Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Morals =\= religion =\= ethics.

That line of discussion just leads to the thread diving way OT.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: it also ignores the point of laws not having religious morals. It is okay for the law to have morals that overlap with Christian morals, as long as the reason for the law isn't "God said so".

It's okay to have a law that says "don't kill" and Christians/Muslims/Atheists/Pastafarians/whatever might all agree that it's a good law. As long as people agree that it is a just law it doesn't matter that it is also a law found in various religious teachings. But that doesn't mean that the law itself is religious or that it should have religious morals.

 Deadshot wrote:
Think about it, if there were no religion why would any crime be considered morally wrong? It wouldn't.

Nonsense. Atheists are no more immoral or amoral than other groups. Furthermore, several animal species exhibit behavior that is comparable to human moral behavior: Reciprocity, altruism and a sense of fairness. Claiming that moral behavior is inherently rooted in religion is wrong.

I envy people who believe in Religion. you get assurance of something after death.

tgjensen wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
Think about it, if there were no religion why would any crime be considered morally wrong? It wouldn't.

Nonsense. Atheists are no more immoral or amoral than other groups. Furthermore, several animal species exhibit behavior that is comparable to human moral behavior: Reciprocity, altruism and a sense of fairness. Claiming that moral behavior is inherently rooted in religion is wrong.

Atheists are raised to know 'right' from 'wrong'. Which, surprise surprise, is based off a religious principal of what is good and evil.

Also, if you read down on that page you'll see something along the lines of "living as individuals makes them more vuonerable to attack." This proves what I was going to say. Working together provides benefits. Security and help finding food and protecting offspring. But also notice that when one male decides to overthrough the Alpha they have no problem following the new Alpha.

 Deadshot wrote:

tgjensen wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
Think about it, if there were no religion why would any crime be considered morally wrong? It wouldn't.

Nonsense. Atheists are no more immoral or amoral than other groups. Furthermore, several animal species exhibit behavior that is comparable to human moral behavior: Reciprocity, altruism and a sense of fairness. Claiming that moral behavior is inherently rooted in religion is wrong.

Atheists are raised to know 'right' from 'wrong'. Which, surprise surprise, is based off a religious principal of what is good and evil.

Or on reasoning. It's pretty easy to demonstrate that a stable society in which people do not have to worry about having everything they own get stolen is beneficial for humanity as a whole without resorting to God Wills It.

 Deadshot wrote:

tgjensen wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
Think about it, if there were no religion why would any crime be considered morally wrong? It wouldn't.

Nonsense. Atheists are no more immoral or amoral than other groups. Furthermore, several animal species exhibit behavior that is comparable to human moral behavior: Reciprocity, altruism and a sense of fairness. Claiming that moral behavior is inherently rooted in religion is wrong.

Atheists are raised to know 'right' from 'wrong'. Which, surprise surprise, is based off a religious principal of what is good and evil.

Also, if you read down on that page you'll see something along the lines of "living as individuals makes them more vuonerable to attack." This proves what I was going to say. Working together provides benefits. Security and help finding food and protecting offspring. But also notice that when one male decides to overthrough the Alpha they have no problem following the new Alpha.

Religious principal of good and evil, problem with that is religious principals of what is good and evil are not what the common people often figure. Do not kill? That's fine, Do not worship a false idol on principle of death? Not so much.

I had figured all of that was just based off the old Babylonian codes of ethics and not an actual religious based law, or just simply enough that people had enough common sense rather then needing to be "Told" to be good or bad.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

tgjensen wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
Think about it, if there were no religion why would any crime be considered morally wrong? It wouldn't.

Nonsense. Atheists are no more immoral or amoral than other groups. Furthermore, several animal species exhibit behavior that is comparable to human moral behavior: Reciprocity, altruism and a sense of fairness. Claiming that moral behavior is inherently rooted in religion is wrong.

Atheists are raised to know 'right' from 'wrong'. Which, surprise surprise, is based off a religious principal of what is good and evil.

Also, if you read down on that page you'll see something along the lines of "living as individuals makes them more vuonerable to attack." This proves what I was going to say. Working together provides benefits. Security and help finding food and protecting offspring. But also notice that when one male decides to overthrough the Alpha they have no problem following the new Alpha.

Religious principal of good and evil, problem with that is religious principals of what is good and evil are not what the common people often figure. Do not kill? That's fine, Do not worship a false idol on principle of death? Not so much.

I had figured all of that was just based off the old Babylonian codes of ethics and not an actual religious based law, or just simply enough that people had enough common sense rather then needing to be "Told" to be good or bad.

Its not common sense though. Common sense would be to remove any and all threats to your life, security, money, children, etc. Which in modern day means nuking enemy countries. What is common sense is not nuking Russia or its allies because then you get nuked back.

Good and evil, or right and wrong, are flexible. What one person sees as totally fine, another sees as an affront beyond reason.

 Deadshot wrote:
Atheists are raised to know 'right' from 'wrong'. Which, surprise surprise, is based off a religious principal of what is good and evil.

Do you realize that some people apostatize precisely because of the divide between what they feel is good and what their religion preach is good? Certainly their sense of what is good and what is evil does not come from religion.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
Atheists are raised to know 'right' from 'wrong'. Which, surprise surprise, is based off a religious principal of what is good and evil.

Do you realize that some people apostatize precisely because of the divide between what they feel is good and what their religion preach is good? Certainly their sense of what is good and what is evil does not come from religion.

Good. That is a clear choice they've made. But using terms like good and evil is still wrong. All they have done is decide "I believe I should do X, but avoid Y." But the fact is that much of what they believe in still comes from religion in some way or other.

 Deadshot wrote:
But the fact is that much of what they believe in still comes from religion in some way or other.

Keep telling you this if that makes you sleep better at night, it will not make it true.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
But the fact is that much of what they believe in still comes from religion in some way or other.

Keep telling you this if that makes you sleep better at night, it will not make it true.

If the person had never been raised to know what we know is right and wrong, they would not question it. If someone was forced to survive from childhood, they would see killing or theft as a simple necessity, nothing wrong with it. But raised by parents you are taught that it is wrong to steal and kill, and even when you think about it like you say, they still carry those views over.

And thanks, but I sleep like a babe all night. I frankly couldn't give a monkey's what you believe as long as you believe in the truth.

 Deadshot wrote:
If someone was forced to survive from childhood, they would see killing or theft as a simple necessity, nothing wrong with it.

And you are so sure of this because?

 Deadshot wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
But the fact is that much of what they believe in still comes from religion in some way or other.

Keep telling you this if that makes you sleep better at night, it will not make it true.

If the person had never been raised to know what we know is right and wrong, they would not question it. If someone was forced to survive from childhood, they would see killing or theft as a simple necessity, nothing wrong with it. But raised by parents you are taught that it is wrong to steal and kill, and even when you think about it like you say, they still carry those views over.

And thanks, but I sleep like a babe all night. I frankly couldn't give a monkey's what you believe as long as you believe in the truth.

If that was true, communities wouldn't have sprung up before religion, which would mean that Religion wouldn't have come about because there's no point in sharing that viewpoint with others.

The Aztec religion was strongly in favour of killing.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
If someone was forced to survive from childhood, they would see killing or theft as a simple necessity, nothing wrong with it.

And you are so sure of this because?

Logic and common sense. If someone spent their entire life killing so they might survive, why would they suddenly see killing as a bad thing if we brought them to court? Why would they even ask a question such as "Is this morally wrong?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
But the fact is that much of what they believe in still comes from religion in some way or other.

Keep telling you this if that makes you sleep better at night, it will not make it true.

If the person had never been raised to know what we know is right and wrong, they would not question it. If someone was forced to survive from childhood, they would see killing or theft as a simple necessity, nothing wrong with it. But raised by parents you are taught that it is wrong to steal and kill, and even when you think about it like you say, they still carry those views over.

And thanks, but I sleep like a babe all night. I frankly couldn't give a monkey's what you believe as long as you believe in the truth.

If that was true, communities wouldn't have sprung up before religion, which would mean that Religion wouldn't have come about because there's no point in sharing that viewpoint with others.

Communities are an extension of packs or family groups. And as noted, there is safety in a group. Over time as our higher intelligence developed we started asking (frankly dumb) questions like "where did the world come from?" And based on our ancestors limited knowleddge (ie, no Big Bang or ability to study fossils) we concluded that someone must have made it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Aztec religion was strongly in favour of killing.

Sacrifice to a God? Right? I'm not completely familiar with it but I understand they favoured human sacrifice. In which case it would have been justified as an offering to god, therefore, in their eyes, morally right. Which is opposite to a predominantly Christian society, where their God says "No killing" and so its morally wrong




Woohoo! 10, 000 posts! .

Another religion thread kicking off?

Sacrifice to a God? Right? I'm not completely familiar with it but I understand they favoured human sacrifice. In which case it would have been justified as an offering to god, therefore, in their eyes, morally right. Which is opposite to a predominantly Christian society, where their God says "No killing" and so its morally wrong

So long as it's a religious rule, it's what matters over all else for "good and evil"?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Sacrifice to a God? Right? I'm not completely familiar with it but I understand they favoured human sacrifice. In which case it would have been justified as an offering to god, therefore, in their eyes, morally right. Which is opposite to a predominantly Christian society, where their God says "No killing" and so its morally wrong

So long as it's a religious rule, it's what matters over all else for "good and evil"?

Yes. Where else does it come from? Good and evil are flexible concepts. Every religion has its own idea. Islam believes that eating pork is a sin (evil) whereas Jews believe they must be circumcised (for reasons I'll never comprehend, but is considered good). And as mentioned, the Aztecs believed it was ok to kill if the body was offered to the gods. Think about it, where would YOUR concepts of good and evil and right and wrong come from if not religion?

 Deadshot wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Sacrifice to a God? Right? I'm not completely familiar with it but I understand they favoured human sacrifice. In which case it would have been justified as an offering to god, therefore, in their eyes, morally right. Which is opposite to a predominantly Christian society, where their God says "No killing" and so its morally wrong

So long as it's a religious rule, it's what matters over all else for "good and evil"?

Yes. Where else does it come from? Good and evil are flexible concepts. Every religion has its own idea. Islam believes that eating pork is a sin (evil) whereas Jews believe they must be circumcised (for reasons I'll never comprehend, but is considered good). And as mentioned, the Aztecs believed it was ok to kill if the body was offered to the gods. Think about it, where would YOUR concepts of good and evil and right and wrong come from if not religion?

Basic psychology and sociology.

Seriously man, do some reading. Someone already sent you a link to a relevant wiki. God and religion are not necessary for the evolution of morality. You sound like somebody espousing what he overheard about moral subjectivity from standing outside a philosophy class for sixteen year olds and leaving halfway through.

EDIT:- I just accessed your profile and realised that my above description is actually probably not too far off the mark, so I apologise for my tone above. I do seriously recommend that you do some reading if you want to debate this sort of thing though.

 Deadshot wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Sacrifice to a God? Right? I'm not completely familiar with it but I understand they favoured human sacrifice. In which case it would have been justified as an offering to god, therefore, in their eyes, morally right. Which is opposite to a predominantly Christian society, where their God says "No killing" and so its morally wrong

So long as it's a religious rule, it's what matters over all else for "good and evil"?

Yes. Where else does it come from? Good and evil are flexible concepts. Every religion has its own idea. Islam believes that eating pork is a sin (evil) whereas Jews believe they must be circumcised (for reasons I'll never comprehend, but is considered good). And as mentioned, the Aztecs believed it was ok to kill if the body was offered to the gods. Think about it, where would YOUR concepts of good and evil and right and wrong come from if not religion?

You probably should've used some better structure here, as now all I can think is you stating that Jews believe Pork needs to be circumcised

But regardless of the fact, many societies never used religion for the basis of their laws, typically one such can believe that "What is good for the self is good for all", such as freedom, or "What is evil is that which harms us" which is another obvious factor, along with the thoughts of general sociology and mental psychology.

I love that you can give people religious stuff in public schools unless it isn't the right religion and then all the toys get thrown out of the pram.

 Ketara wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Sacrifice to a God? Right? I'm not completely familiar with it but I understand they favoured human sacrifice. In which case it would have been justified as an offering to god, therefore, in their eyes, morally right. Which is opposite to a predominantly Christian society, where their God says "No killing" and so its morally wrong

So long as it's a religious rule, it's what matters over all else for "good and evil"?

Yes. Where else does it come from? Good and evil are flexible concepts. Every religion has its own idea. Islam believes that eating pork is a sin (evil) whereas Jews believe they must be circumcised (for reasons I'll never comprehend, but is considered good). And as mentioned, the Aztecs believed it was ok to kill if the body was offered to the gods. Think about it, where would YOUR concepts of good and evil and right and wrong come from if not religion?

Basic psychology and sociology.

Seriously man, do some reading. Someone already sent you a link to a relevant wiki. God and religion are not necessary for the evolution of morality. You sound like somebody espousing what he overheard about moral subjectivity from standing outside a philosophy class for sixteen year olds and leaving halfway through.

EDIT:- I just accessed your profile and realised that my above description is actually probably not too far off the mark, so I apologise for my tone above. I do seriously recommend that you do some reading if you want to debate this sort of thing though.

You will also note that I responded to that link. Reading just a few lines more reveals that those primate societies likely evolved such a system because there is benefit to a large group; less chance of attack, more eyes to find food, help rearing offspring. I would also direct you to where I say that in those societies, a primate has no issue killing off the Alpha male and taking over if he feels it would benefit him.

I also seriously recommend you take a step back and realise that age is not a factor in this at all. I don't take philosophy, but I don't need to to have my own views on how the world works. The way I see the world makes a hell of a lot more sense than what you seem to think. Animals, which humans are, kill each other when they feel it benefits them. So why are we different? Because a religion took over the world and made everyone think its wrong. Its not wrong, its disadvantageous because you go to jail. The whole concept of morality and right and wrong are illusions created by religion. Socioxlogy doesn't come into it because you are looking at societies already indoctrinated in religious values. It runs so deep that you can't even realise that it has infected you. And when I say you I mean it in a general sense.

Tell me, why do you believe its wrong to kill someone? Answer me that and let's change things up because this is becoming repetitive.

What is this one religion that took over the world?

I can totally think of it. It's gotta be them darn pagans with all their gods dicking over humans and all. Eh nevermind. Ah! Gotta be those Judaism that took over... nevermind pretty small. Christianity! It did pretty well world wide. Then again it really didn't do all too hot with certain places and never really was a big thing in much of Asia... Islamic faith? Not really. Buddhism, Shintoism, Confu, etc? Huh, seems like there isn't this nebulous religion that took over the world now is there

 Deadshot wrote:
You will also note that I responded to that link. Reading just a few lines more reveals that those primate societies likely evolved such a system because there is benefit to a large group; less chance of attack, more eyes to find food, help rearing offspring. I would also direct you to where I say that in those societies, a primate has no issue killing off the Alpha male and taking over if he feels it would benefit him.

So? People commit crimes when they feel it is advantageous to them, too. Even people who are intimately familiar with religious laws and who we'd expect to be morally upstanding members of society, like priests sexually abusing children. The point, as you acknowledge, is that basic morality can evolve naturally in social animals. Thus it can exist without religion. It is hardly a wild leap to imagine that if animals of basic intelligence like apes and dogs can develop basic moral systems, then animals of higher intelligence like ourselves can develop more complex moral systems.

Killing someone is wrong because it upsets the status quo of the society we live in. Each of us, as individuals, are able to realize that we're better off if we as a group, through overwhelming force, stop people from killing each other, because it means the odds of yourself being killed are greatly lessened. The difference between us and animals is that we can think rationally and realize that what our instincts tell us isn't always the optimal solution. Religion doesn't factor in to it at all.

 Deadshot wrote:

Tell me, why do you believe its wrong to kill someone? Answer me that and let's change things up because this is becoming repetitive.

It isn't wrong to kill people. There are plenty of circumstances where killing a person or group of people is the best response to that circumstance. Right and Wrong are just words used to describe complex philosophical points. There is no absolute right and wrong, just as there is no such thing as good and evil.

The point being made is that one can align ones moral compass to any set of values; those value sets do not in any way have to be religious in nature. For the vast majority of people who do not ascribe to a mythical belief system, "right" and "wrong" are determined by a social empathy which we share with a fair number of other animals which, as far as we know, do not believe in a great fuzzy creature in the sky.

 StarTrotter wrote:
What is this one religion that took over the world?

I can totally think of it. It's gotta be them darn pagans with all their gods dicking over humans and all. Eh nevermind. Ah! Gotta be those Judaism that took over... nevermind pretty small. Christianity! It did pretty well world wide. Then again it really didn't do all too hot with certain places and never really was a big thing in much of Asia... Islamic faith? Not really. Buddhism, Shintoism, Confu, etc? Huh, seems like there isn't this nebulous religion that took over the world now is there

Illuminati! Can't you see sheeple! Can't you SEEEE!!!!!!

Consider this- most religions have serious injunctions against killing wantonly and randomly- some exceptions call for it in ritual circumstances, but generally it is contraindicated. These religions originated thousands of miles apart and were seperated by centuries.

With all that in mind, is it not possible that the desire not to kill the members of your tribe is a necessary prerequisite for community, and is common to all civilizations? And this is expressed in all religions because those religions were made by communities that already shared the common idea that it is bad to kill your nominal allies?

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Sacrifice to a God? Right? I'm not completely familiar with it but I understand they favoured human sacrifice. In which case it would have been justified as an offering to god, therefore, in their eyes, morally right. Which is opposite to a predominantly Christian society, where their God says "No killing" and so its morally wrong

So long as it's a religious rule, it's what matters over all else for "good and evil"?

Yes. Where else does it come from? Good and evil are flexible concepts. Every religion has its own idea. Islam believes that eating pork is a sin (evil) whereas Jews believe they must be circumcised (for reasons I'll never comprehend, but is considered good). And as mentioned, the Aztecs believed it was ok to kill if the body was offered to the gods. Think about it, where would YOUR concepts of good and evil and right and wrong come from if not religion?

You probably should've used some better structure here, as now all I can think is you stating that Jews believe Pork needs to be circumcised

But regardless of the fact, many societies never used religion for the basis of their laws, typically one such can believe that "What is good for the self is good for all", such as freedom, or "What is evil is that which harms us" which is another obvious factor, along with the thoughts of general sociology and mental psychology.

That bacon needs cut yo! Has to be done!

Such as? America? They had Christian founders remember? Britain?

SilverMK2 wrote:I love that you can give people religious stuff in public schools unless it isn't the right religion and then all the toys get thrown out of the pram.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 Deadshot wrote:
They had Christian founders remember?

Not really. Some of them were Christians, but many of the important ones were deists who based their morality and ideas about government on secular principles. And we have explicit statements, both from those founders and in legal documents, that the US was explicitly not a Christian nation.

 Deadshot wrote:
If someone spent their entire life killing so they might survive, why would they suddenly see killing as a bad thing if we brought them to court?

They would not wait to be brought in court to understand that it is bad. They may be forced to do it by your random, unexplained assumption, but many people are forced to do things they consider bad to survive.

 Deadshot wrote:
Over time as our higher intelligence developed we started asking (frankly dumb) questions like "where did the world come from?" And based on our ancestors limited knowleddge (ie, no Big Bang or ability to study fossils) we concluded that someone must have made it.

Except this knowledge change nothing. Because who made/what caused the big bang in the first place?
The only difference is our ability to choose reasonable absence of answer (“We do not know yet and maybe we will never know. We can still try though. Let us build a super-telescope that will allow us to see the big bang!”) over unreasonable, unsubstantiated answers (“The great Muhaboudhesus shat the world one morning before going to fight against a C'tan. Now you must please Muhaboudhesus by circumcising pork and killing all the heretics, infidels, witches and homosexuals.”).

 Deadshot wrote:
Which is opposite to a predominantly Christian society, where their God says "No killing" and so its morally wrong

You kidding, right? Predominantly Christian society says “No killing”? Maybe, if you have a list of exceptions orders of magnitude long than the rule .