The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-01-2015, 11:23 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(19-01-2015 11:11 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-01-2015 09:31 AM)DLJ Wrote:  My point is that it's probably not a good idea to persuade people with a faulty (divine command) epistemology that there are no moral laws before making the case that moral laws / goals / decisions should be based on process and facts rather than hearsay and rumour (e.g. revelation).

Why do you think it's not a good idea to persuade these sorts of people there is no moral laws, at least not initially?

Seriously?

Look at the damage they do when they do think there are moral laws!

Fuck knows what it would be like if they start to think there would be no eternal punishment / finite # of virgins etc.

Let's teach them critical thinking before we let them think for themselves.... please!

Sadcryface

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2015, 12:11 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(19-01-2015 11:02 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(19-01-2015 10:29 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  If evolution compels me to do something...

You don't understand evolution, do you...

Evolution ingrains behaviors that help survival. It's the reason why I want to hump any attractive person with boobs and a vagina.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2015, 04:33 PM
The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(19-01-2015 07:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-01-2015 11:52 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  This is one of the big issues I have with religion and religious beliefs. It operates under the assumption that as long as it adheres to the commandments of its god, then it is doing the right thing. The Nazis thought the same thing.

The sort of commandment in consideration here is different than the one you have in mind. You are considering a different question, then the one the entire post revolves around.

You're considering the question of how religious beliefs, traditions, and in particular religious scriptures influence our perception of what is right.

But the question I'm interested, is the role of religions in making us perceive that we are obligated to do what is right. Or in essence the only religious command in question here, is the commandment to do what is right, to do what is good. This commandment is independent of how each individual perceives what is right or not. In fact religious people who have different ideas of what is right, still believe they are commanded to do what is right.

An analogy would be, moral disputes among religious people, is akin to lawyers arguing over an interpretation of law, to do what is good. They presuppose a law, and then proceed to interpret what the good course of actions would be. And since this belief is so predominant, and incapsulates the moral perceptions of most people currently and historically, our moral discourse tends to see itself as a part of this sort of dispute.

In fact when unbelievers, who believes there is no eternal moral law, partake in the moral discourse, they in essence participate as another lawyers in this courtroom, they benefit from the fact that all parties perceive themselves as obligated to do what is right, to do what is good.

They don't tend to be individuals who declare that there is no eternal moral law, that creates an obligation to be good, so why are we even arguing about this? They don't declare that the entire courtroom is based on a sham, even if at some level they might believe it is.

You've taken this topic onto an entirely different tangent.

The nazis believed they were doing what is right too, it doesn't make it so.

Unbelievers don't benefit from the "morals" of religion, religions benefit from the morals of society.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
19-01-2015, 04:41 PM
The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
Unless of course you can demonstrate that this eternal moral code and code-giver exist.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2015, 02:10 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(19-01-2015 04:41 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Unless of course you can demonstrate that this eternal moral code and code-giver exist.

doesn't he need to coherently define what his terms mean first ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2015, 07:00 AM
The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(20-01-2015 02:10 AM)Ace Wrote:  
(19-01-2015 04:41 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Unless of course you can demonstrate that this eternal moral code and code-giver exist.

doesn't he need to coherently define what his terms mean first ?

Also something to add to the list.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2015, 08:20 AM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2015 08:27 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(19-01-2015 04:33 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Unbelievers don't benefit from the "morals" of religion, religions benefit from the morals of society.

The morals of societies historically have been built on religious beliefs, even those perceptions might not belong to any one particular religion, such as concepts like inalienable rights, which is even explicitly stated as ones endowed to us by a creator.

If you continue to concentrate on what different people find good, right, or wrong, you'll be avoiding the point being made. The OP is not about this. It's not about what is good, but the very idea that we are obligated to live in accordance to it, to be moral, to do what is good, what is just, etc...

It's the aspect in the background, explained in my courtroom analogy, that there's this fundamental belief, that we have intrinsic obligations to do what is good, perceived as an eternal law. This has served as the foundational aspect, and perspective of moral claims, and beliefs for a millennia, and often stated explicitly so, as in the Declaration of Independence, by Rev. King, etc...

This aspect has never been reimagined or replaced. While atheists might not believe in such a thing, they benefit from being able to participate in a forum where everybody else does, allowing them to be a part of a moral dialogue.

Quote:Unless of course you can demonstrate that this eternal moral code and code-giver exist.

The only thing that matters here, is the belief in its existence, more so than its actual existence, and how this belief has shaped our moral perceptions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2015, 09:02 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(20-01-2015 08:20 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-01-2015 04:33 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Unbelievers don't benefit from the "morals" of religion, religions benefit from the morals of society.

The morals of societies historically have been built on religious beliefs, ...

Let me stop you right there. Can I have a citation for this assertion?

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
20-01-2015, 09:05 AM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2015 09:12 AM by Ace.)
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(20-01-2015 08:20 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-01-2015 04:33 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Unbelievers don't benefit from the "morals" of religion, religions benefit from the morals of society.

The morals of societies historically have been built on religious beliefs, even those perceptions might not belong to any one particular religion, such as concepts like inalienable rights, which is even explicitly stated as ones endowed to us by a creator.

If you continue to concentrate on what different people find good, right, or wrong, you'll be avoiding the point being made. The OP is not about this. It's not about what is good, but the very idea that we are obligated to live in accordance to it, to be moral, to do what is good, what is just, etc...

It's the aspect in the background, explained in my courtroom analogy, that there's this fundamental belief, that we have intrinsic obligations to do what is good, perceived as an eternal law. This has served as the foundational aspect, and perspective of moral claims, and beliefs for a millennia, and often stated explicitly so, as in the Declaration of Independence, by Rev. King, etc...

This aspect has never been reimagined or replaced. While atheists might not believe in such a thing, they benefit from being able to participate in a forum where everybody else does, allowing them to be a part of a moral dialogue.

Quote:Unless of course you can demonstrate that this eternal moral code and code-giver exist.

The only thing that matters here, is the belief in its existence, more so than its actual existence, and how this belief has shaped our moral perceptions.

religious beliefs are the outsource f morality ?
your saying we should simply believe it ? all your saying is we should have faith and not question it, that is unacceptable!!!!!!!11 give us evidence that actually backs up your claim because in history there hasn't been a moral act that couldn't be done without any religious belief


well here's a simple question, why do you believe anything ? whats the point ?
the only reason people believe anything is so it can guide there actions, correct beliefs produce desirable outcomes while wrong ones fail to do so
why do oyu believe that you need to breath oxygen to live ? you believe to stay alive and it has been shown to be true

watch this entire video and try to rebut anything in it if you can since you obviously ignored it when I first posted it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDi7_4BcvTg

we have no intrinsic obligation to do good, got it, we never did,
even the notion of do not kill is held simply because groups that didn't adhere to those went extinct due to loss of population and thus reduction genetic diversity among other factors, while groups that did adhere to them did survive

all this means is that whatever people did in ancient times and said was right was only considered that way because it facilitated their SURVIVAL

there is no such a ****ing thing as an inalienable right, rights are nothing more than what a person is allowed to do in a group, there really is nothing more to it and those are decided to by the group,
the only criteria anything is labeled good or evil is by the affect it has o the survival and success of the group
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2015, 09:18 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(20-01-2015 08:20 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-01-2015 04:33 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Unbelievers don't benefit from the "morals" of religion, religions benefit from the morals of society.

The morals of societies historically have been built on religious beliefs, even those perceptions might not belong to any one particular religion, such as concepts like inalienable rights, which is even explicitly stated as ones endowed to us by a creator.

If you continue to concentrate on what different people find good, right, or wrong, you'll be avoiding the point being made. The OP is not about this. It's not about what is good, but the very idea that we are obligated to live in accordance to it, to be moral, to do what is good, what is just, etc...

It's the aspect in the background, explained in my courtroom analogy, that there's this fundamental belief, that we have intrinsic obligations to do what is good, perceived as an eternal law. This has served as the foundational aspect, and perspective of moral claims, and beliefs for a millennia, and often stated explicitly so, as in the Declaration of Independence, by Rev. King, etc...

This aspect has never been reimagined or replaced. While atheists might not believe in such a thing, they benefit from being able to participate in a forum where everybody else does, allowing them to be a part of a moral dialogue.

Quote:Unless of course you can demonstrate that this eternal moral code and code-giver exist.

The only thing that matters here, is the belief in its existence, more so than its actual existence, and how this belief has shaped our moral perceptions.

Religions have benefited in the sense that the morals that religion thinks it is putting words to, precede religion and are more in-line with basic instincts of life. It did not originate any morals, and it isn't necessary for defining morality (religion has also clearly defined immoral things, like the proper way to treat one's slave instead of saying "you can't own people").

As for it only being necessary to believe it exists (this innate moral commandment to "do good"), it simply isn't. There is no actual reason to believe it does exist. The fact that some people throughout history have found a way to lead moral lives within their religion, no more validates the morals of religion than the ability of humans to navigate the oceans when they thought the Earth was flat validates the idea that the Earth is flat.

Humans have believed, followed, and worshipped some clearly flawed ideas throughout our history. That fact doesn't validate them as true or even that they are likely to be true, it means more simply that we have managed to do good in spite of our errors (religions).

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: