LogFAQs > #949726634

Muscles posted...

I'm not even an atheist and I know morals don't come from a higher power, they were made by people (usually in conjunction with their religion) because it helped keep the species alive. You can't form society without some rules, and well before society came along we still lived in groups, which requires some level of trust to others in the group. Its in the best interest of the group that murder and theft and other such things aren't allowed, religion brings in more variables like ritualistic sacrifice which, while it looks like murder, usually isn't seen that way by the people that do it.

Religion usually pops up for a few reasons, and it's related to morals but not the cause. Hell you can see fucked up morals in most religions because they were started at a time where fucked up stuff (by our advanced understanding) was prevalent in different ways across the world, but they also have good stories on the things they got right.

Well see, here's the thing. You say they were formed by people to help keep people alive. All it would take then is those same people claiming that a woman does not have the right to say no to not only make rape no longer morally wrong, or even morally right, but to make it IMMORAL for a woman to resist. After all, pregnant women lead to higher birthrates which helps a societies population. You can justify murder by claiming that those murdered were a detriment to society and holding society back through their drain on the system. Theft can be justified as the reclamation of goods for the betterment of society or that it's stealing from the wealthy and entitled to help the poor and needy (regardless of any actualities of the situation). You could even justify stealing from the poor to give to the rich because the poor person is a 'detriment to society' while the wealthy is a 'positive boon who helps society'. So no. You are wrong because doing this sort of thing results in those in control of society dictating what is and isn't right and tyrannical rule. We see this throughout history. When a person in charge gets to dictate what is or is not right or wrong, be it religious (like the popes in the Crusades) or atheistic (like Stalin and Mao), the result is a net detriment to society in favor of the elite.

MeteoricBurst posted...

I'd like him to explain how it is humans existed for so long before religion as we know it was formed. Sure you had pagans and stuff but using his logic we should have self destructed long before anything like the Bible. Humans are supposed to be logical creatures and thats what separates us from regular animals. So at some point our ability to use reason would have (mostly) overridden our savagery and it would have become quite apparent that going around murdering/raping/pillaging etc everything in sight was not a recipe for success. We used our cooperative skills to form tribes/nations and the larger they became the more was at stake. Even if you still had wars between rivals, certain behaviour was largely rooted out from inside by laws whether written or not. Because nobody wants their tribe/nation/society they spent time and much effort building up to collapse.

The point is the "moral" codes that we know formed based on observations. Things like religion were then used later to reinforce these ideas along with trying to understand the world/universe at large. As we gained more knowledge about the universe, and continually do, there is less need for that supernatural side of it. And the civic side was/is taught already. There is no reason to be studying religion unless you want to be a scholar in that field. Take a civics class instead.

Well, let's assume for a moment that there is no such thing as a God, moral objectivity, or anything of the sort. I.E. the Atheists are right. We know tribal groups existed with their own common beliefs and ideals but it's very easy for a small group of people to work together without any need for any laws of any sort. The thing is that's only a small group. When you scale it up problems emerge. The oldest civilization we know of (to my knowledge) is the Indus Valley people but, from what I know of them, we barely know anything about them. Egypt is the first society we know of that succeeded on a large scale to my knowledge and it held it's own organized religion from the get-go (as best I know of). Notably said religion also held major differences in what is and is not acceptable as well. However it provided a shared culture, identity, and social structure for all people under Egypt's influence.

Jen0125 posted...

Right? Each culture sets their morals and what is acceptable. It existed before religion and it'll exist after. This isn't the first time I've seen a religious person center the moral universe on a religion.

So then what's to stop a society from saying that a woman has no rights and is immoral if she refuses? That a man can't have as many women he wants as concubines? That theft is wrong? The incest is wrong? That murder is wrong? We've seen cultures and religions which have advocated for such things being morally correct in the past. How can we claim that they were wrong and we were right unless an objective truth can be held about what is and is not right that is beyond the control of man? Do we assume that might makes right? Is the only reason Hitler was wrong about the jews because he lost WWII instead of an objective notion that all life, including human life, holds inherent value and it's wrong to kill someone simply for their race/religion? Are people like Stalin and Kim Jong Un correct in imprisoning people who do not conform 100% to their societal ideals simply because they define what is and is not morally acceptable? Anything can be justified with the claim that it's for the betterment of society, even things like cannibalism (feeding those in need) and, well, anything really.

---

I am the gentle hand who heals, the happy smile who shields, and the foot that will kick your ***! - White Mage