• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Most religious groups in USA have lost ground, survey finds


Because it implies conformity and a lot of the time conformity leaves little room for individuality in my opinion.

Evil is only subjective in the context of people not following the golden rule to begin with. For instance, there would be no need for a justice system if everybody tried their best to follow the golden rule. What ever minor transgressions they make would be between them and God.

Every single person has their own personal definition of what is or isn't evil. For me personally, I think evil is too broad and simplistic a term to describe anything. In order for absolute evil to exist, everyone would have to agree. As far as the golden rule, you are assuming that Christianity is the correct religion. And as you said earlier, this is based on trust. I just think trust is a little too flimsy.
 
The only way to break the cycle is to follow the golden rule.

The Golden Rule is an impossible standard for humans to achieve. It would require omnipotence and castration from emotion and desire to be achieved in the utopian manner you propose. You must consider that humans are limited. We are irrational, inconsistant, fallible beings due to our emotions, passions instincts, mortality, and slow learning capabilities.
 
Because it implies conformity and a lot of the time conformity leaves little room for individuality in my opinion.

Again, how so?

Every single person has their own personal definition of what is or isn't evil. For me personally, I think evil is too broad and simplistic a term to describe anything. In order for absolute evil to exist, everyone would have to agree. As far as the golden rule, you are assuming that Christianity is the correct religion. And as you said earlier, this is based on trust. I just think trust is a little too flimsy.

Everything is based on trust and Christianity is not the only religion which teaches us to follow the golden rule. Are you telling me you can't distinguish right from wrong? Wouldn't you agree that walking up to someone and smashing them in the face is wrong?
 
Last edited:
The Golden Rule is an impossible standard for humans to achieve. It would require omnipotence and castration from emotion and desire to be achieved in the utopian manner you propose. You must consider that humans are limited. We are irrational, inconsistant, fallible beings due to our emotions, passions instincts, mortality, and slow learning capabilities.

No. The only thing it requires is self-control. We must use our higher mind (that which distinguishes us from animals) to control our behavior.
 
Again, how so?

Are you serious? How can you not see how that would take away a certain amount of individuality from a person?

Everything is based on trust and Christianity is not the only religion which teaches us to follow the golden rule. Are you telling me you can't distinguish right from wrong? Wouldn't you agree that walking up to someone and smashing them in the face is wrong?

Yes, I believe morality is subjective too.

No, I wouldn't agree with that. It's neither wrong or right. The only thing one can say with a fair amount of certainty is that there are consequences for ones actions. If I were to hit someone and it were completely unwarranted I should certainly expect to be hit back or at least face some kind of consequences for my actions.
 
No. The only thing it requires is self-control. We must use our higher mind (that which distinguishes us from animals) to control our behavior.

No human save those mentioned in story books have ever been capable of such. This "christ-like"/Buddha behavior is clearly a standard only of fairytales or extreme improbability.
 
Are you serious? How can you not see how that would take away a certain amount of individuality from a person?

No, I can't. Please tell me.


Yes, I believe morality is subjective too.

No, I wouldn't agree with that. It's neither wrong or right. The only thing one can say with a fair amount of certainty is that there are consequences for ones actions. If I were to hit someone and it were completely unwarranted I should certainly expect to be hit back or at least face some kind of consequences for my actions.

What is it that causes one to seek revenge when he has been smashed in the face? The feeling that he has been wronged, that the other person's actions were unjust. We know instinctively what is right from what is wrong, another characteristic which distinguishes us from animals. For instance, when hear on television that 100 civilians were killed in a bombing, we know it is wrong though we may try to justify it by claiming it serves a higher cause. (the myth that the ends justify the means)
 
Last edited:
No human save those mentioned in story books have ever been capable of such. This "christ-like"/Buddha behavior is clearly a standard only of fairytales or extreme improbability.

I agree that it's impossible for the average person to follow it 100%, but so long as you try your very best and encourage others to do the same you are doing the right thing.
 
No, I can't. Please tell me.

Well, if you haven't understood where I'm coming from based on what I've already said, there's really nothing more that I can add that will make you understand. You have your opinion and I have mine.

What is it that causes one to seek revenge when he has been smashed in the face? The feeling that he has been wronged, that the other person's actions were unjust. We know instinctively what is right from what is wrong, another characteristic which distinguishes us from animals. For instance, when hear on television that 100 civilians were killed in a bombing, we know it is wrong though we may try to justify it by claiming it serves a higher cause.

A desire for justice perhaps? If a person has wronged you, why not seek revenge? One can pretend to be pious and above that, but what purpose does that serve? Obviously, it serves a purpose if you believe in a higher power, but not everyone does. And we are animals. We can pretend not to be all we want, but it changes nothing.
 
I agree that it's impossible for the average person to follow it 100%, but so long as you try your very best and encourage others to do the same you are doing the right thing.

Right according to whom? A non-existent God who may or may not exist and who you believe in based solely on trust? Like, I said..that's pretty flimsy.
 
Well, if you haven't understood where I'm coming from based on what I've already said, there's really nothing more that I can add that will make you understand. You have your opinion and I have mine.

You could explain to me how voluntarily following the golden rule robs an individual of his individuality.

A desire for justice perhaps? If a person has wronged you, why not seek revenge? One can pretend to be pious and above that, but what purpose does that serve?

It serves the higher purpose of breaking the cycle which has us trapped in a ****ty world of man-made injustice.

Obviously, it serves a purpose if you believe in a higher power, but not everyone does. And we are animals. We can pretend not to be all we want, but it changes nothing.

In the biological sense, we are animals but there are several characteristics which separate us from other animals (conscience being a pretty big one).
 
You could explain to me how voluntarily following the golden rule robs an individual of his individuality.

Like I said, if you haven't gotten the gist of my views by now, there is nothing further that I can say that would help you to understand. I've clarified as much as I can.

It serves the higher purpose of breaking the cycle which has us trapped in a ****ty world of man-made injustice.

I don't really think that Lex Talionis is a man-made law. Animals also seem to live by this law.

In the biological sense, we are animals but there are several characteristics which separate us from other animals (conscience being a pretty big one).

Yes, but there's really no reason that we should deny our animal instincts as if we are better than animals somehow.
 
Like I said, if you haven't gotten the gist of my views by now, there is nothing further that I can say that would help you to understand. I've clarified as much as I can.

You haven't clarified anything. You simply made an assertion and didn't explain it.

I don't really think that Lex Talionis is a man-made law. Animals also seem to live by this law.

"An eye for an eye" is a limitation, not a justification. This is a misinterpretation. I know because I have studied the whole of the text, rather than picking out bits and pieces to prove a point.

Yes, but there's really no reason that we should deny our animal instincts as if we are better than animals somehow.

There absolutely is a reason and that is to avoid hurting others, the same way you don't want to be hurt. How does a father explain morality to a child when they have breached it? "How would YOU like it if someone did that to YOU?"

I posted this in another thread, but here's a great example of people behaving like animals. Notice how they hurt the grandmother:

YouTube - LA Riots - Gunfight In Koreatown
 
Last edited:
You haven't clarified anything. You simply made an assertion and didn't explain it.

Fine. Then let me clarify one final time. By subscribing to the "golden rule" you are agreeing that the "golden rule" is right and that other rules are wrong. And since the "golden rule" is based in Christianity you are subscribing to a particular belief system. Part of what makes us individual are our spirtual beliefs. Not only that, but since I believe morality is subjective, you are also subscribing to a particular moral code. We all have our own individual definitions of morality which take part in making us individuals. If you wipe that away it takes a certain amount of our individuality away. Personally, individuality is far too important to me to lose to a bull**** "love everybody" philosophy.

"An eye for an eye" is a limitation, not a justification. This is a misinterpretation. I know because I have studied the whole of the text, rather than picking out bits and pieces to prove a point.

How is it a limitation?

There absolutely is a reason and that is to avoid hurting others, the same way you don't want to be hurt. How does a father explain morality to a child when they have breached it? "How would YOU like it if someone did that to YOU?"

Yeah, if you want to look weak. Like I said, I think it's silly to subscribe to a "love everybody" ideology. If someone does wrong to me I will get revenge in a way that I feel is appropriate.

I posted this in another thread, but here's a great example of people behaving like animals. Notice how they hurt the grandmother:

YouTube - LA Riots - Gunfight In Koreatown

I don't condone thievery, but those people made a choice to steal and I'm sure they will face the consequences of said actions. If not this time then another time I'm sure. I don't steal because I personally don't think it's worth the possible consequences.
 
Fine. Then let me clarify one final time. By subscribing to the "golden rule" you are agreeing that the "golden rule" is right and that other rules are wrong. And since the "golden rule" is based in Christianity you are subscribing to a particular belief system. Part of what makes us individual are our spirtual beliefs. Not only that, but since I believe morality is subjective, you are also subscribing to a particular moral code. We all have our own individual definitions of morality which take part in making us individuals. If you wipe that away it takes a certain amount of our individuality away. Personally, individuality is far too important to me to lose to a bull**** "love everybody" philosophy.

Yes, you would be agreeing that the golden rule is right. Wouldn't you agree that non-conformity for the sake of itself is pretty stupid? I'm gonna go wear pants on my head and a shirt on my legs because I want to maintain my individuality.

How is it a limitation?

It's a limitation on how one responds to a violation. It doesn't condone the action, it's a reflection of the fact that we live in a society in which not everybody is following God's Law. By no means is it to be interpreted as "If somebody punches you, punch them back." Instead it means "If somebody punches you, don't rip off their testicles."

Yeah, if you want to look weak. Like I said, I think it's silly to subscribe to a "love everybody" ideology. If someone does wrong to me I will get revenge in a way that I feel is appropriate.

Apology and forgiveness make you look weak? I think it takes far more strength to forgive or apologize than it does to go out and seek revenge.

I don't condone thievery, but those people made a choice to steal and I'm sure they will face the consequences of said actions. If not this time then another time I'm sure. I don't steal because I personally don't think it's worth the possible consequences.

Ahh, so the reason you do not engage in immoral actions is fear of the consequences (a criticism traditionally leveraged against Christians). Fair enough... I hope you find satisfaction in your way of life.
 
I agree that it's impossible for the average person to follow it 100%,
I don't know if its impossible. Its just thus far been unproven as practical or possible in recorded history.... unless you believe testimony and mythology is reliable proof.

but so long as you try your very best and encourage others to do the same you are doing the right thing.
Well haven't I already shown the subtle flaws in the Golden Rule?

1) How it is a flawed standard since it is incapable of being adhered to due to human nature.

2) how everyone has a different opinion on what proper reciprocation is due to differing knowledge.
 
I don't know if its impossible. Its just thus far been unproven as practical or possible in recorded history.... unless you believe testimony and mythology is reliable proof.


Well haven't I already shown the subtle flaws in the Golden Rule?

1) How it is a flawed standard since it is incapable of being adhered to due to human nature.

We are imperfect, not the law. We must accept that and try our best to conform to it.

2) how everyone has a different opinion on what proper reciprocation is due to differing knowledge.

For instance?
 
We are imperfect, not the law. We must accept that and try our best to conform to it.
But if the rule is impractical or flawed (both in this case) why not strive for a better one?

For instance?
Look up "ethic of reciprocity" on wiki. Near the bottom are criticisms.

The one presented by Kant is enlightening.

Do unto others as they wish be done unto them. (How do you know what they want?)

Do unto others as you would expect they should do unto you. (What if they don't agree with your expectations?)
 
Last edited:
But if the rule is impractical or flawed (both in this case) why not strive for a better one?


Look up "ethic of reciprocity" on wiki. Near the bottom are criticisms.

The one presented by Kant is enlightening.

Kant's quote only applies in a system where others are breaking the golden rule. We have a justice system in lieu of the fact that not everybody has accepted it and not everybody is following it. It's a compromise. The key is to break the cycle of injustice so that the justice system is stripped of its necessity.

Do unto others as they wish be done unto them. (How do you know what they want?)

Do unto others as you would expect they should do unto you. (What if they don't agree with your expectations?)

We make reasonable assumptions about what others would want based on what we want. Today I was thinking about taking my elderly neighbor's dog for a walk. I thought about it and this is pretty much how my train of thought went.

"If I were elderly and unable to walk my own dog whom I love, wouldn't I want someone to walk him for me?"

"Only if they asked first"

"I'll go ask"

"Oh yeah, I'm sick and by contacting her I could get her sick and that could kill her. Surely she doesn't want to get sick and die." (a reasonable assumption)

So I didn't go ask.
 
The problem with the Golden rule (At least the rule I know as the golden rule)

Do Unto others as you would have them do to you

Is quite flawed.

There are people that like to get buck naked and get spanked as adults, does that mean it is ok for someone like that to spank others in that way because that person would like it done unto them? No.

That rule is seriously flawed to say the least when you're dealing with a person you don't relate to.
 
The problem with the Golden rule (At least the rule I know as the golden rule)

Is quite flawed.

There are people that like to get buck naked and get spanked as adults, does that mean it is ok for someone like that to spank others in that way because that person would like it done unto them? No.

That rule is seriously flawed to say the least when you're dealing with a person you don't relate to.

Would that person want someone to do that to him against his will? No, of course not, because it's logically impossible to want someone to violate your will. So the only logical solution would be to ask, but in so doing he must consider "If I shared his values, would I even want to be asked?" "Probably not, just as I wouldn't want someone to ask me if I wanted a cucumber shoved up my ass or [insert huge departure from the norm here]"
 


These videos do not prove that atheism is the reason for these positive statistics. They would have to study both groups, believers and non believers, from similar geographic, ethnic, educational, and economic levels to pinpoint that is the reason. Obviously, it is much more likely it is education and income levels that these statistics are correlated with. I mean I don't think you're going to see too many Mormons with doctorate degrees capping someone's a.. gangsta style. And I don't see anytime soon public policy coming from the Obama administration trying to convince inner city youth against belief in God to drastically reduce violence rates.

Clearly the valid point is a higher percentage of those getting degrees in Western universities as a whole do not believe in God than those who have not been so educated.
 
Last edited:
I'm just curious, it seems they are trying to say most religious groups have lost ground, but could it be that more people are just turning towards agnostic instead of atheism?

Turning away from strict mainstream religions doesn't mean people are not religious, it just means that they may have adopted parts of religion and turned towards agnosticism.
 
Last edited:
What an absurd non-factual argument. The richest and most educated among us are devoutly religious and many being Catholic.

Proof? Prove it. The overwhelming majority of the religious are POOR. Just look at Africa, South America & the Middle East. The rich on the other hand are less religious.

Religion & Wealth: Less Religious Countries are More Wealthy

The survey finds a strong relationship between a country's religiosity and its economic status. In poorer nations, religion remains central to the lives of individuals, while secular perspectives are more common in richer nations.1 This relationship generally is consistent across regions and countries, although there are some exceptions, including most notably the United States, which is a much more religious country than its level of prosperity would indicate. Other nations deviate from the pattern as well, including the oil-rich, predominantly Muslim -- and very religious -- kingdom of Kuwait.

The Washington Monthly

Pew Global Attitudes Project: Summary of Findings: World Publics Welcome Global Trade -- But Not Immigration

Blog_United_States_Religiosity.gif


Blog_Pew_Religiosity.gif


The more rich. The less religion. The more poor. The more religion. This is based on FACT. You like that word don't you? ;)

This is as absurd as suggesting that Governments can confiscate the wealth of the people who create jobs and re-distributes them to the poor to elevate their status.

Ummm what?
 
Proof? Prove it. The overwhelming majority of the religious are POOR. Just look at Africa, South America & the Middle East. The rich on the other hand are less religious.

Religion & Wealth: Less Religious Countries are More Wealthy



The Washington Monthly

Pew Global Attitudes Project: Summary of Findings: World Publics Welcome Global Trade -- But Not Immigration

Blog_United_States_Religiosity.gif


Blog_Pew_Religiosity.gif


The more rich. The less religion. The more poor. The more religion. This is based on FACT. You like that word don't you? ;)



Ummm what?
Oh blow it out your ass.

blowshirt.jpg
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom