixed the societal decay we are in now? Since you against religion what do you propose

Starts and ends at home.

 

[whodeycin85]

Starts and ends at home.

Yes but whose home..your family may adhere strictly to Christian values..my family may be strictly Qur'an...is it then ok to rape you wife because my idea of decency says it ok?? That's the issue who's to stay who is right??

 

[OrangeTsar]

That doesn't lead us to religion being necessary for morality and humanity though.

If something exists in every single culture the human race has ever produced, that sort of tends to support the idea that it may be necessary. Not proof exactly; but a very strong indicator.

 

[JOEY’S ALL VOL !!!]

Now we are getting somewhere. the discussion between volbound and pj, and the one with volger and hog, plus the additional comments from others.

Now we got a good thread going.

 

[OrangeTsar]

Yes but whose home..your family may adhere strictly to Christian values..my family may be strictly Qur'an...is it then ok to rape you wife because my idea of decency says it ok?? That's the issue who's to stay who is right??

The interesting philosophical point is that while differing cultures have differing opinions of what is decent versus indecent, they all have an idea that there is such a thing as decency. And the same with the concept of “what is right”.
A universe with no God concerned with morality has no need of the concepts of good vs evil or right versus wrong. A simple distinction between, this benefits me vs this harms me would be sufficient. Morality presupposes a need to meet a standard applied from outside of ourselves.

 

[turbovol]

 

[EasternVol]

Micro/sure.
On an individual level? Sure, we probably all know atheist or strongly agnostic people that seem to be of high moral character.

Macro/maybe.
Doesn't that remains to be seen on a societal level for any kind of sustained duration though?

I don't think so. Europe's been much less religious than the US for going on a hundred years and Europeans are apparently no less moral than Americans. It would though be good to read some good studies on the subect.

 

[EasternVol]

The interesting philosophical point is that while differing cultures have differing opinions of what is decent versus indecent, they all have an idea that there is such a thing as decency. And the same with the concept of “what is right”.
A universe with no God concerned with morality has no need of the concepts of good vs evil or right versus wrong. A simple distinction between, this benefits me vs this harms me would be sufficient. Morality presupposes a need to meet a standard applied from outside of ourselves.

Many think that morality comes from reason so there's no such presumption.

 

[GordonC]

Many think that morality comes from reason so there's no such presumption.

Ethics come from reason.
Ethics and morality are interrelated, but are they identical?

 

[volbound1700]

I don't see how all that's pertinent. What is going off a point? It was snidely put forth that 'we need religion to be good to each other' (major paraphrase). I said 'nuh huh'. In reply the man said 'so then why does every people have religion?'. And then you answered my reply to that. My original point was that we don't need religion to be humane or moral.

I actually had a typo on the first statement, I actually meant to say "I think you have a point here." I likely started writing and looked away and didn't proof read it. Very different than what I ended up tying... my argument makes more sense if you read that as the first sentence.

 

[EasternVol]

Ethics come from reason.
Ethics and morality are interrelated, but are they identical?

I suppose ethics are the rules of whatever game you're in and morals your personal view of what's right and wrong. So yes interrelated but not identical.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Then explain why EVERY SINGLE tribe or people ever discovered has had some form of religion. Looks like if religion wasn’t necessary for human society then there should have at least been ONE atheistic tribe that merely had a general code of conduct not backed up by some linkage to a higher power.

Because people were trying to explain things they did not understand.

 

[GordonC]

I suppose ethics are the rules of whatever game you're in and morals your personal view of what's right and wrong. So yes interrelated but not identical.

Now add based on _______ after the word "in" and after the word "wrong" in your first sentence and fill in the blanks.

 

[EasternVol]

Now add based on _______ after the word "in" and after the word "wrong" in your first sentence and fill in the blanks.

I get 'reason'. Did I win?