If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Religion IS NOT the basis of morality...
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Yes, all religions offer moral codes and guides concerning how one should conduct themselves. Even still, you don't need a Bible or a Koran to tell you how to be 'moral'.
In many cases, an atheist could be more 'ethical' than the most pious of people.
In many cases, an atheist could be more 'ethical' than the most pious of people.
0
Comments
And having a book called "this is how to act because we've decided its right" may cause some dispute, but having a book called "this is how to act because its the word of god" is much more likly to find unanimous favor.
Do you really think that every-one's idea of whats moral or ethical is that same, because that is what you were implying.
For examples of how every-ones view differs :
I've heard people say that they think its ok for them to go and rob house's, because the people that own the houses are rich and they are not.
example the other way : I think incest should not be illegal. There are lots of reasons why people should not want to, and lots of reasons why other people will not want others to... but if its consensual sex, and if it doesn't lead to babies (MANY good reasons to not have babies with family memebers).... But if people want to I don't see a reason they should not. But other people claim they cannot on morality issues.... so we need to look in the book.... and find that at the moment it is indeed immoral.
So while you don't need a bible or koran to tell you how to be moral, you do need it to make sure that every-ones moral looks pretty similar.
Religions all have their rules to keep people on the right path, to be a guidance, just as each country has their own laws for the same reason. However if we look into some of the countries laws they are designed to tie up with religious rules, so that those who are need not break their religion. Since the rules tie in together, people don't need to be religious to be moral as keeping to their countries laws will ensure that occurs.
Religious rules are just common sense though, such as not stealing, murdering etc. They are just set in stone to remind people of this. However, since they are common sense anyone religious or not will be moral in these ways.
The majority of religions are purely a guide and not meant to be seen as literally true anyway. Such as in Christianity, the bible is purely a collection of exagerated stories to show the difference between the prophets of old and the new Son of God in the NT. (Ok please don't flame me for that comment it's only meant briefly, and I aint getting into a discussion about the reason for the bible) In this case, what does it matter if someone believes it all or not since it isn't a true account?
He he, and I thought that I was paranoid, when thinking that he seemed very familiar to a certain former poster...
Just can't seem to comprehend, why he would want to go back to a place where he is well aware of being well-disrespected.
Actually I've been told that the present laws are based on the biblical ones.
And I do believe that a great deal of our morals can be traced back to the bible and religion.
I do agree that a great deal of unreligious people are morally more humane and deserving of an honorable life than fanatic religious people, who try to impose their beliefs on others.
Isn't that what I said??? Or at least my understanding of:
or do I not have a full enough comprehension of the English Language for you Jaqs?
Sorry for any offence.
Tis ok....sorry was just stressed this morn.....didn't mean to jump down your throat.
Of course morality is subjective. And?
No a question.
If you're left leaning how come you said you weren't a lefty?
So you allowed to post that and I get rebuked for saying teens are scum?
No fair.
2)I said that as a measn of demonstrating an arguement.
3)what i said was an opinion that insulted no-one, that is not true of what you said.
4) Have a nice day
Moving on....
Of course morality is subjective. And?
Doesn't this go against your opinion stated in the first post?
You think that each of us can get away with using our own moral judgement, subjective though it is? I don't, peoples idea of right and wrong vary far to much.
Some-one may believe that it is morally acceptable to punch me for looking at his girlfriend.
<sidenote>
It would be easier if the law of the land dictated morality, but it doesn't, and is far to confusing and biased to the individual to be of use as a moral code.
</sidenote>
Wolfenden Report 1957, which led to the Sexual Offences Act 1967 which decriminalised sexuality for those over the age of 21 and consenting.
In the late 50's and 60's most people still had the belief that homosexuality was immoral. This report and subsequent law went against the opinions of the majority of the country, and enforced a future morality which we now share today (in an even more advanced form).
So the law can and does have an influence on morality.
[edited to correct transcription error:( ]
Both Religions (but not all) and current State Law do not give homosexuals equal rights regarding the right to enter into a legally binding marriage.
I would consider that immoral.
There are certain religious codes that are common sense as has already been said. Some of the 10 Commandments being them. Also cited by myself is an example of the law provides a good basis for morality.
But both sources can be unreliable and often even archaic at times.
I agree, I am an atheist and I am more ethical than many religous people I know.
Ok you have a point there, but generally speaking the countries laws are a good enough guide. Yes there will always be exceptions. There are to any set of rules or laws. Not everyone is going to approve of them or agree 100% with them.
Note how I use the indefinite article -- a morality -- just the same way I would talk about a geometry. Those with a passing familiarity of geometry and the history of mathematics may be familiar with the famed Euclidean Parallel Postulate: that given a line and a point not on the line, both in a plane, there is a unique second line (the "parallel"), again in the plane, that goes through the point and nowhere meets the given line. It seems intuitively obvious, and for many years -- centuries -- was assumed to be true. People tried to prove it, and couldn't, but refused to stop trying because they couldn't believe that it might not be true. It took until the 19th Century for mathematicians to allow the 'heresy' of non-Euclidean geometry to speak its name. Now it is regarded as just as valid a geometry as Euclidean -- just one with different axioms.
Moving back onto topic, I'd have to agree with MacKenZie on this; religion CAN be the basis for morality, but then again, some of the moralities expounded in the past on the basis of someone's interpretation of various religious texts have been, IMHO, repugnant. As an example, you just have to think of the mutual persecution of Protestants and Catholics for centuries in Europe, where both sides seemed to forget that their God had given them a Commandment forbidding them to kill one another.
Of course, the big question is, given all of the moral codes in existence, which one is correct? Unfortunately, since I don't believe in God, I can't give you an answer...
It could be argued, and demonstrated, that a morality not based in religion will become a religion anyway, just because people seem more comfortable with that response.
I think the main difference is that religion is defined as having some notion of the afterlife and that this is not fundamental to a moral code which dictates our actions in this life............
I don't recall the existence of an afterlife being a necessary condition for a belief system to be a religion. My personal definition (one that I'm not entirely happy with, but it's my best stab so far) would be
Defn. A religion is a system of faith-based belief held by more than one person and communicated in a codified and dogmatic form [as opposed to being communicated by demonstration].
If any? It seems intuitively obvious that at most one can be 'correct,' but it's not at all obvious that at least one must be 'correct.'
Welcome to the boards, btw, Darth.
I agree that it's likely -- humans seem to need gods. I'm not convinced that it's a dead certainty, because the human race hasn't really embarked on a large-scale experiment in non-religious morality. (Before anyone mentions the USSR, I'll opine that Lenin was deliberately made a god-head.
To rely on yourself for justification of your morals offers you no comeback; you do as you do because you perceive it to be the *the right thing*. No more, no less.
If we introduce a deity, then we have a concept of reward for 'good' or morally justifiable behaviour, and a concept of punishment for 'bad' or injustifiable behaviour. Perhaps Heaven and Hell are just an Almighty (pun intended) carrot and stick for the imposition of social behaviour?
I would also say that it is wrong to think that how someone acts reflects their moral code, believing something is right and actually acting on it are very different things and the latter can often be very difficult which is why religion and the religious often seem hypocritical.........
A great number of religions don't meet your criteria...
And it seems Cambridge needs to revisit their definition, since Buddhism doesn't qualify as a religion by their definition..:rolleyes:
Would Buddha not count as a revered entity or some such that would still stick loosely to that definition, I don't know a lot about Buddhism..........:(
Buddha was a man. A man who demonstrated the path to enlightenment. That's all. Not dramatically different from Confucious (and there is an acknowledged religion based on the teaching of Confucious as well). How about religion based on the worship of ancestors? Another common Eastern religion.
I realize that Brits have a tendency to take Cambridge as the final word, but how about a look at Webster's definition?
"Religion -1. The service and worship of God or the supernatural. 2. devotion to a religious faith. 3. a personal set or institutionalized system of religious beliefs, attitudes and practices. 4. a cause, principle or belief held to with faith and ardor."
"Religious - 1. relating to or devoted to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity. 2. of or relating to religious beliefs or occurances. 3. scrupulously and conscientiously faithful."
I'm sure we are getting off topic
I tend to go by Oxford, myself... or www.dictionary.com
Sense 2 is quite clearly idiomatic; sense 1 is the important one. The important elements appear to be faith (belief that something is true regardless of the existence of evidence) and worship.
This definition seems to place similar stress on the conditions of belief/faith and worship/reverence for a supernatural/superhuman power.
Neither of these definitions indicate that a religion necessarily leads to a morality; nor do they indicate that a morality necessarily follows from a religion. Of course, this doesn't tell us much -- linguistic analysis is quite limited as a philosophical tool and is prey to any number of fallacies.
And, yes, we are getting off topic here...