Morality, Religion and Atheism

[IVC]

Then we get into the concept of right and wrong. This is a human construct because ultimately what is right and wrong is dictated by the society in which a person exists.

What if we live in the same society, say US, but we disagree on this human construct? Who wins? And, more importantly, if we cannot define a homogenous society that agrees on values, can a concept of morality even exist? If everyone does what they like, a hedonism approach, what's the place for "good" or "bad" if one can simply say "what you see as bad I see as good?"

Since inception the US was based on Judeo-Christian values and morality. Then, a segment of society used "moral relativism" to evade the religious moral constraints and used the first amendment to enforce their choice. As this segment grew, they realized that it would be very convenient to be able to declare their "moral relativism" as "the morality" and enforce it on other people. Now, they don't even understand that when Christians are fighting for their rights under protection of the first amendment, they are actually fighting against being forcefully converted.

For example, look at the word "marriage." It's just a word. It has been hijacked by part of the society to mean something that it doesn't. At least not to a huge segment of the population. Why not simply acknowledge that the word means different things to different groups of people? Why try to force a "new and improved" (sarcasm) meaning on everyone, as if the group who redefined the word has the authority to define the language? More specifically, why is it a problem if a group of people think that homosexuality is a sin and another group thinks it's a virtue? And it clearly IS a problem because anyone who dares to violate "the new moral norms" is viciously attacked, not unlike heretics of the past.

[bugsy714]

[bugsy714]

Morality, Religion and Atheism

Watch what I do here

Some sick FUX built some Catholic churches and then abused a bunch of children all over the world. Upon the discovery of this information by the diocese the priests were moved to a new area to abuse more children under the banner of Catholicism/Christianity

[bugsy714]

See above


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IVC]

Not lamenting anyone's acceptance, merely pointing out that different groups of people can disagree about what is and isn't moral, so the dominant group cannot force their view of morality on the minority.

What you're doing is condoning the version of reverse-discrimination, which is actually the point I'm making. It's a fundamentalist approach towards the people who are different, where you justify the persecution by simply saying that they are a minority. And "the different" in this case are the religious people who don't accept your version of neo-morality.

I don't think you thought this one through...

[IVC]

Some sick FUX built some Catholic churches and then abused a bunch of children all over the world. Upon the discovery of this information by the diocese the priests were moved to a new area to abuse more children under the banner of Catholicism/Christianity

I don't think anyone with moral compass has ever said that this was virtuous or that it wasn't a sin. People doing people things is sort of the idea behind having a moral compass so that the society can tell when something is going astray.

Having a moral compass doesn't mean going in the direction of the needle at all times. It just means there is a direction to which the needle points so one can know the direction in which a road leads, whether he decides to take that road or not.

[1911RONIN]

Watch what I do here

Some sick FUX built some Catholic churches and then abused a bunch of children all over the world. Upon the discovery of this information by the diocese the priests were moved to a new area to abuse more children under the banner of Catholicism/Christianity

1. Priest sexual abuse is ghastly.

2. On your view, there is nothing actually wrong with child sexual abuse. You only believe it is wrong based on the fact that it disrupts social harmony. And if society decided that there was nothing wrong with sex abuse, then, on your view, it would become right.

3. Implicating Christianity for the gross misconduct of some priests, when sexual perversion is explicitly forbidden by the Bible and church teaching, is at best an oversimplification and at worse a straw man. The foundation of Christian thought is predicated on moral failure, which is dealt with through the cross. The presence of hypocrisy is not a doctrinal failure, but a failure of character.

4. On the objectivist view, the moral code is what it is even if no one follows it. Again, hypocrisy does not nullify the code; 2+2 would still equal 4 even if everyone had the wrong answer. Unless mathematics is also socially constructed on your view.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Gundiver]

Watch what I do here

Some sick FUX built some Catholic churches and then abused a bunch of children all over the world. Upon the discovery of this information by the diocese the priests were moved to a new area to abuse more children under the banner of Catholicism/Christianity

[BAJ475]

This applies to 1911Ronin too.
Both of you apparently misunderstand me. Refer to my earlier statement, "..society at some point agreed on a set of guidelines (for lack of a better term) in which we can peacefully coexist." Society essentially dictates morality. Whether or not religion had any influence on it is irrelevant. But to answer your question, it is possible for someone to believe that killing me or or my family isn't wrong. Obviously, society has agreed that is morally wrong.(At least in the US and amongst our close allies) Now, if someone deemed it right and had intent to harm me or my family, I in turn will find it morally right to defend myself even at the cost of killing said person(s). Others may disagree and say the taking of a life under any circumstance is immoral.. so again I say, subjective. And I repeat religion and (good) morals ARE NOT mutually exclusive.

I do not know if you were misunderstood but I think we are on the same page. As Samuel L. Jackson said in Rules of Engagement, WTMFs. It is irrelevant to me whether my conduct is deemed moral or not by others.

[bugsy714]

[bugsy714]

I don't think anyone with moral compass has ever said that this was virtuous or that it wasn't a sin. People doing people things is sort of the idea behind having a moral compass so that the society can tell when something is going astray.

Having a moral compass doesn't mean going in the direction of the needle at all times. It just means there is a direction to which the needle points so one can know the direction in which a road leads, whether he decides to take that road or not.

[theLBC]

Watch what I do here

Some sick FUX built some Catholic churches and then abused a bunch of children all over the world. Upon the discovery of this information by the diocese the priests were moved to a new area to abuse more children under the banner of Catholicism/Christianity

did you know there is another religion with much more abuse that you probably have not heard about?

all religion is flawed because all men are flawed.

[CAL.BAR]

I, too, do not believe in god. But you would find me a very moral person. Religion is not necessary.

Nailed it! The question for the OP is why do YOU have to be TOLD by someone else what YOUR morals (and behavior) should be? Especially when those "morals" come from such an ancient and apocryphal source.

Read, study, live and experience and figure our for YOURSELF what is right and what is wrong and how to live a just and moral life without creating an unprovable story about devine beings etc.

[bugsy714]

Morality, Religion and Atheism

1. Priest sexual abuse is ghastly.

2. On your view, there is nothing actually wrong with child sexual abuse. You only believe it is wrong based on the fact that it disrupts social harmony. And if society decided that there was nothing wrong with sex abuse, then, on your view, it would become right.

3. Implicating Christianity for the gross misconduct of some priests, when sexual perversion is explicitly forbidden by the Bible and church teaching, is at best an oversimplification and at worse a straw man. The foundation of Christian thought is predicated on moral failure, which is dealt with through the cross. The presence of hypocrisy is not a doctrinal failure, but a failure of character.

4. On the objectivist view, the moral code is what it is even if no one follows it. Again, hypocrisy does not nullify the code; 2+2 would still equal 4 even if everyone had the wrong answer. Unless mathematics is also socially constructed on your view.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bugsy714]

Not lamenting anyone's acceptance, merely pointing out that different groups of people can disagree about what is and isn't moral, so the dominant group cannot force their view of morality on the minority.

What you're doing is condoning the version of reverse-discrimination, which is actually the point I'm making. It's a fundamentalist approach towards the people who are different, where you justify the persecution by simply saying that they are a minority. And "the different" in this case are the religious people who don't accept your version of neo-morality.

I don't think you thought this one through...