Should any religious body be the sole moral authority?

[Cryssie]

I have a few questions. And not rhetorical or sarcastic questions, real questions that I wish for someone to give clear and serious explanations on:

If God does not exist, where did these widely accepted ideals such as murder being wrong come from, especially when the result of a certain frowned-upon action would not truly have an effect on the population at large?

A species that tended towards killing each other willy-nilly probably wouldn't last long. And yet we have! But no, really, I mean if the majority of individuals tended towards killing people.

I don't see any reason why we would suddenly all think "oh, there are enough of us that it won't make a difference if I kill a few - murder time!"

What drove man to determine these specific morals, if man even made them?

See above. It's a sort of group will-to-live thing.

Why is it that someone who thinks mass murder is right is clearly messed in the head?

Because apparently their sense of morality is violently at odds with the base morals of the rest of us, and because if they don't have that basic "killing is bad" instinct, they're something of an anomaly.

By the way, by your reckoning, if someone thinks mass murder is right, what drove them to determine that? God? Or is it perfectly okay to put this one in particular down to humans?

And most importantly: why do people feel guilt if moral is determined by man? If it wasn't determined by man, how could evolution give us guilt?

Do something that negatively affects you/your immediate peers/your species and you may feel bad. If you feel bad after doing something, you should feel discouraged from doing it next time. So you should do it less, species benefits from it, you all thrive and everything is peachy.

At least, that's the best I can explain it. There are probably better words.

 

[opaltiger]

Well, in Wicca (or just paganism in general), different people practice differently. Some use very formalized rituals, some informal or spontanious. Some not even at all.

So not every religion is like that.

My meaning wasn't that rigid. Yes, I am aware there are variations within religions, variations among how deeply people practice religion - but at the core, there is a set of beliefs, a set of memes, if you will, that provides an umbrella under which all the religion's followers belong. Extending this analogy, atheists are all the people not under any umbrella.

What drove man to determine these specific morals, if man even made them?

If we are nice to others, they are nice to us. Win-win! :D If we are not nice to others, they are not nice to us. Lose-lose. :(

For a more in-depth explanation, see The Selfish Gene.

And most importantly: why do people feel guilt if moral is determined by man? If it wasn't determined by man, how could evolution give us guilt?

I have no idea what you mean by the first question. Morality is not consciously determined by man in many cases; it is largely biological. I scratch your back, you scratch mine. Let me ask you this: do you believe that, before religion even existed, people had no morality and were murdering each other left and right?

As for your second point, evolution "gave" us nothing. Evolution is not conscious. Evolution does not want anything.

 

[GameFreakerZero]

The downside to atheism is that there are no set morals of any kind; since there's no God to judge us, everyone sets his own standards, and so having a society devoid of religion wouldn't be society at all; if you think killing someone is okay, then it's okay.

Gees guys, why don't you have some immaterial bully in the sky dictating how you should live your life with the threat of eternal torment if you think otherwise!? You're so immoral.

I choose my morals with logic and reason, not fear and superstition. Seriously, if someone needs an omnipotent guy in the sky threatening them with eternal punishment to realise "killing people is bad", I fear for humanity.

What right would they possibly have to boss you around when the only rule is your rule? Pure atheism would result in anarchy and chaos.

No shit Sherlock, atheism isn't a political system and doesn't have a philosophy to follow. Stop assuming atheism is meant to be used as a theocracy; it isn't a religion.

Oh, and by the way.

Spoiler: life

If you live under a democratic system, you're currently living with secular laws decided by some dudes in Parliament, hopefully without the need to look in a Bible for help.

 

[see ya]

The downside to atheism is that there are no set morals of any kind; since there's no God to judge us, everyone sets his own standards, and so having a society devoid of religion wouldn't be society at all;if you think killing someone is okay, then it's okay. If you think stealing is okay, it's okay. And of course, who put the country's leaders in authority? Or the police? Or your school teachers? What right would they possibly have to boss you around when the only rule is your rule? Pure atheism would result in anarchy and chaos.

Aw jeez, really?

Why do we need some invisible sky-daddy to tell us that killing is bad? Isn't that kind of common sense? Even atheists see murderers as highly sick, disturbed individuals who don't belong in society. Same goes for stealing. Being known as a thief cripples a person's place in society and loses respect, which is a dire thing for such a social species like Humanity.

Social Authority =/= Religious Authority. Religious authority is intangible, and really only enforced by the Honor System. Social authority is something that we can see, and that, by following, we avoid damaging our reputations and getting in serious trouble. All a Christian has to do is ask God for forgiveness for disobeying him, while disobeying a Police Officer could result in jail time or even death.

And, repeat after me: Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is NOT a religion. Atheism is NOT A FUCKING RELIGION. Atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in a deity. It has no official philosophy behind it, and definitely no style of ruling. In fact, most countries have a form of government based on secular principles. This includes the United States of America. And besides, countries run by Theistic principles are usually downright ugly. Just look at the Dark Ages. Or the modern state of most of the Middle East. Not pretty.

Note: I have nothing against Christianity. I just hate it when people say stuff like this.

 

[nyuu]

The downside to atheism is that there are no set morals of any kind; since there's no God to judge us, everyone sets his own standards, and so having a society devoid of religion wouldn't be society at all; if you think killing someone is okay, then it's okay. If you think stealing is okay, it's okay. And of course, who put the country's leaders in authority? Or the police? Or your school teachers? What right would they possibly have to boss you around when the only rule is your rule? Pure atheism would result in anarchy and chaos.

Le'sigh~ let's dissect this argument

The downside to atheism is that there are no set morals of any kind; since there's no God to judge us, everyone sets his own standards, and so having a society devoid of religion wouldn't be society at all; if you think killing someone is okay, then it's okay.

umm... no? I'm an atheist. I've never gone to any sort of church, don't believe that there is an almighty being watching me, and yet I still have morals, fairly strong ones too. Among other things, Killing is generally Not Okay; as is stealing.

You have an even lower opinion of our race than I do if you honestly think the only thing keeping people from doing whatever the hell they want (and I'll point out you think that what all people would rape kill and steal endlessly unless there were social pressures against it - seriously, what?) is god watching over their shoulders.

People figured out a while ago that quality of life goes up if there are a few basic rules on property - don't take other people's things, such as their possessions or life.

And of course, who put the country's leaders in authority?

are you suggesting world leaders are appointed by god

Or the police? Or your school teachers? What right would they possibly have to boss you around when the only rule is your rule? Pure atheism would result in anarchy and chaos.

shut up. not believing in a higher power doesn't mean that you are incapable of listening to authority or following orders
edit: also, I do have some issues with listening to most school teachers. I probably still would if I was religious.

See, I don't need to believe in god to understand that it's a bad idea to do everything on a whim without considering how it affects others. do you?

 

[Dannichu]

Uuh, just to comment on an issue raised last page, about there not being a downside to universal atheism:

I think cultures and societies are what they are today because of the different beliefs, traditions and values people hold. If you took the core values and traditions away, I think that society would be far, far worse off for it.
Living among people with different values to yourself forces you to look at things another way and from another person's point of veiw. Why do people believe the things they do? Why do people do the things they do? What is it about them and how they think that makes them who they are?

I absolutely despise John Lennon's Imagine. Taking away all the things that make people different and special is never going to bring peace or happiness. It's respecting and celebrating people's differences that brings people closer together.

 

[Harlequin]

Being different for difference's sake is a bit silly.

 

[#1 bro]

there are a bunch of groups of people on this planet, certain groups think certain things are true. either one of these groups is right, or none of these groups are right. there is no way more than one of these groups is right. sometimes these groups fight about who's right, most of the time they don't.

wouldn't it be great if we could find out which group (if any) is right? we'd all agree! :D

 

[Dannichu]

Who cares which one is "right"? The Azande tribe out in Africa believe that everything bad that happens is because one of her/his neighbours is practicing witchcraft on them. They've believed that for thousands of years and it's as much as part of their culture as things like luck and chance are to ours.

If you would honestly destroy that whole system of belief and tradition because you think they're "wrong" for believing it, you're just as bad as the Christians who spent thier lives destroying the culture, history and custom of the Native Americans because they were "simply savages who didn't know any better".

This attitude of "but it's okay if I harass and insult people about what they believe in because I'm right; they only have to see it and then they'll be grateful!" is incredibly similar to the "I'm a good Christian trying to convert the filthy atheists so they won't go to hell! I'm saving their souls!" attitude you hate so much.

Just respect the fact that others see things a little differently to the way you do. We don't all have to agree; the only thing we need to do is accept that people believe different things to you. Why is that so hard for you?

 

[EvilCrazyMonkey]

The downside to atheism is that there are no set morals of any kind; since there's no God to judge us, everyone sets his own standards, and so having a society devoid of religion wouldn't be society at all; if you think killing someone is okay, then it's okay. If you think stealing is okay, it's okay. And of course, who put the country's leaders in authority? Or the police? Or your school teachers? What right would they possibly have to boss you around when the only rule is your rule? Pure atheism would result in anarchy and chaos.

re: no morals:
I am an atheist. I have morals. bitch i win 8)
This is rather simple: we have morals. That's possible, by the way.
re: anarchy:
Um, just no. We live in a democracy (at least i do in fagmerica); people are elected into office. And no, not by Jeebus.

No true Christian believes they are perfect; the Bible clearly states that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Also, the Bible states that being such a zealot (such as killing people just because they are sinners) is wrong, so they aren't actually doing it in the name of God.

As for the authority part, God's rule IS to follow our leaders. The Bible says that such people DO have authority over us and we are to follow them as long as they don't contradict God's pre-set laws (for example, if the President declared a law that said "go kill your neighbor," we wouldn't follow it). God is not an anarchist; in fact, He created society.

God's rule is to follow our leaders as long as they follow God.
Yeah, okay. And

Spoiler: life

no, he didn't

.

If God does not exist, where did these widely accepted ideals such as murder being wrong come from, especially when the result of a certain frowned-upon action would not truly have an effect on the population at large?

Morals came from guilt. Guilt is the general feeling that it's bad when you cause suffering among others for your gain, or just in general.
By the way this can happen without a deity.

What drove man to determine these specific morals, if man even made them? Why is it that someone who thinks mass murder is right is clearly messed in the head?

Even if man made morals, why did he determine them. Again: yeah, okay.
As others have said, those people that go "lol killing is fun" don't use logic to find that those people could be important, like they could change the country in a good way or invent something useful.
And are you suggesting that people that agree with mass murder are actually the same as everyone else?

And most importantly: why do people feel guilt if moral is determined by man? If it wasn't determined by man, how could evolution give us guilt?

Because of psychology. The moral of the individual determines when he will or will not feel guilt. As Vlad said, some sociopaths don't feel guilt because they have a disease.

 

[see ya]

Who cares which one is "right"? The Azande tribe out in Africa believe that everything bad that happens is because one of her/his neighbours is practicing witchcraft on them. They've believed that for thousands of years and it's as much as part of their culture as things like luck and chance are to ours.

If you would honestly destroy that whole system of belief and tradition because you think they're "wrong" for believing it, you're just as bad as the Christians who spent their lives destroying the culture, history and custom of the Native Americans because they were "simply savages who didn't know any better".

This attitude of "but it's okay if I harass and insult people about what they believe in because I'm right; they only have to see it and then they'll be grateful!" is incredibly similar to the "I'm a good Christian trying to convert the filthy atheists so they won't go to hell! I'm saving their souls!" attitude you hate so much.

Just respect the fact that others see things a little differently to the way you do. We don't all have to agree; the only thing we need to do is accept that people believe different things to you. Why is that so hard for you?

I agree with this....to a point.

Remember that some of these alternative beliefs cause serious harm to other people (IIRC, anyone accused of witchcraft in the African tribe you mentioned is either beaten, killed, or banished to live with other "witches", never to see their loved ones again), and what you're saying is dangerously close to "Well, if they want to throw a random, unsuspecting three-year old girl into an active volcano every couple of weeks to appease the Sun God, we have to respect that, because if you have a problem with filicide in the name of religion, you're a bigot."

I'll accept that some people believe that, but I'll have a very hard time respecting those beliefs.

 

[EvilCrazyMonkey]

Two problems arise from that, however:
Who draws the line?
Where do we draw it?

 

[Eevee]

Just respect the fact that others see things a little differently to the way you do. We don't all have to agree; the only thing we need to do is accept that people believe different things to you. Why is that so hard for you?

Because when people see things differently, they tend to suppress their women and force their children to do hard labor and murder infidels and subvert civil rights and fly planes into our buildings.

Knowledge is inherently valuable and incorrect knowledge is inherently harmful.

 

[Music Dragon]

Knowledge is inherently valuable and incorrect knowledge is inherently harmful.

Nothing is inherently good or bad. Incorrect knowledge is not inherently harmful.

 

[Harlequin]

No it sort of is, Music Dragon. If you've been taught that to appease the Sun God you have to rape and then sacrifice six year old girls how is that not bad?

 

[Music Dragon]

Oh, that's bad alright, but "incorrect knowledge" doesn't necessarily involve rape and human sacrifice.

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

I don't think we should force atheism onto others.
I mean sure the world would be better if everyone was atheist but it's not gonna happen, and we might not want to do exactly what we complain religious people do to us.

 

[Harlequin]

No, but incorrect knowledge is, well, incorrect. How is being wrong ever a good thing?

 

[Music Dragon]

No, but incorrect knowledge is, well, incorrect. How is being wrong ever a good thing?

(We've been here before, haven't we, Gollum?)

Well, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there whose religious belief keeps them going and makes them happy. As long as these people don't cause anyone any harm (at least not as a result of their religion), believing in God is a good thing, however "incorrect" it may be.

As far as I'm concerned, everything that promotes well-being and causes no harm is more or less good.

 

[#1 bro]

the world would be better if everyone was atheist but it's not gonna happen

I dunno, less and less people are starting to believe in God, and many of those who say they're Christian don't entirely believe (for example, they might still speculate on if there's an afterlife or not). this from three hundred years ago, when you were a witch if you didn't go to church every single Sunday, or from even fifty years ago when we had to add that "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance to show that we were a Christian nation. And apparently the European countries are almost entirely atheist.

Sure, there will always still be some people who are religious, but if, say, 80% of the world is atheist, then those remaining religious folks will be inclined to keep it in the home.