Morality, Religion and Atheism

[1911RONIN]

There is no logic here. Subjectively speaking, you may believe rape is good for you. That doesn't mean I believe rape is good for you. This is due to my set of morals being different from yours. With that said, WE as a society has agreed that rape isn't good for anyone, regardless or race, sex, or creed.

[bugsy714]

[1911RONIN]

Thanks for entertaining my points.

Differences between societies are not vast. You'd be hard pressed to find a culture that believes murder is okay. They may disagree about what kinds of actions are murders, but not disagree about murder being wrong.

In addition, the last paragraph commits the is/ought fallacy. Just because a society is dictating moral beliefs, it doesn't follow that it ought to do so. Morality is about what ought to be done. What is being done, by your lights, does not mean that it ought to be done, or that morality is thus grounded.

But you also didn't answer my question. Does social harmony being disrupted get at the grave nature of murder?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bugsy714]

[Grobie]

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.
First of all, I assumed when I said "society" it was a given that it was meant as a collection of individuals in a community albeit neighborhood, state, country, etc. considering that is exactly what it's definition is.

From your comments, I gather you believe morals are something that is immovable, unchangeable, and the same across the board.
Morality whether good or bad are inherently up to the individual to determine. But when you have several individuals, i.e. a nation (an example of a society) of people whom, lets say for arguments sake, agree that rape and murder is immoral. Then the consensus in this society is that rape and murder is immoral. Although, you and I are a part of this society we don't necessarily have to agree with the consensus. Let's say I believe murder is moral and rape is bad. You believe murder is bad and rape is good. I believe you have bad morals and you believe I have bad morals. We each believe that our own morals are good. We disagree. Since the consensus is that both are bad, then our society as a whole believe we have bad morals. That doesn't mean we have to agree. It's the consensus that we as a society of individuals have agreed upon. The whole point of this soliloquy is that we as individuals have our own sets of morals that might not always completely align with the society we are members of. I hate to break it to you, but there are already many members in our society who believe gun owners are immoral. It doesn't necessarily make us immoral in society, just in their eyes. Just as many in our society believe homosexuality is immoral. Or that people who don't believe in god are immoral.. You and I can go on and on, but this whole debate has become a moot point. I will reiterate good and bad are subjective to the individual and to society as a whole. Morality is subjective to the individual and to society as a whole. The influence of religion on morality is irrelevant as evidenced by our community here on CG. Many of us are religious and may believe in a different god than others. Many are athiest and do not believe in the existence of god. And many of us are agnostic whom questions the existence of god. Although there are many points of morality we agree on, there are also plenty we may not agree on.

[theLBC]

pretty close imo.

god is the personification of the ideal (alpha).

[Grobie]

I agree. Obviously, religion has influenced our society, my whole point in regards to religion and morality is that they are not mutually exclusive. Some how that went off the rails

[bugsy714]

Thanks for entertaining my points.

Differences between societies are not vast. You'd be hard pressed to find a culture that believes murder is okay. They may disagree about what kinds of actions are murders, but not disagree about murder being wrong.

In addition, the last paragraph commits the is/ought fallacy. Just because a society is dictating moral beliefs, it doesn't follow that it ought to do so. Morality is about what ought to be done. What is being done, by your lights, does not mean that it ought to be done, or that morality is thus grounded.

But you also didn't answer my question. Does social harmony being disrupted get at the grave nature of murder?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PoorRichRichard]

Good stuff here. Tagged for later.

[IVC]

...
What is fascinating is the moral fundamentalism that comes from anti-theists. They have no tincture of skepticism regarding their own moral point of view; that they could be wrong.

This is what I have observed too, and the reason for this thread.

I'm seeing the level of conviction that is sufficient to dehumanize everyone who disagrees with them, likely to the point of complete annihilation, very reminiscent of the same period a 100 years ago in Europe. The "cancel culture" and the "woke mob" are examples of this fundamentalism.

[IVC]

Right or wrong is subjective, just as morality is.

That's the point - outside of religion, which establishes the value system (among other things), any relativism eviscerates morality as a concept.

A person without essentially religious beliefs cannot introduce the concept of morality and cannot justify a system of behavioral restraints because someone else can use similar relativism to introduce a completely contradictory value system. If relativism can be used to escape religious constraints, it can be used to escape any other constraints, whether we call them "moral norms" or something equally fancy.

It's akin to saying that anarchy is a system of very strict laws, but where every person creates his own law. Not something that I would try to frame as a law-based society. Laws are to anarchy what morality is to atheism, or so it seems.

[IVC]

Society as whole, regardless of religious views or lack thereof, has at some point agreed on a set of guidelines (for lack of a better term) in which we can peacefully coexist.

And this would be the source of the today's cultural divide in the USA.

A group of dancers, prancers, jesters, announcers and politicians trying to control "society as a whole" or trying to define some new, non-Christian arbitrary "set of guidelines" that they want to force on the rest of the society.

The meltdown we've seen during Trump years, the TDS, is likely because they had a perception of losing this control to enforce their "values" and "views," a control they really never had. The first amendment is there to protect everyone from these types of people, even if they don't realize they are trying to control the society.

We also see this attempt at control through a small group of people trying to redefine the language. In the online world, if a reputable source chooses to change the definition of a word, it seems to appear to lend the new definition some special authority. In reality, just because someone changed the definition in the free dictionary or thesaurus, it doesn't mean anything for the rest of us. The words such as "marriage" or "gender" come to mind - just because some online sources want to hijack those words, doesn't mean they have the capability.

[IVC]

Something to consider: is human morality derived top-down (moral codes given by a divine or other structure & then we adopt them)? Or bottom-up (naturally part of our social nature & only spelled out by religion)?

Either way it requires some authority that is NOT either "science" or "nature," which seems to rule out atheists as being able to use the concept without violating their own tenets.

[Barang]

Godly based morality is fixed in the hearts of christians around the world. but faithless morality varies in different countries due to customs and traditions.

[Gundiver]

Some sick fugggs believed in something enough to build a child sacrifice temple on Epstein island. I’d say if THEY have a God you damn Better have one too.