08 Jul 13
Originally posted by PsychoPawnOk. My point was not to arbitrarily make certain rules or axioms "religious", but to emphasize that people reach the same conclusions via different routes. Some do so for religious reasons, while others may make the same conclusions based on secular, pragmatic considerations.
I don't see how that follows that the belief that extra marital sex being a bad thing or being anti-abortion being religious morals outside of the fact that it would be a moral judgement that they have in common.
By that logic then thinking murder is bad would be a "religious moral".
I don't have a dog in this race. I am an atheist, but have no animosity to those who wish to believe in a creator/ruler.
"By that logic then thinking murder is bad would be a "religious moral"."
Yes, and prohibitions on murder are often based on religious prohibitions, such as the ten commandments. Yet, secular governments often mimic the same rules. Things we think of typically originating from religion, often are better represented by purely secular philosophers and legislators.
08 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't think that simply because a large group of people thinks something is wrong that it makes that thing wrong.
Because we are hardwired to believe it is wrong for evolutionary survival reasons.
There was a time in the history of the US where most people believed homosexuality to be wrong. Did that make homosexuality wrong?
Why is killing another human wrong?
Seems to me that one could argue that it is right since you should have the right to do what you want. It is wrong to restrain the strong.
I see that you base your belief of right and wrong on this issue on your belief in evolution. I find that very interesting.
08 Jul 13
Originally posted by normbenignEvery society prohibits murder and always did. Religious prohibitions of that type flowed from societal norms, they did not create them.
Ok. My point was not to arbitrarily make certain rules or axioms "religious", but to emphasize that people reach the same conclusions via different routes. Some do so for religious reasons, while others may make the same conclusions based on secular, pragmatic considerations.
I don't have a dog in this race. I am an atheist, but have no animosity to ...[text shortened]... om religion, often are better represented by purely secular philosophers and legislators.
08 Jul 13
Originally posted by normbenignThat's where I disagree.
"By that logic then thinking murder is bad would be a "religious moral"."
Yes, and prohibitions on murder are often based on religious prohibitions, such as the ten commandments. Yet, secular governments often mimic the same rules. Things we think of typically originating from religion, often are better represented by purely secular philosophers and legislators.
Do you really think that murder was considered OK before religion? I doubt it.
Prohibitions on murder aren't based on religion - they are simply justified by religion.
Today people share morals but the religious of us simply use their books and their god as a simplistic justification for it.
08 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderEvery society has always prohibited the killing of another person?
Every society prohibits murder and always did. Religious prohibitions of that type flowed from societal norms, they did not create them.
What most people believe makes things right or wrong?
08 Jul 13
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI'm sorry, I'll need you to spell it out. What is the difference between a pig and a human being? Is a pig not alive? What makes a human being's life more important than a pig's life? Why is it okay to kill a pig and not a human being? If you want to worry about the bible you can substitute chicken here, although the sausage was delicious.
Actually, the bible does have a commandment against eating pigs. The old testament does at least. I'll assume that you can understand why a pig isn't directly analogous to a human being and hence why your analogy isn't good.
What do you mean by "matter"? really? Is it important?
Morality is merely a set of rules that society has developed that go ...[text shortened]... ve another human being of a life then this is contrary to our society's growth and health.
Laws are a set of rules that society has developed to govern our behavior, which is why laws are always changing. I also disagree with this:
It is ingrained that when we deprive another human being of a life then this is contrary to our society's growth and health.
Throughout human history we have been depriving other humans of life specifically to improve society's growth.
08 Jul 13
Originally posted by EladarI made no claim that the stated beliefs of a majority are "right" simply because they say so.
I don't think that simply because a large group of people thinks something is wrong that it makes that thing wrong.
There was a time in the history of the US where most people believed homosexuality to be wrong. Did that make homosexuality wrong?
Why is killing another human wrong?
Seems to me that one could argue that it is right since you should h ...[text shortened]... ef of right and wrong on this issue on your belief in evolution. I find that very interesting.
No reasonable person doesn't believe in evolution. But belief in an ingrained, hardwired Natural Law is not contingent on a belief in evolution; it would come as quite a surprise to Aquinas, Locke, et. al. that is was.
Humans exist in groups and always did. Dog eat dog strategies are counterproductive to the survival of a group. It's impossible to conceive of a stable group existing where members of it were able to kill each other with impunity.
08 Jul 13
Originally posted by EladarEnslaving other human beings used to be viewed by a majority of the world's population as a proper way. Even groups of people who were enslaved often did not object morally.
I don't think that simply because a large group of people thinks something is wrong that it makes that thing wrong.
There was a time in the history of the US where most people believed homosexuality to be wrong. Did that make homosexuality wrong?
Why is killing another human wrong?
Seems to me that one could argue that it is right since you should h ...[text shortened]... ef of right and wrong on this issue on your belief in evolution. I find that very interesting.
The Bible records the history of God's chosen people as enduring hundreds of years of slavery before being freed.
The morality/immorality of things changes as the practices are examined and argued by philosophers, legislators, and religious practitioners as well as common people.
08 Jul 13
Originally posted by normbenignThat's historical bunk. Slave rebellions were utterly commonplace and every slave society was only able to exist by huge expenditures of force. The idea that slaves morally acquiesced to their slavery is utterly ahistorical.
Enslaving other human beings used to be viewed by a majority of the world's population as a proper way. Even groups of people who were enslaved often did not object morally.
The Bible records the history of God's chosen people as enduring hundreds of years of slavery before being freed.
The morality/immorality of things changes as the practices ar ...[text shortened]... and argued by philosophers, legislators, and religious practitioners as well as common people.