12 Jun 14
Originally posted by CalJustIts actually not relevant for the thread. All that matters is you consider my belief in the OP to be immoral. Do you then judge my belief to be less rational, or less reasonable, than a belief that is judged by you to be moral.
Maybe it would help if you clarified exactly what YOU mean by "moral".
How do you define morality, and who determines it?
The morality I am referring to in this thread is the concept that doing harm to others without justification is wrong. This can be expanded a little to where not assisting others when doing so will not cost you significantly, is also wrong.
One could go into much more detail, but as I said, its actually irrelevant to the thread.
I realize the word morality can be extended to include social norms or religious beliefs, but I am not using it in that sense in this thread.
12 Jun 14
3 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead<<If I believe that my religion requires me to kill an innocent child, is my belief inherently invalid due to its apparent immorality? Are all those who hold such beliefs in some way less loony than those who hold religious beliefs that do not include the death of innocent children.
Its actually not relevant for the thread. All that matters is you consider my belief in the OP to be immoral. Do you then judge my belief to be less rational, or less reasonable, than a belief that is judged by you to
The morality I am referring to in this thread is the concept that doing harm to others without justification is wrong.
I realize th ...[text shortened]... o include social norms or religious beliefs, but I am not using it in that sense in this thread.
If so, why?>>
I don't agree that your definition of "morality" is irrelevant to this discussion - I believe it is central to it.
I think I know where you are going with this thread. You want to establish that ANY belief that is based on religion rather than rational argument is equally bad, whether that belief consists of murder or merely something like guardian angels.
It is my contention that there are too many "relatives" in your OP and no "absolutes". For example, the words "its apparent immorality" is clearly socially based and relative. Apparent to whom? Again, to the Aztecs the slaughter of babies (I must assume) was NOT "apparently immoral".
Perhaps I am still misunderstanding your point. Clearly (and I would guess that this is not disputed by anybody on RHP) religion makes people do strange, and often very bad, stuff. Remember Boko Haram, Al Fata, et al.Are these actions rational? To the perpetrators, of course they are, otherwise they would not do them. Are they moral? Again, to the perpetrators they are the most moral thing they can do, it will land them in Paradise. To us outside observers, with a different standard for morality, they are obscene.
Sorry, maybe i really don't know what your point is. Perhaps you could elucidate further.
EDIT Just read the title again: Belief vs Morality. Maybe my point is that there is no difference between the two, both are relative to the subject holding them. Belief equals morality, and morality equals belief. Even Rationality is inherent in the belief that somebody holds, although an external party may differ vigorously from both the belief, as well as the morality of an person, and consider such belief irrational.
EDIT 2: Unless, of course , you subscribe to the view that there is an Objective Moral Law, (which applies to us all regardless of what your beliefs are) but I know that you don't.
(You can see that i have time on my hands this morning! 😉. )
12 Jun 14
Originally posted by CalJustI'll give it some thought. But the OP merely requires that you personally judge the action to be 'wrong'. Presumably the believer, believes that in sum total, the action is 'right'.
I don't agree that your definition of "morality" is irrelevant to this discussion - I believe it is central to it.
I think I know where you are going with this thread. You want to establish that ANY belief that is based on religion rather than rational argument is equally bad, whether that belief consists of murder or merely something like guardian angels.
I think you, like freaky, are wrongly assuming that every thread started by an atheist must be an attack on religion and you are trying to jump two steps ahead. Although I like where you are going, so I might just go with it.
However the thread was motivated by the thread "A life saved from the madness" in which divegester (a theist) put Kelly (a theist) on his 'religious loon' list. I thought this was because divegester believes that what Kelly believes is immoral, but it appear that it may be more complicated than that ie Kelly supports the JWs right to hold beliefs that Kelly believes to be immoral and divegester believes Kelly is wrong to do so. Or something like that.
However, if we remove that complexity from the equation, divegester clearly believes that it is OK for him to hold certain religious beliefs, but that a JW holding a religious belief that may lead to the unnecessary death of a child is in some way a 'lesser' belief. I am not really sure what his argument is at all, hence this thread.
Originally posted by twhitehead
I think you, like freaky, are wrongly assuming that every thread started by an atheist must be an attack on religion
Well, isn't it? Otherwise, what's the point?!
Kelly supports the JWs right to hold beliefs that Kelly believes to be immoral and divegester believes Kelly is wrong to do so. Or something like that.
I believe that everybody has the right to believe what they honestly and sincerely believe. IMHO the TRUTH is greater than any of us can conceive, and we should cut each other some slack.
Having said that, there are clear exceptions, and the killing of babies is an obvious example that sends shudders of horror through any sensible person. So somebody, somewhere should make rules that protect society. In the US, a typical example was when the State decided to enforce anti-bigamy laws with respect to Mormons. From THEIR point of view, their beliefs were moral, rational and defensible, but the State decided otherwise. They now (so I understand) submit to this law.
, divegester clearly believes that it is OK for him to hold certain religious beliefs, but that a JW holding a religious belief that may lead to the unnecessary death of a child is in some way a 'lesser' belief. I am not really sure what his argument is at all, hence this thread.
Again, there are many habits, practices, beliefs, that "outsiders" of any belief system think as weird, but not serious enough to try to stop, legally or otherwise. Who was it that said before criticising somebody else, you must first walk for a day in their shoes?
I personally disagree with many doctrines (for example) of the JWs, but I certainly grant them the full right to hold those views. In fact, I would go so far as to say that many of their views (and I am using this just as a example) are logically defensible from both their and our scriptures. If you dig a little deeper down, there is a lot of common ground. The same is true for Buddhism.
And, for that matter, for yr own views as well, which I am sure are based on rational argument from your point of view.
12 Jun 14
Originally posted by CalJustIn this case, discussion, so that I can get a better 'feel' for the ideas involved and also see what other peoples opinions are on the subject.
Well, isn't it? Otherwise, what's the point?!
I believe that everybody has the right to believe what they honestly and sincerely believe.
And I agree with you. I may try to dissuade people from their beliefs by presenting facts or logical argument, but I would not try to force people to change their beliefs, unless as you note, it has a significant negative impact on other people.
Hope I haven't gone too far off topic, but I maybe you understand what I am trying to say.
I think I do, and you are exactly on topic. And I think we are in agreement.
12 Jun 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot relevant. What is important in the question is that the action be considered morally wrong by most observers.
Loaded in what direction?
[b]One, no one is innocent.
Not relevant. What is important in the question is that the action be considered morally wrong by most observers.
Two, there isn't a religion out there which instructs folks to kill people on the basis of innocence.
Again, not relevant. I said nothing about 'on the basis of innocence ...[text shortened]... ll only get confused. And in addition, I said nothing about the whole society sharing my belief.[/b]
You atheists who frequent the Spirituality forum are (without question) a curious lot.
You insist words have meaning, yet--- at every turn--- either redefine them, or otherwise render them meaningless.
What is the purpose of adding the adjective innocent if the term has no relevancy to the conversation?
Furthermore, WHO are the observers?
Those contemporary with the action?
Those who are so far removed from the action as to miss all the connotations of the action?
Does the time/place of the observer have any impact or influence on the action?
Very sloppy thinking, indeed.
Again, not relevant. I said nothing about 'on the basis of innocence', and nothing about a religion being out there that held my belief.
More incredibly sloppy thinking.
The term innocent is not only part and parcel a necessary component of your question, the entire question turns on it!
Additionally, if you don't have a real-life example of a religion which instructs its adherents to kill innocent children, what do you have?
A meaningless fantasy, that's what.
Who has time for that?
You clearly don't know what I mean by 'moral' so I suggest you stay out of the thread as you will only get confused.
Then perhaps you should explain what your meaning of 'moral' is, since the one every one else uses is completely removed from it.
How can anyone help but be confused by such deplorable phrasing and thinking?
12 Jun 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHopefully not you. I did suggest you leave this thread alone. You clearly have no intention of discussing what I wanted to discuss. Whether that is because you didn't understand my OP, or don't want to understand my OP doesn't really matter.
A meaningless fantasy, that's what.
Who has time for that?
12 Jun 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadVigorous.
Hopefully not you. I did suggest you leave this thread alone. You clearly have no intention of discussing what I wanted to discuss. Whether that is because you didn't understand my OP, or don't want to understand my OP doesn't really matter.
That ought to stand examination.
13 Jun 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadreligions don't need to be moral. it is just christian arrogance that claims this, when the bible is filled with immoral crap.
If I believe that my religion requires me to kill an innocent child, is my belief inherently invalid due to its apparent immorality? Are all those who hold such beliefs in some way less loony than those who hold religious beliefs that do not include the death of innocent children.
If so, why?
so no, religions aren't made more or less valid by morality. only more or less attractive. if khali exists, the fact that she demands human sacrifices doesn't make her less valid as a god, her cult less valid. you as a human decide if you value her favor and philosophy more than your moral standards (if you have any) and/or your well being.
13 Jun 14
Originally posted by googlefudgei don't agree.
I'll think about it and get back to you [when I'm more awake].
But I would tend to think that a beliefs moral value is semi independent of it's rationality.
I don't think that a belief that is morally wrong can also be rational.
But I don't think that being morally wrong makes it less rational, just less moral.
4 people of 5 on a deserted island that only have food for 4 people may decide to kill the fifth. i believe that is the rational thing to do, but not the moral thing to do.
13 Jun 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSorry to chip in here, but actually "innocence" of the children has nothing to do with it, and can be considered a red herring.
The term innocent is not only part and parcel a necessary component of your question, the entire question turns on it!
Additionally, if you don't have a real-life example of a religion which instructs its adherents to kill innocent children......
?
If the word "innocent" was left out of the OP altogether, and it just referred to any child being killed, the argument would be unchanged.
Even our laws make allowance for the innocence of any perpetrator younger than a certain age.
13 Jun 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere is a moral law written in our conscience, 'murder is wrong'. There is a difference between killing, as in self defense and war, versus cold blooded murder.
If I believe that my religion requires me to kill an innocent child, is my belief inherently invalid due to its apparent immorality? Are all those who hold such beliefs in some way less loony than those who hold religious beliefs that do not include the death of innocent children.
If so, why?
13 Jun 14
A possible problem with this thread is that I don't think there's agreement on what morality is. If the desirable action is not in conflict with the moral one then there isn't a problem. It's when there is a conflict that morals are relevant. Religions provide a set of morals (for better or worse) and, within their frame of reference and depending on the religion, a human sacrifice would be the moral act.
14 Jun 14
Originally posted by Pudgenik"murder is wrong" is not written in our conscience. we murder all the time. from the rival tribes that "stole" our game to the millions of chikins we kfc every day.
There is a moral law written in our conscience, 'murder is wrong'. There is a difference between killing, as in self defense and war, versus cold blooded murder.
we just adjust our definition of murder and the circumstances in which we allow it. we just found lately that society would be improved if we murder less.