Is Religion The Root Of All Evil?

Word Courntney, word! XD

I have just read Richard Dawkins' chapters on morality, and definitely agree that the morals that the religious live by are no more set out by God than those athiests live by.. ~insert 'if God does indeed exist caveat here~, as some Christians now believe that the Bible should not be taken literally, and if it is taken as analogy, then.. by golly, those are some bad role-models.

I always thought that the Bible is supposed to be taken as a metaphor except for those historical parts although you could easily explain that the Jewish people excaped from Egypt because they were sick of being slaves, not because God told them so. Its sad that I had Catholic education in RE classes and yet I still dont know how Catholics feel about it.

We are currently studying The Bible in Croatian class and some things you read arent encouraging at all nor do they support any moral code. I read a psalm in which basically one verse mentions the wish for Babilonian babies to be thrown at rocks (or something between those lines), so much for forgivness...

Stphn Fru:

I always thought that the Bible is supposed to be taken as a metaphor except for those historical parts

How do you decide which is which?

Religion is as evil as the people controlling it make it. Christianity, is at it's heart, supposed to be a religion based on love and brotherhood, so on and so forth. Yet it has been the root cause of more wars, witch hunts, killing, and bigotry then anything.

bjtp:

Stphn Fru:

I always thought that the Bible is supposed to be taken as a metaphor except for those historical parts

How do you decide which is which?

Thats a good question, but I guess by making a comparison with what you study in History class and whats in The Bible... We only mentioned the whole Exodus thing in History (without the magic bush though ) and thats it.

Religion is absolutely not the root of all evil. I've got no problem with religion itself, I'm fascinated by theology and admire anybody with faith.

My problem is with the blindly religious and the ignorant.

The Christian iteration of the bible can be interpreted hundreds of ways and people see that as an excuse to use it to fit whatever agenda they have, be it intentional or just being misled. The same with Muslim scriptures, especially recently. To take these scriptures as the words of Gods and to go as far as to fight over which is thre true religion is just ridiculous.

Kevin Smiths movie Dogma is a brilliant film to watch for anybody interested in religion, lots of Christian scripture referenced and a lot of opinions and material for though in there.

Jax.:

Anji:

Atheism is the biggest threat to all religions in general. I mean, at least most religions follow a similar code which is that there is some sort of supernatural entity which oversees our lives, and religions all have set moral codes to live by. Atheism, though, doesn't. This biggest threat to your morals is not opposing morals, but the suggestion that those morals which you live your life by, fundamentally do not exist, at all.

Just because you're atheist doesn't mean you don't have any morals.

You do have morals, but you don't have 'set moral codes', it's sort of the definition of atheism.

Kurtni:

Anji:

This biggest threat to your morals is not opposing morals, but the suggestion that those morals which you live your life by, fundamentally do not exist, at all.

Well its pretty obvious the morals exist seeing as how millions upon millions of people believe in them. The only thing atheism does is say that the source of those morals is not from some god, but people. Anyone who says they "don't exist" would be very wrong, they exist in the lives of millions.

The biggest threat to religion, in my opinion, is common sense.

But they exist independently. A 'set moral code' does not exist because it is subjective and no one's morals completely match anothers unless you are religious, which is one of the brilliant things about religion. Atheism has the potential for anarchy if it's not for the law, and like the law helps out much anyway. The law is just rules, there is no moral code held by the law which is why many people disagree with certain laws. Morals and laws are totally different things. Laws come of people, and morals come from the independent person, influnced by convention and their society. Therefore, impirical morals don't exist and under no material circumstance, can exist.

Anji:

Jax.:

Anji:

Atheism is the biggest threat to all religions in general. I mean, at least most religions follow a similar code which is that there is some sort of supernatural entity which oversees our lives, and religions all have set moral codes to live by. Atheism, though, doesn't. This biggest threat to your morals is not opposing morals, but the suggestion that those morals which you live your life by, fundamentally do not exist, at all.

Just because you're atheist doesn't mean you don't have any morals.

You do have morals, but you don't have 'set moral codes', it's sort of the definition of atheism.

Utilitarianism is by definiion a secular ethical theory, ie. set of moral codes.

Anji:

Kurtni:

Anji:

This biggest threat to your morals is not opposing morals, but the suggestion that those morals which you live your life by, fundamentally do not exist, at all.

Well its pretty obvious the morals exist seeing as how millions upon millions of people believe in them. The only thing atheism does is say that the source of those morals is not from some god, but people. Anyone who says they "don't exist" would be very wrong, they exist in the lives of millions.

The biggest threat to religion, in my opinion, is common sense.

But they exist independently. A 'set moral code' does not exist because it is subjective and no one's morals completely match anothers unless you are religious, which is one of the brilliant things about religion. Atheism has the potential for anarchy if it's not for the law, and like the law helps out much anyway. The law is just rules, there is no moral code held by the law which is why many people disagree with certain laws. Morals and laws are totally different things. Laws come of people, and morals come from the independent person, influnced by convention and their society. Therefore, impirical morals don't exist and under no material circumstance, can exist.

Just because nobody agrees about moral 'codes' doesn't mean that there aren't independent, objective moral 'codes' in existence somewhere.

Who's to say there isn't an objective morality but some of us are just wrong about it?

Anji:

A 'set moral code' does not exist because it is subjective and no one's morals completely match anothers unless you are religious,

What's your point? Even if only one person has certain morals, those morals still exist. Everyone doesn't have to have identical morals.

And I totally disagree with you about religious people having matching morals. Religious people do not all feel the same about all morals, even within their own faith.

Anji:

Atheism has the potential for anarchy

and religion doesn't?

Anji:

Laws come of people, and morals come from the independent person

They both still exist, regardless of where they come from.

Robbie:

Anji:

Jax.:

Anji:

Atheism is the biggest threat to all religions in general. I mean, at least most religions follow a similar code which is that there is some sort of supernatural entity which oversees our lives, and religions all have set moral codes to live by. Atheism, though, doesn't. This biggest threat to your morals is not opposing morals, but the suggestion that those morals which you live your life by, fundamentally do not exist, at all.

Just because you're atheist doesn't mean you don't have any morals.

You do have morals, but you don't have 'set moral codes', it's sort of the definition of atheism.

Utilitarianism is by definiion a secular ethical theory, ie. set of moral codes.

And I disagree with it. It's a form of consequentialism and the severity of consquences is subjective.

Robbie:

Just because nobody agrees about moral 'codes' doesn't mean that there aren't independent, objective moral 'codes' in existence somewhere.

Who's to say there isn't an objective morality but some of us are just wrong about it?

Not one bit am I denying the existance of objective morality. Infact, as I am religious I should be promoting it, I'm just saying that either one objective moral code exists, or none do. Atheists believe none do because they don't believe in God and a god-like figure is needed to create objective morals in order to eliminate human subjectivity. I'm really just debating for the sake of debating though, I believe in God.

Anji:

Not one bit am I denying the existance of objective morality. Infact, as I am religious I should be promoting it, I'm just saying that either one objective moral code exists, or none do. Atheists believe none do because they don't believe in God and a god-like figure is needed to create objective morals in order to eliminate human subjectivity. I'm really just debating for the sake of debating though, I believe in God.

I'm an athiest, and I believe in objective moral codes. I believe they are innately built into us, and come from evolution.

Kurtni:

Anji:

A 'set moral code' does not exist because it is subjective and no one's morals completely match anothers unless you are religious,

What's your point? Even if only one person has certain morals, those morals still exist. Everyone doesn't have to have identical morals.

And I totally disagree with you about religious people having matching morals. Religious people do not all feel the same about all morals, even within their own faith.

Those morals do not exist objectively. It is essential to realise that no one in the world can escape their own subjectivity therefore no one's own morals are ever objective.

Religious people do have matching morals and if they don't they obviously aren't following their religion. It's like Christian homosexual marriages, completely ridiculous! Religion is meant to be objective therefore everyone must follow the morals of a religion exactly and so have identical morals. It's fantastic conceptually, but religion doesn't take into consideration power, and power or discourse. So people are able to gain power through their religion and when others realise this and are upset because they feel the system is corrupt, they end up disagreeing and forming different sects, changing around the initial morals, but of course, any change to objective morals only really make them rules, nothing more, nothing less. So then you get different types of different religions and all with different morals and ideologies, but still smiliar enough to be recognisable. It's comparable with Marxism. That's how religion enters politics and philosophy. Through the promise of objective morals. So this means that either one religion is correct, or all are wrong.

Anji:

Atheism has the potential for anarchy

and religion doesn't? [/quote]If everyone is true to the morals, then no because religion won't allow for it. Again, this is the brilliant thing, religion allows for complete order and respect and love and peace, everything that the hippies stood for, but it comes at the expense of freedom. The freedom to choose your own morals, to have your own life. So much so that it invents words like 'destiny' and 'god' as abstract concepts which you have no control over.

Atheism has none of it. You make up your own morals. This is why existentialism is the true atheism. There is no objective truth in life. We are alone in an indifferent universe and religious fanatics cannot face that. If we haven't killed ourselves yet, what are we living for. The correct answer if for yourself. So you make everything for yourself, in order to have control and freedom in your own life. This has the potential for people to create conflicting morals which would descend into anarchy eventually. If it wasn't for the law, etc.

Anji:

Laws come of people, and morals come from the independent person

They both still exist, regardless of where they come from.[/quote]NOT OBJECTIVELY! The universe is indifferent, I except you as an atheist to not know believe that, but know that it is true. Morals and laws are not universal things. You really don't like to be pigeon-holed, do you? Which leads me to believe that you may not be entirely true to atheism.

bjtp:

Anji:

Not one bit am I denying the existance of objective morality. Infact, as I am religious I should be promoting it, I'm just saying that either one objective moral code exists, or none do. Atheists believe none do because they don't believe in God and a god-like figure is needed to create objective morals in order to eliminate human subjectivity. I'm really just debating for the sake of debating though, I believe in God.

I'm an athiest, and I believe in objective moral codes. I believe they are innately built into us, and come from evolution.

If they come from evolution then the world must be amoral. If they are written in our evolution, entwined in our DNA, then you tell me, what is the objective moral code for which I must live my life by. I'm all ears.

Anji:

bjtp:

Anji:

Not one bit am I denying the existance of objective morality. Infact, as I am religious I should be promoting it, I'm just saying that either one objective moral code exists, or none do. Atheists believe none do because they don't believe in God and a god-like figure is needed to create objective morals in order to eliminate human subjectivity. I'm really just debating for the sake of debating though, I believe in God.

I'm an athiest, and I believe in objective moral codes. I believe they are innately built into us, and come from evolution.

If they come from evolution then the world must be amoral. If they are written in our evolution, entwined in our DNA, then you tell me, what is the objective moral code for which I must live my life by. I'm all ears.

My personal belief is that core morality evolved from our need to recreate and survive, combined with the innate, visceral reactions to things we see.

I think Bertrand Russell said something like "do you think the feeling inside when we see pain or suffering is just mere opinion?", or to that effect.

post sent twice.

Robbie:

Anji:

If they come from evolution then the world must be amoral. If they are written in our evolution, entwined in our DNA, then you tell me, what is the objective moral code for which I must live my life by. I'm all ears.

My personal belief is that core morality evolved from our need to recreate and survive, combined with the innate, visceral reactions to things we see.

I think Bertrand Russell said something like "do you think the feeling inside when we see pain or suffering is just mere opinion?", or to that effect.

Yeah, I agree with that. The purpose of life is to reproduce, and in order to reproduce, we have evolved a set of principles that help to ensure our survival and, most of these principles are what one would consider morals.. ie- don't kill, don't steal other people's stuff, be kind, etc. Breaking it down to its simplest form. Of course there are exceptions, people who don't follow or agree with the above, certain morals, who's evolutionary purpose we don't yet understand, but I still think that's why we feel like we do, and live as we do.