7 ms·

> anything goes, you can be whatever you feel like and there's no judgement of any of your actions Wow, what a terrible take. If anyone needs religion to live

by pkulak 3y ago

> anything goes, you can be whatever you feel like and there's no judgement of any of your actions Wow, what a terrible take. If anyone needs religion to live a moral life, I'm glad they have found it and hope they never lose it. I'm judged by my peers, my family, my community, and my country. But even if I wasn't, I would know what's right and what's wrong. Moreover, I guess it's good that amoral people can find ethics from 2000 years ago (when women were without worth, slavery was acceptable, etc), because maybe that's better than nothing (only maybe!), but can we all start a religion based on everything we have learned since then?

hyperbovine 3y ago
For want of a better expression, amen. We're a couple million child sex abuse scandals past the point of pretending like organized religion has anything remotely resembling a monopoly on "moral" behavior.
ragestorm 3y ago
I hate that take too. If the fear of eternal damnation is the only reason you arent out murdering people, then you are a jerk (in kinder words).
dasil003 3y ago
Yeah, secular vs religious is not any basis for judging a value system. We've certainly seen horrible things done by fundamentalists of all stripes, religious or not! There is a lot of very beautiful religious thought over the millenia, and its very beauty is what enables its abuse by bad actors. We must always judge people as individuals by their actions in context, and never allow any form of ideology (whether religious or not) to be used as a shield against individual scrutiny. Morality is unfortunately not black and white, and the moment we try to make it so, we open the door to the greatest evils.
umvi 3y ago
> But even if I wasn't, I would know what's right and what's wrong. Is it right or wrong to act on homosexual urges? Is it right or wrong to use abortion as a form of birth control? Have your answers to those questions remained consistent your entire life or did they change at exactly the same time they changed for the rest of western society ~20 years ago? If your moral stance has been unwavering, kudos. Otherwise, I would argue you don't actually know what's right and wrong; at least not on the "corner" (aka controversial) cases. For those you simply synchronize your moral compass to society's, which itself is not fixed or absolute (stances on abortion, LGBTQ, euthanasia, capital punishment, etc. have shifted a lot in the past few decades).
- reaperman 3y ago
  > If your moral stance has been unwavering On these topics, yes. I independently worked through the moral questions of capital punishment in middle school, wrote long papers on euthanasia when I was 15. I explored the morality of abortion deeply also in high school, LGBTQ was never a moral question for me at all and I truly don't understand why it is for anyone outside of their religion telling them its bad without any justification. I think people should be capable of exploring these topics deeply at a young age.
- The_Colonel 3y ago
  All of these (apart from abortion as birth control which is IMHO complicated) are very black & white issues. But I don't see a problem when people change their opinions during their lifetime, with new experiences and better understanding. Much better than blindly following some specific dogma.
dxd 3y ago
Ah, moral relativism. I believe there is no way around the idea that without religion, there is no such thing as morality. It all comes down to the question: how do you know what's right and wrong? If you don't have an external moral code, that is, you decide what is right and wrong, then the odds are stacked against you, 1 out of every individual with a unique opinion to ever exist; it is conceited for anyone to believe they are the one. Not even the majority is always correct; at one point in time the majority of the Earth believed slavery was fine, yet today we are so comfortable to say that was evil. I couldn't agree more strongly that it is evil, but what will the majority of society think about our morals in a millennium? Why start "the 21st century popular culture religion" when it is inevitably fallible to time? The only possible solution is an external moral code. That is what the Bible, the Koran, etc... are: absolute right and absolute wrong. If that doesn't exist, why should I believe I'm any better than Hitler? He believed he was right. You wouldn't even be able to reason that murder is evil. Ultimately, there is no other basis for an atheist than: "That's what I feel is right, so that's what I believe." Sidenote: I am a Christian, so I'd like to briefly correct the "(when women were without worth, slavery was acceptable, etc)" phrase pertaining to Christianity solely. At its core, the Bible teaches the very opposite of sexism and racism, however, misconstrued verses and nominal Christians distort the message.
- jurynulifcation 3y ago
  I think your analysis fails at the step where you propose a universalized, objectively correct morality. Please show me the empirical test for this. Or is it just about whether you feel your actions accord with the word of God? Because even then you're just practicing moral relativism and waving your hands at a book composed by fallible humans, all of whom were doing the same, all the way back to before the canons were written. Is it because the book is supposedly divinely-inspired? How do you know the correct divinity inspired the correct people in the correct way? even standing on the soapbox of "well uh uh uh of course my religion is the correct one you smelly heretic" you literally have nothing to go off of except your own feelings and perspective. So, in short, I don't find your position very convincing. Also, if Christians were some sort of uniquely enlightened group with special access to the metaphysical groups of the universe, why do they keep falling into the same patterns of behavior as all the other humans who don't have this divine guarantee? Like, if religion was actually some special basis upon which to erect a human morality, why does it achieve such similar outcomes as every other basis? If it's because "humans are fallible and don't always accord perfectly to the perfect divine plan allocated to them," then, again, how is that exactly non-relativistic? Is it because the book exists as some sort of measuring stick by which to determine the essential goodness of someone? Because even that depends on the fallible interpretation of the interpreter, unless you presuppose some special person who is blessed with divine discernment to determine the actual divinely-approved interpretation. It all ultimately devolves to "you just gotta have faith bro." I do not have faith in an entire group of people thumbing their noses at everyone else like their shit doesn't stink. Antisemitism and hate is literally built into every canonical version of Christianity by way of the Churchfathers. Maybe we should judge Christianity on the outcomes of Christians, instead of on the most compassionate and kindest way they beg us to take their positions. Actually looking at the facts reveals something most priests blush about... we're all equally clueless. The major difference between me and a Christian is that I don't actively look forward to dying, in the hopes I'll get The Good Ending and have an infinitely good time after I've perished in service to people who have an incentive to get me to live my life in service to them.
henry_bone 3y ago
No one needs religion to lead a moral life. That's not the argument. But without the transcendent, without a higher power, we have no grounding for our morality. Everything becomes subjective and "post-modern". Actions then become "justifiable" - if there is such a thing - by whatever criteria suits us: the greater good, the good of the nation, whatever. But essentially self-interest takes over completely. The more we move away from God the worse our societies will become.
- heylook 3y ago
  > But essentially self-interest takes over completely. Orrrrrrrr... maybe... it doesn't? Maybe even when we're all alone and have to figure things out for ourselves we can come to understand ourselves in genuine relation to those around us and discover a kind and empathetic morality built from logical first principles? Even without the fear of the judgement of almighty sky daddy?
  - henry_bone 3y ago
    Humans are nothing if not self interested. But that's beside the point here. Why "kind and empathetic"? Who said that's how we should be? If we are nothing more than an arbitrary arrangement of matter, formed according to arbitrary laws of physics, and only for a relative moment, then what is "kind" and "empathetic"? In a godless universe, you are no more significant than a rock. The only sound position you can then take is that there is no such thing as morality.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      People feel good when they help others and feel bad when they get scolded by their peers. That is our inner moral compass and is the core to all morals even religious ones. Religion doesn't make it better, at best it is as good. Humans are pack animals, we put in a lot of effort to help the pack.
      - henry_bone 3y ago
heresie-dabord 3y ago
> I'm judged by my peers, my family, my community, and my country. But even if I wasn't, I would know what's right and what's wrong. The first sentence is True. It is at the foundation of community, co-operation, and yes, conformity. You may resent some things about living in a community, but you benefit from and become human through others. [1] The second sentence is... not a certitude. [1] _ The real meaning of Ubuntu. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_philosophy

by pkulak 3y ago

hyperbovine 3y ago

For want of a better expression, amen. We're a couple million child sex abuse scandals past the point of pretending like organized religion has anything remotely resembling a monopoly on "moral" behavior.

ragestorm 3y ago

I hate that take too. If the fear of eternal damnation is the only reason you arent out murdering people, then you are a jerk (in kinder words).

dasil003 3y ago

Yeah, secular vs religious is not any basis for judging a value system. We've certainly seen horrible things done by fundamentalists of all stripes, religious or not! There is a lot of very beautiful religious thought over the millenia, and its very beauty is what enables its abuse by bad actors. We must always judge people as individuals by their actions in context, and never allow any form of ideology (whether religious or not) to be used as a shield against individual scrutiny. Morality is unfortunately not black and white, and the moment we try to make it so, we open the door to the greatest evils.

umvi 3y ago

> But even if I wasn't, I would know what's right and what's wrong. Is it right or wrong to act on homosexual urges? Is it right or wrong to use abortion as a form of birth control? Have your answers to those questions remained consistent your entire life or did they change at exactly the same time they changed for the rest of western society ~20 years ago? If your moral stance has been unwavering, kudos. Otherwise, I would argue you don't actually know what's right and wrong; at least not on the "corner" (aka controversial) cases. For those you simply synchronize your moral compass to society's, which itself is not fixed or absolute (stances on abortion, LGBTQ, euthanasia, capital punishment, etc. have shifted a lot in the past few decades).

reaperman 3y ago
> If your moral stance has been unwavering On these topics, yes. I independently worked through the moral questions of capital punishment in middle school, wrote long papers on euthanasia when I was 15. I explored the morality of abortion deeply also in high school, LGBTQ was never a moral question for me at all and I truly don't understand why it is for anyone outside of their religion telling them its bad without any justification. I think people should be capable of exploring these topics deeply at a young age.
The_Colonel 3y ago
All of these (apart from abortion as birth control which is IMHO complicated) are very black & white issues. But I don't see a problem when people change their opinions during their lifetime, with new experiences and better understanding. Much better than blindly following some specific dogma.

dxd 3y ago

Ah, moral relativism. I believe there is no way around the idea that without religion, there is no such thing as morality. It all comes down to the question: how do you know what's right and wrong? If you don't have an external moral code, that is, you decide what is right and wrong, then the odds are stacked against you, 1 out of every individual with a unique opinion to ever exist; it is conceited for anyone to believe they are the one. Not even the majority is always correct; at one point in time the majority of the Earth believed slavery was fine, yet today we are so comfortable to say that was evil. I couldn't agree more strongly that it is evil, but what will the majority of society think about our morals in a millennium? Why start "the 21st century popular culture religion" when it is inevitably fallible to time? The only possible solution is an external moral code. That is what the Bible, the Koran, etc... are: absolute right and absolute wrong. If that doesn't exist, why should I believe I'm any better than Hitler? He believed he was right. You wouldn't even be able to reason that murder is evil. Ultimately, there is no other basis for an atheist than: "That's what I feel is right, so that's what I believe." Sidenote: I am a Christian, so I'd like to briefly correct the "(when women were without worth, slavery was acceptable, etc)" phrase pertaining to Christianity solely. At its core, the Bible teaches the very opposite of sexism and racism, however, misconstrued verses and nominal Christians distort the message.

jurynulifcation 3y ago
I think your analysis fails at the step where you propose a universalized, objectively correct morality. Please show me the empirical test for this. Or is it just about whether you feel your actions accord with the word of God? Because even then you're just practicing moral relativism and waving your hands at a book composed by fallible humans, all of whom were doing the same, all the way back to before the canons were written. Is it because the book is supposedly divinely-inspired? How do you know the correct divinity inspired the correct people in the correct way? even standing on the soapbox of "well uh uh uh of course my religion is the correct one you smelly heretic" you literally have nothing to go off of except your own feelings and perspective. So, in short, I don't find your position very convincing. Also, if Christians were some sort of uniquely enlightened group with special access to the metaphysical groups of the universe, why do they keep falling into the same patterns of behavior as all the other humans who don't have this divine guarantee? Like, if religion was actually some special basis upon which to erect a human morality, why does it achieve such similar outcomes as every other basis? If it's because "humans are fallible and don't always accord perfectly to the perfect divine plan allocated to them," then, again, how is that exactly non-relativistic? Is it because the book exists as some sort of measuring stick by which to determine the essential goodness of someone? Because even that depends on the fallible interpretation of the interpreter, unless you presuppose some special person who is blessed with divine discernment to determine the actual divinely-approved interpretation. It all ultimately devolves to "you just gotta have faith bro." I do not have faith in an entire group of people thumbing their noses at everyone else like their shit doesn't stink. Antisemitism and hate is literally built into every canonical version of Christianity by way of the Churchfathers. Maybe we should judge Christianity on the outcomes of Christians, instead of on the most compassionate and kindest way they beg us to take their positions. Actually looking at the facts reveals something most priests blush about... we're all equally clueless. The major difference between me and a Christian is that I don't actively look forward to dying, in the hopes I'll get The Good Ending and have an infinitely good time after I've perished in service to people who have an incentive to get me to live my life in service to them.

henry_bone 3y ago

No one needs religion to lead a moral life. That's not the argument. But without the transcendent, without a higher power, we have no grounding for our morality. Everything becomes subjective and "post-modern". Actions then become "justifiable" - if there is such a thing - by whatever criteria suits us: the greater good, the good of the nation, whatever. But essentially self-interest takes over completely. The more we move away from God the worse our societies will become.

heylook 3y ago
> But essentially self-interest takes over completely. Orrrrrrrr... maybe... it doesn't? Maybe even when we're all alone and have to figure things out for ourselves we can come to understand ourselves in genuine relation to those around us and discover a kind and empathetic morality built from logical first principles? Even without the fear of the judgement of almighty sky daddy?
- henry_bone 3y ago
  Humans are nothing if not self interested. But that's beside the point here. Why "kind and empathetic"? Who said that's how we should be? If we are nothing more than an arbitrary arrangement of matter, formed according to arbitrary laws of physics, and only for a relative moment, then what is "kind" and "empathetic"? In a godless universe, you are no more significant than a rock. The only sound position you can then take is that there is no such thing as morality.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    People feel good when they help others and feel bad when they get scolded by their peers. That is our inner moral compass and is the core to all morals even religious ones. Religion doesn't make it better, at best it is as good. Humans are pack animals, we put in a lot of effort to help the pack.
    - henry_bone 3y ago

heresie-dabord 3y ago

> I'm judged by my peers, my family, my community, and my country. But even if I wasn't, I would know what's right and what's wrong. The first sentence is True. It is at the foundation of community, co-operation, and yes, conformity. You may resent some things about living in a community, but you benefit from and become human through others. [1] The second sentence is... not a certitude. [1] _ The real meaning of Ubuntu. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_philosophy