|
Post by Lone Wanderer on Mar 12, 2019 17:37:34 GMT
A point refuted a thousand times, commonly abbreviated as PRATT, and called a canard outside of this website, refers to a point or argument that has literally been refuted so many times that it is not worth bothering with. Religious exampleReligion is required in order for a person to be moral/There is no morality without GodIf this were anywhere near true, the world would be in chaos as a fairly sizable 16% of the world's population has no religion. That's nearly 1 in 6 people who would happily murder the other 5, including you because they lacked any form of morality — this just doesn't stack up to observed evidence. Secular humanism has established several non-religious moral codes, and biologists and psychologists have tracked various evolutionary pathways for why we act in (what we define as) a moral manner. Perhaps most importantly, statistical analysis (rates of murder, adultery, rape, theft, etc.) shows that non-religious folks behave no less morally than those who have found religion (or had it hammered into them since childhood). rationalwiki.org/wiki/Point_refuted_a_thousand_times
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 12, 2019 17:52:59 GMT
I think there's a confusion we've been having for many years. We say that "there's no morality without religion, because without any certain ethical institutions there's no obedience, redeem, consciousness (as a synonym to self-morality)", but this and all alike interprets would be wrong.
Here's mine. People need order, and for make an order we use some common principles for many people. It doesn't matter how those order is set in different types of nations/tribes/groups/classes of people, it's important that those principal are held and that there are some people which control it.
Any principle is useful. We can claim whatever we want. Marquise de Sade, for example, had some weird tastes and he claimed such-and-such rules for his relatives and friends in his castle. Rules may various, but however some rules are required in almost every situation to calm down people, to control them, to decrease unknown and unfamiliar situations, and, finally, this is all done for setting some principles as a foundation.
After a time, those principles become too familiar for people; they are get used to them, and can't left them easily. And people try to make those principles sacred for not allow anyone to spoil them, or ruin them. People watch the principles and control the other for obedience to the rules.
The obedience to those principles or rules is what we're calling our ethics, or what we consider as our morality in the current time.
Hence, religion is just an institute which controls those principle considering them sacred.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Mar 12, 2019 19:35:25 GMT
A point refuted a thousand times, commonly abbreviated as PRATT, and called a canard outside of this website, refers to a point or argument that has literally been refuted so many times that it is not worth bothering with. Religious exampleReligion is required in order for a person to be moral/There is no morality without GodIf this were anywhere near true, the world would be in chaos as a fairly sizable 16% of the world's population has no religion. That's nearly 1 in 6 people who would happily murder the other 5, including you because they lacked any form of morality — this just doesn't stack up to observed evidence. Secular humanism has established several non-religious moral codes, and biologists and psychologists have tracked various evolutionary pathways for why we act in (what we define as) a moral manner. Perhaps most importantly, statistical analysis (rates of murder, adultery, rape, theft, etc.) shows that non-religious folks behave no less morally than those who have found religion (or had it hammered into them since childhood). rationalwiki.org/wiki/Point_refuted_a_thousand_timesIts not just no morality without God, but no logic either. Proven quite easily by how you claim that the topic is not worth bothering with, and then you bother with it vigorously. Immoral people realize that they need to keep up a pretense of morality, until they get an easy opportunity. The world is in a state of chaos, and has always been. Some have survived in nations which have a rich Christian heritage, and live coddled lives behind various forms of neo-apartheid immigration walls. They, who have survived due to the terrible sacrifices of ww1 and ww2, then pretend 'that was a long time ago', and 'it cannot happen again' whilst their drones and mercenaries murder silently under immoral laws like 'war on drugs'. Its not that the murder is always unjustified either, because immorality always leads to population explosion and various slaughters are always one way or another a consequence of this. The 3rd world is not entirely innocent. The real tragedy is that those who have benefited the most from Christianity now smugly hide behind its fortress, and reject the very code of ethics which gave them that position of privilege and power. They claim to have morality without that heritage and refuse to acknowledge that the source of that morality comes from the Christian tradition. All the while gaining from the neo-slavery of 'illegal immigration', and rigged exchange rates; which are the twisted consequences of the power attained by the somewhat noble victories in ww1 and ww2. Its a situation, that has clear consequences. See Germany, Russia and France from the 19th and 20th centuries as the classic examples. But for those who cannot acknowledge the value of the narrative gospel for the last 2000 years, even in purely 'secular' terms, 'history' will only ever be propaganda towards egotistic short-term gains of the individual id. As it is, survival of the fittest, shows that Christian nations survive better than the rest. There is no clearer socio-economic indicator than this. But sinners will do anything to protect their immoral egos which are based on some or other fetish, whether sodomite, or prostitution, or both.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 20:30:53 GMT
A point refuted a thousand times, commonly abbreviated as PRATT, and called a canard outside of this website, refers to a point or argument that has literally been refuted so many times that it is not worth bothering with. Religious exampleReligion is required in order for a person to be moral/There is no morality without GodIf this were anywhere near true, the world would be in chaos as a fairly sizable 16% of the world's population has no religion. That's nearly 1 in 6 people who would happily murder the other 5, including you because they lacked any form of morality — this just doesn't stack up to observed evidence. Secular humanism has established several non-religious moral codes, and biologists and psychologists have tracked various evolutionary pathways for why we act in (what we define as) a moral manner. Perhaps most importantly, statistical analysis (rates of murder, adultery, rape, theft, etc.) shows that non-religious folks behave no less morally than those who have found religion (or had it hammered into them since childhood). rationalwiki.org/wiki/Point_refuted_a_thousand_timesCouldn't agree more, I am a firm believer that humanity inherently is prone towards goodness. Myself as a freethinker concludes that capitalism, resources and other factor places the actions of humans towards the contrary. Morality is based upon freedom and reasons. Freedom is to be found only in rational action. Moreover, whatever is demanded by reason must be demanded of all rational beings, hence rational action cannot be based on an individual's personal desires but must be action in accordance with something that he can will to be a universal law. Religion is crowd control, it preaches more hate than love. Differentness rather than harmony. The biggest evil is the means of forgiveness, that adhering to some religious rituals sins would be casted away
|
|
PISTON1246
Full Member
Posts: 361
Likes: 90
Ethnicity: I HAVE ANCESTORS OF DIFFERENT SKIN COLOR AND EYE COLOR AND I MET SOME OF THEM WHILE THEY WERE STILL LIVING
Politics: REGISTERED VOTER
Religion: ISLAM
|
Post by PISTON1246 on Mar 12, 2019 21:34:04 GMT
SOMEONE CAN CLAIM TO BE RELIGIOUS WHILE COMMITTED MURDER AND THEFT AND RAPE AND ADULTERY AND OTHER SINS.
SOMEONE CAN CLAIM THEY ARE NOT RELIGIOUS WHILE WANTING TO AVOID COMMIT SINS THAT A RELIGION IS AGAINST ACCORDING TO THAT RELIGION'S AUTHORITY BOOK.
I DID NOT CLAIM TO BE A MUSLIM BEFORE I STARTED STUDYING IT AND AGREEING WITH THE QURAN.
SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH WHAT ISLAM IS FOR EXAMPLE ARE POTENTIALLY FUTURE MUSLIMS.
IT IS A REQUIREMENT IN ISLAM THAT A MUSLIM BE A MUSLIM BY FREE CHOICE. THE QURAN DOES NOT ALLOW AND IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY EXPRESSES POLICY AGAINST FORCING NON MUSLIMS TO BECOME MUSLIMS.
IN THE TIME WE ARE GIVEN BEFORE THE LAST DAY WHEN EVERYONE WILL DIE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT CURRENTLY MUSLIM CAN BECOME MUSLIM TO AVOID ETERNAL PUNISHMENT FROM ALLAH FOR NOT BEING A MUSLIM AND DYING AS A NONBELIEVER.
ALLAH ALONE KNOWS THAT DAY AND THE HOUR. WE DO NOT KNOW HOW MUCH TIME WE HAVE LEFT TO ACCEPT THE GUIDANCE UNTO THE RIGHT PATH.
SO WHAT KEEPS THE SO CALLED NON RELIGIOUS PERSON FROM COMMITTING MURDER? ASK THEM.
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Mar 12, 2019 23:44:11 GMT
Show me a moral nation that was without religion for 100 years. There never was one. There is a lag between the loss of religion and the loss of morality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 0:47:18 GMT
I'm amused by the religious people who perceive themselves morally superior. The essence of hypocrisy.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Mar 13, 2019 1:18:18 GMT
To act morally doesn't just require the wish to be moral. If you find yourself in an environment that is thoroughly corrupted, trying to act moral may earn you nothing but grief, and be seen as an act of weakness by your fellow man. At best, you'd be pacified, at worst, you'd allow yourself to be corrupted as well. Knowing that there is a power out there, whether Earthly or divne, that secures justice in the end, is exactly what allows those who wish to be moral, to overcome their sense of powerlessness, and try to act moral, despite the dire circumstances. If you were certain that no such power existed, that evil would always prevail, then your desire for ethical standards would come to naught. Instead of trying to fight for what's right, you'd sink down into depression and apathy. This is why hardcore atheists may offer a visiion of some utopia, where everything is fair and just, and we're all living in harmony with each other. It could be a futurists claiming that technology will somehow create the perfect society, or some ideologues who profess to know how to enforce freedom, euality, and brotherhood for all. The idea of an Earthly utopia is, by itself, a religion, and appeals to our intrinsic faith in that evil is ever only temporary, and all will be made right in the end. If you acknowledge that the pursuit of an Earthly utopia is not just futile, but historically proven to cause suffering on a monumental scale, then religion remains as the only way by which to believe that good is destined to defeat evil. If you refuse to let yourself be corrupted in an environment where there is no power structure to uphold justice, then a religious faith may be what keeps you from falling into despondence and despair.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 1:25:40 GMT
If the only thing that prevents the individual from being an asshole is fear of the punishment, then such person is an asshole anyway.
If the only thing that convinces the individual to help those in need is hope that God will see it and will give some additional points during the Judgement Day, then such person is an asshole.
In both cases above what drives the individual is egoism and dreaming about ending up in a paradise. Not actual empathy. That kind of morality is garbage.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Mar 13, 2019 5:21:41 GMT
I believe secular humanism is subject to moral decay because it must adopt moral relativism, and I believe it shows very well in many societies today especially the UK and the US.
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Mar 13, 2019 5:42:24 GMT
If the only thing that prevents the individual from being an asshole is fear of the punishment, then such person is an asshole anyway. If the only thing that convinces the individual to help those in need is hope that God will see it and will give some additional points during the Judgement Day, then such person is an asshole. In both cases above what drives the individual is egoism and dreaming about ending up in a paradise. Not actual empathy. That kind of morality is garbage. Have you ever trained a dog? The dog's trainer is real, the dog learns by reward and punishment, and the resulting "morality" of the dog is real.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 5:52:59 GMT
If the only thing that prevents the individual from being an asshole is fear of the punishment, then such person is an asshole anyway. If the only thing that convinces the individual to help those in need is hope that God will see it and will give some additional points during the Judgement Day, then such person is an asshole. In both cases above what drives the individual is egoism and dreaming about ending up in a paradise. Not actual empathy. That kind of morality is garbage. Have you ever trained a dog? The dog's trainer is real, the dog learns by reward and punishment, and the resulting "morality" of the dog is real. Are you a dog?
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Mar 13, 2019 5:57:16 GMT
I have 84% of my DNA in common with dogs. In terms of intellect, most people are closer to dogs than to me. May God train them to behave.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 5:58:13 GMT
I have 84% of my DNA in common with dogs. In terms of intellect, most people are closer to dogs than to me. May God train them to behave. Let me ask one more time. Are you a dog?
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Mar 13, 2019 6:01:26 GMT
Let me ask one more time. Are you a dog? So I say no and then you say that what I wrote doesn't apply which is nonsense as my previous post explains.
|
|