Is Religion The Root Of All Evil?

Anji:

Religious people do have matching morals and if they don't they obviously aren't following their religion.

Sure they are, they just don't interpret their religion in the same fashion as everyone else. No two people hold the same morals towards everything, religious or not.

Anji:

If everyone is true to the morals, then no because religion won't allow for it.

But we don't live in a perfect "if" society. People go against their morals all the time, and there is no one religion at any rate. Different religious have morals that directly contradict each other.

Anji:

Morals and laws are not universal things.

Something doesn't have to be universal to exist, especially something like morals.

Anji:

Which leads me to believe that you may not be entirely true to atheism.

ok?

Actually...

24.82 is the root of all evil.

*gets coat and leaves*

Kurtni:

Anji:

Religious people do have matching morals and if they don't they obviously aren't following their religion.

Sure they are, they just don't interpret their religion in the same fashion as everyone else. No two people hold the same morals towards everything, religious or not.

And that's where religion fails.

Kurtni:

Anji:

If everyone is true to the morals, then no because religion won't allow for it.

But we don't live in a perfect "if" society. People go against their morals all the time, and there is no one religion at any rate. Different religious have morals that directly contradict each other.

Which is why there must only be one religion which is objectively true.

Kurtni:

Anji:

Morals and laws are not universal things.

Something doesn't have to be universal to exist, especially something like morals.

You keep on missing my point entirely. I'm talking completely objectively. If something is objective, then only one version of it can exist or else it is impossible and completely contradictory. Esecially for morals, they have to be universal to objectively exist or else they cannot exist.

This isn't even belief, or philosophy. This is pure epistomology. It is logic revealing objective truth about morals. I keep on repeating myself, and I have to repeat myself until you come up with an arguement that shows that you understand what I'm saying, completely. I'm sorry, but I don't think you understand.

bjtp:

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.

If you believe in evolutionary morals which are embedded within us, then they are selective traits and without 'God' to select them, they have to be subjective, and are therefore not objective morals. Also, objectively life has no 'purpose' because that implies fate, and fate implies that there is a higher being governing our existance. In an indifferent universe with no higher authority, we have to make our own meaning in life.

*This is where you use Freud to prove your point.*

Anji:

If you believe in evolutionary morals which are embedded within us, then they are selective traits and without 'God' to select them, they have to be subjective, and are therefore not objective morals. Also, objectively life has no 'purpose' because that implies fate, and fate implies that there is a higher being governing our existance. In an indifferent universe with no higher authority, we have to make our own meaning in life.

*This is where you use Freud to prove your point.*

I'm not arguing about whether they are subjective or objective, I don't think that is the point here. The point is that morality comes from within, not from God, or religion. I don't belive there is a 'purpose' in life, other than to pass on my genes to the next generation as successfully as I can.

Anji:

If you believe in evolutionary morals which are embedded within us, then they are selective traits and without 'God' to select them, they have to be subjective, and are therefore not objective morals. Also, objectively life has no 'purpose' because that implies fate, and fate implies that there is a higher being governing our existance. In an indifferent universe with no higher authority, we have to make our own meaning in life.

*This is where you use Freud to prove your point.*

I said that I think what is percieved as core morality evolved via a natural selection-esue process. The need to reproduce, biological responses, instinct to protect oneself, etc.

"Core morality evolved from". I didn't say that's what morality is, that they were objective, that they were subjective, etc.

Personally I fit somewhere inbetween linguisitic emotivism and nihilism. The idea of an objective morality evades me and as such moral statements are meaningless rendering any moral debate a slanging match between opinions which will never cease.

What we percieve as moral statements are expressions of our disgust or approval. Morality is opinion and as per Ayer, Hume etc moral statements are, as we percieve them to be, worthless.

I see no point in moral discussion in the normative sense, therefore no morality in the general sense of the term exists for me, rendering me partially nihilist. I do however, like to express my own personal opinions and judgements on certain topics.

Anji:

I'm sorry, but I don't think you understand.

Perhaps that's because you keep changing what you're saying. When I first replied to you, you said the biggest threat to religion was atheism because morals wouldn't exist. You said nothing about universal morals or objective morals, had you I wouldn't have even started this discussion with you because I don't care about universal or objective morals.

Anji have you ever read 'much ado about nothing'' There's a character in it called Dogberry who to appear nobel uses highly elaborate language however because he does not understand it he only manages to confuse others.

Your argument is sort of coming across like that, you need to remember your audience when discussing......dumb it down

no disrespect to anyone else i just think there's a lack of communication in this debate and it needed to be addressed.

NeoSteph:

Anji have you ever read 'much ado about nothing'' There's a character in it called Dogberry who to appear nobel uses highly elaborate language however because he does not understand it he only manages to confuse others.

Your argument is sort of coming across like that, you need to remember your audience when discussing......dumb it down

no disrespect to anyone else i just think there's a lack of communication in this debate and it needed to be addressed.

Anji's vocabulary isn't the issue, I think we're all smart enough to keep up with her. And besides, if she didn't write like that I'd feel awkward talking to her because she's always talked like that. It's her Anji trademark.

Changing subjects is the problem. I understand perfectly well what she is saying about objective morals, but that wasn't where our initial discussion started.

Anji:

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.

So... all atheists are moral-less, bad people? Because we [or they, I guess] don't believe something? Come on man, you don't need to follow another person's rules to be a good person. I don't really believe in 'God' I just believe that nature controls everything.

I have never been religious, and I must say that I have much better morals than my peers. A higher power has nothing to do with it.

I think we're moving off the point here, from religion, to morals.

What does everyone think about children being brought up in a particular religion? Is that ok with you? Do you think they should be taught theirs is the one true faith? Taught about alternatives? Or allowed to make up their own mind when they are old enough?

bjtp:

I think we're moving off the point here, from religion, to morals.

What does everyone think about children being brought up in a particular religion? Is that ok with you? Do you think they should be taught theirs is the one true faith? Taught about alternatives? Or allowed to make up their own mind when they are old enough?

Children are sponges. Apart from biological instinct (suckling, crying) they learn everything by example. Their personalities and ideas will be shaped by everyone around them, Either they agree and then become similar to their parents or through living that life they disagree and become a little different.

I think including your children in your religion as long as your open to them rejecting it is important because your giving them the option to choose that life. Its all about balance. If your brought up in a catholic household but go to a non segregated school you have a variety of views on religion.

Now on the extreme level, living in a sect and not allowing your child to intergrate into a multi society is damaging and indoctrination in my opinion, you just have to be careful on what exactly you believe a sect to be.

NeoSteph:

bjtp:

I think we're moving off the point here, from religion, to morals.

What does everyone think about children being brought up in a particular religion? Is that ok with you? Do you think they should be taught theirs is the one true faith? Taught about alternatives? Or allowed to make up their own mind when they are old enough?

Children are sponges. Apart from biological instinct (suckling, crying) they learn everything by example. Their personalities and ideas will be shaped by everyone around them, Either they agree and then become similar to their parents or through living that life they disagree and become a little different.

I think including your children in your religion as long as your open to them rejecting it is important because your giving them the option to choose that life. Its all about balance. If your brought up in a catholic household but go to a non segregated school you have a variety of views on religion.

Now on the extreme level, living in a sect and not allowing your child to intergrate into a multi society is damaging and indoctrination in my opinion, you just have to be careful on what exactly you believe a sect to be.

Do you not think that genetics play some role in behaviour? I don't think it can be said that it's 100% nature or 100% nurture for whatever you believe.

Jax.:

NeoSteph:

bjtp:

I think we're moving off the point here, from religion, to morals.

What does everyone think about children being brought up in a particular religion? Is that ok with you? Do you think they should be taught theirs is the one true faith? Taught about alternatives? Or allowed to make up their own mind when they are old enough?

Children are sponges. Apart from biological instinct (suckling, crying) they learn everything by example. Their personalities and ideas will be shaped by everyone around them, Either they agree and then become similar to their parents or through living that life they disagree and become a little different.

I think including your children in your religion as long as your open to them rejecting it is important because your giving them the option to choose that life. Its all about balance. If your brought up in a catholic household but go to a non segregated school you have a variety of views on religion.

Now on the extreme level, living in a sect and not allowing your child to intergrate into a multi society is damaging and indoctrination in my opinion, you just have to be careful on what exactly you believe a sect to be.

Do you not think that genetics play some role in behaviour? I don't think it can be said that it's 100% nature or 100% nurture for whatever you believe.

Genetics affects your physical attributes and how you look determines how you view the world and how the world views you. But apart from exception of mental health. Personality is determined by nurture.

bjtp:

I think we're moving off the point here, from religion, to morals.

What does everyone think about children being brought up in a particular religion? Is that ok with you? Do you think they should be taught theirs is the one true faith? Taught about alternatives? Or allowed to make up their own mind when they are old enough?

I think it's ok to bring kids up with religion, in the end they'll think what they want anyways, not to mention that a lot of family bonding occurs over religious traditions. My family is somewhat religious and I grew up with their customs, but I still formed my own beliefs.

However, I know it doesn't always work out so well. Not everyone has crazy hippie parents like me and religion is forced on people sometimes. So, I think that it can work and be ok, but that just isn't what always happens.

NeoSteph:

Genetics affects your physical attributes and how you look determines how you view the world and how the world views you. But apart from exception of mental health. Personality is determined by nurture.

We should start a thread on Nature vs. Nurture debate.

Kurtni:

bjtp:

I think we're moving off the point here, from religion, to morals.

What does everyone think about children being brought up in a particular religion? Is that ok with you? Do you think they should be taught theirs is the one true faith? Taught about alternatives? Or allowed to make up their own mind when they are old enough?

I think it's ok to bring kids up with religion, in the end they'll think what they want anyways, not to mention that a lot of family bonding occurs over religious traditions. My family is somewhat religious and I grew up with their customs, but I still formed my own beliefs.

However, I know it doesn't always work out so well. Not everyone has crazy hippie parents like me and religion is forced on people sometimes. So, I think that it can work and be ok, but that just isn't what always happens.

NeoSteph:

Genetics affects your physical attributes and how you look determines how you view the world and how the world views you. But apart from exception of mental health. Personality is determined by nurture.

We should start a thread on Nature vs. Nurture debate.

I would be so down for that.

bjtp:

I think we're moving off the point here, from religion, to morals.

What does everyone think about children being brought up in a particular religion? Is that ok with you? Do you think they should be taught theirs is the one true faith? Taught about alternatives? Or allowed to make up their own mind when they are old enough?

I mean I used to go to church every sunday, but then my family got less reigious, and I just decided to be a xcorr atheist.

I mean so I think you can easily make up your mind, it's okay if you're brought up a certain way, it's the parent's choice then.

You know really, what parents should and shouldn't impose on their children could be a whole different discussion too, because there are lots of conflicting ideas on that.

I love how all of our ideas for new threads start in here.

Kurtni:

Anji:

I'm sorry, but I don't think you understand.

Perhaps that's because you keep changing what you're saying. When I first replied to you, you said the biggest threat to religion was atheism because morals wouldn't exist. You said nothing about universal morals or objective morals, had you I wouldn't have even started this discussion with you because I don't care about universal or objective morals.

Universal morals is an implied subject because we are talking about religion and a 'god' or 'gods' who are all imposing. I assumed that because religion is meant to be objectivev, so would its morals.

NeoSteph:

Anji have you ever read 'much ado about nothing'' There's a character in it called Dogberry who to appear nobel uses highly elaborate language however because he does not understand it he only manages to confuse others.

Your argument is sort of coming across like that, you need to remember your audience when discussing......dumb it down

no disrespect to anyone else i just think there's a lack of communication in this debate and it needed to be addressed.

I've studied it. I know my syntax...word-ordering often obscures my meaning, so I am currently taking private lessons to learn how to write more consicely. Believe me, I do only use language to the extent of my understanding, otherwise I obviously would not use it. I study English, and I assume too much. I assume that there is an adaquate level of understanding of simple philosophical theories, and there generally is. I assume that anyone who wouldn't understand my points will research what I am trying to say if they would like to continue to debate with me. I have spent three years so far studying literary geniuses and trying to imitate their concision in their writing and mimicing it, what I write is acutally already stripped the the bare minimum basics of language. I try not to use compunded words, instead try to find root definition words.

When I studied English, I had a teacher who didn't give me enough credit for general knowledge, language, and anything really. Maybe I'm giving too much credit to people on these threads then, I disagree though.

Further discussion should probably be done in the languages thread.