the morality of believers
catefrances
Posts: 29,003
i started this thread cause i didn't want to hijack the atheist morality thread.
it saddens me greatly that people who believe in a God think that because one does not, that it is somehow a flaw on the part of the disbeliever. and that because they dont answer to a higher power that the atheist has no morality.
so i ask you all, do believers have morals? what shapes these morals, if applicable and what makes those believers think that they, as believers, have a monopoly of such behaviour. must one believe in a higher power in order to have morals? why?
it saddens me greatly that people who believe in a God think that because one does not, that it is somehow a flaw on the part of the disbeliever. and that because they dont answer to a higher power that the atheist has no morality.
so i ask you all, do believers have morals? what shapes these morals, if applicable and what makes those believers think that they, as believers, have a monopoly of such behaviour. must one believe in a higher power in order to have morals? why?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
just ask one...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
i don't think so. i think we are all born with a basic understanding of right and wrong, good and bad. it's just a matter of do we want to adhere to these basics or not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aslZN4A6D8I
"The greatest crimes in the world are not committed by people breaking the rules but by people following the rules. It's people who follow orders that drop bombs and massacre villages."
-Banksy
The glamour subdued me
The tabloid untie me
I'm empty please fill me
Mister anchor assure me
That Baghdad is burning
Your voice it is so soothing
That cunning mantra of killing
Steven Weinberg
so true...
...
Do people who do good things for other people and DO believe in God... do good things because they believe God is watching and they will be rewarded with a trip to Heaven?
...
It would seem to me that the person who does good deeds... and expects no rewards... has no conditions (trip to Heaven) tied to their deeds... well, they sound a bit more sincere to me than the person who does good because they want that trip to Heaven. I think you should do good things... whether God is watching or not.
...
But, that's just me.
Hail, Hail!!!
Perhaps yes, but religion has a large impact on what society deems as right and wrong. Look at the laws of a country, how many are derived from religious ideas, look at the ten commandments, not stealing, not killing. To suggest that anything in society can be completley removed from religion as you are doing is arguabley wrong, religion is such an engrained institution within society.
In short, yes morals are learnt through societal conditioning but religion plays a large roll in the history and development of society so you therefore cannot seperate the two as you are.
p.s. I am an athiest, if that matters
ditto, apart from add "and me" at the end.
Religion plays it's exact and perfect evolutionary role at this time.
Developmental psychology recognizes levels of evolution within individuals and cultures, and depending on various stages, our natural human spirituality is represented in vastly different ways (through myths, fundamentalism, natural law, communal webs, and integratively, etc). Our spiritual capacity exists, and how it manifests depends on our worldview and our own personal level of evolution.
Within our evolutionary stages, it's also natural that those who have evolved past formal religion, but who have not resolved their internal conflict and disdain for it, to project that disdain onto natural functions in the real world, taking the inner conflict to be real, objectively. On the other hand, when one resolves such conflict, one is more able to progress towards higher stages of development, that become integrative, where one can see the whole of existence as a harmonious whole, beyond the separation created by inner conflict and fragmentation. At higher stages, one sees the conflict with religion as an illusion. When all is said and done, religion exists for it's exact purposes, across the globe, independent of personal opinion about it.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'm pretty sure killing is wrong in primitive tribes without religions. I'm not sure why it would be right in any society.
IAWTC.
---
London, Brixton, 14 July 1993
London, Wembley, 1996
London, Wembley, 18 June 2007
London, O2, 18 August 2009
London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 31 July 2012
Milton Keynes Bowl, 11 July 2014
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
i think you will find ryan that even primitive tribes have some sort of devotion that could be classed as religion.
one would have to look at where those societal standards come from in the first place. are they the result of hundreds or thousands of years of christianity or islam or are they the result of thousands of years of worshipping the Earth as the Mother of us all? or are societies devoid of any form of devotion at all.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
exactly. for some, that may stem from religion...but more than anything, it is simply from being brought up in a 'moral' household, being brought up with good and bad, etc. morality does NOT have to be tied to religion, although oftentimes it is...but more than anything imho.....social conditioning, which can be influenced by a whole gamut of things. i do not think we are b'orn' with a sense of morality, more like preprogrammed for self-sustainability. so things like not killing others of your species, more than likely linked to survival, not just what is 'right'...i think 'right' has evolved from what is needed/necessary to survive individually and collectively. and hell yes, one CAN be quite 'moral' with or without religion. people who say/think otherwise, simply have their own agenda they're pushing.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
.
.
.
What are morals? Right and wrong? I'm going to make a list of what I think morals are, then I'm going to continue:
Waiting until your married
not stealing
not killing
being considerate
helping others who need it
being kind
not judging people
not committing adultery.
Okay, those are some morals. Here I go:
Some people who call themselves Christians fornicate, commit adultery, steal, act rudely, hurt other people and take advantage of people.
Some atheists do the same.
Some atheist believe people should wait for sex until marriage, are against adultery, don't steal, are kind to people.
It just doesn't matter. It depends on the person. I actually think a lot of people who claim to be Christians are some of the most immoral people around.
:O
Let the flaming of Brisk begin.
(I don't think that sounds completely outrageous, as a euphamism.)
oh brisk. suicide is an unforgivable sin because you can not ask forgiveness once you're dead. therefore God can not forgive you cause you have no way to ask for redemption for the sin you committed.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Oops
There is some degree of morality that is neuronal and biological. I think the field of neuroethics does a good job of pointing this out. With things like mirror neurons that allow us to "walk" in another person's "shoes". With neurology in mind, I don't think killing was ever right, I think it's pretty much always been wrong. But a lot of things are cultural and learned. It's hard to tell what is what anymore.
I think it's mostly utilitarianism.
Earlier you said societal conditional... now it partly has to do with neurological conditioning?? Those are quite different.
Since the question was brought up, I think most basic morals lead to believe that there is some sort of higher being. We are inherently programmed with the knowledge that killing is wrong. Yes, there are exceptions, but that is more or less an accepted truth. The idea of a conscious can be analyzed two different ways. One would be that it is not very evolutionary, to put someone else's needs in front of yours. That is not survival of the fittest, you don't see lions sharing food very often. But on the flip side, maybe learning to co-exist is part of evolution. Doing the right thing, helping people out... using some sort of moral guide. To me, people know the difference between right and wrong. And I don't feel that comes from society, a young boy stranded on an island for 30 years could come back and still know that. We are programmed that way. My personal belief is that it comes from some higher being. But who the hell really knows??
Ahnimus is just looking for the chance hijack the thread by banging on about brain research AGAIN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Many different cultures have had many different gods and deities long before the advent of the bible, the koran, the current "brat pack" if you will.
Had to mention that. Drives me nuts.
The other thing is, um hello? so we are saying that EVERYONE accepts that morally all killing is wrong?
Because I don't agree with that at all.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Read about the cannibal tribes that lived in the highlands of New Guinea. It'll blow your mind. It was learning about the pactices of those people that convinced me once and for all that morality is an entirely social construct that evolves to serve the needs of the culture.
-C Addison
Well, it's no doubt limited to the tribe. I don't imagine they'd eat each other, would they?
They will have rituals, etc. I would consider that, as catefrances said, a 'devotion' of some kind.
I also agree with scubascott when he says 'that morality is an entirely social construct that evolves to serve the needs of the culture'. I believe this to be not only for morality but for religious doctrine as well.
Ahnimus.. you say "I don't imagine they'd eat each other, would they..." I believe I read that some actually do eat their dead (or part of). Just like the ritual of eating the enemy's heart is said to give strength and courage, the eating of bits of the dead had to do with 'keeping them with you'...
Oh and your right...I do have an agenda....think all humans should be treated equally.