• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is religion needed to teach us morality?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I always thought in Australia it was ok to hit your friend with a 2X4 in order to squash or just bat away the spider/lizard/insect/plant or whatever else it was that was trying to kill them. The only people you dont hit are the ones you dont like hoping that whatever it is will remove them from your presence permanently

Real men gently remove all spiders/lizards/insects/plants from their friends and place them in a sheltered area outside where they can live long and happy lives.
 
You are judging the perfect morality through the lens of a secularist. Morality to the secularist is relative, and therefore changeable, adjustable. It is what you think right at the time.

Compared to your own morality? You don't get to subjectively choose what is objective. Something that is objective is provable, like math. 2+2 will always equal 4, that's an objective truth. Morality is nowhere near that kind of objectivity. To say otherwise is nonsense.

God's absolute truth establishes an absolute morality that isn't malleable based on the thought of the day.

Your god's "absolute truth" has led him to murder innocent women, children, and innocent people for no other reason other than he said so. How is that moral?

What evil Christians have done in the name of God does not make it God's desire.

Nor do dictators and fascist that are atheist represent what atheism is. The fact of the matter is that religion has been used to motivate and drive people to do horrible, horrible things. They quote scripture, the bible, the Quran, etc.

It is the desire of men still, just as though they had no God. For in effect, when men do what they will, they have no God, no matter that they claim Him. You are quite correct, without God morality is subjective.

If you want to make the claim morality can only come with god, you must prove god. If you are unable to prove god, than the argument leads nowhere.

Men have rebelled against God from the beginning. We all deserve death, and we will get it if we don't trust in the one He sent.

How can you write this kind of sentence and not realize how freaking diabolical that sounds? I don't know you very well, but you don't seem like the type to "deserve death." If god was moral, he wouldn't wish death upon you for skepticism.


God lets us choose His way, or our own way. But he holds us accountable to that decision.

And what of the innocent and good people that are hurt or killed by wrong-doers, should they have to go through hardship like rape, assault, and/or losing their life to evil people? Again if God has the capability to end strife, to prevent good people from being hurt by bad people but yet chooses to do nothing makes him just as evil as the sinners he judges by association.

Men adhere to some extent to God's morality.

No, men do not adhere to some extend of God's morality. The only morality they subscribe to is the ones they feel is right. If they choose to follow the morality inside a first century book filled with parables, loopholes, and moral contradictions they chose to do so subjectively.

Anything less and we would all be dead. How closely we observe Him dictates how well we live. Isn't that interesting?

If that were true, then why do some Christian boys and girls at a young age die of horrible diseases like cancer? And while some atheists live well beyond their religious peers?
 
Real men gently remove all spiders/lizards/insects/plants from their friends and place them in a sheltered area outside where they can live long and happy lives.

Apparently "real men" is Australian for stupid
 
You are judging the perfect morality through the lens of a secularist. Morality to the secularist is relative, and therefore changeable, adjustable. It is what you think right at the time.
God's absolute truth establishes an absolute morality that isn't malleable based on the thought of the day.
What evil Christians have done in the name of God does not make it God's desire. It is the desire of men still, just as though they had no God. For in effect, when men do what they will, they have no God, no matter that they claim Him. You are quite correct, without God morality is subjective.

Men have rebelled against God from the beginning. We all deserve death, and we will get it if we don't trust in the one He sent.
God lets us choose His way, or our own way. But he holds us accountable to that decision.

Men adhere to some extent to God's morality. Anything less and we would all be dead. How closely we observe Him dictates how well we live. Isn't that interesting?

This has already been pointed out but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If there was an objective Christian morality there wouldn't be hundreds of different denominations with hundreds of different belief structures and interpretations of the bible.

If you were right there would be one objective set of moral beliefs that all Christians could agree on. As it stands now you can't really agree on anything. Just because you've declared your own personal beliefs to be objective doesn't mean it is.

I mean Jesus, your bible contradicts itself over and over and over again especially on moral matters. So it simply comes down to picking which verse and interpretation you like the best. Is killing someone wrong? Depends on what verse you pick and who you ask.
 
Apparently "real men" is Australian for stupid

When faced with something that can be described with the word "neurotoxic", would you rather piss it off with a swing and a miss, or be nice to it?
 
This has already been pointed out but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If there was an objective Christian morality there wouldn't be hundreds of different denominations with hundreds of different belief structures and interpretations of the bible.
If you were right there would be one objective set of moral beliefs that all Christians could agree on. As it stands now you can't really agree on anything. Just because you've declared your own personal beliefs to be objective doesn't mean it is.
I mean Jesus, your bible contradicts itself over and over and over again especially on moral matters. So it simply comes down to picking which verse and interpretation you like the best. Is killing someone wrong? Depends on what verse you pick and who you ask.

What you are saying is that some Christian men change God's law based on their own interpretation of it. God's law remains unchanged.
There are a set of morals that all Christians agree on, those that follow God.
If I understood every degree of God's law perfectly, but I don't. I am learning as I read and grow.
You don't understand God or His laws. Nor do you care to. Why are you on this forum? I mean you are free to post where you will, but what drives you here to the religious forum?
 
If that was the case then he would have approved of multiple marriages but he didn't.

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
it says wife a better word being help mate. it doesn't say wives.

No where did God approve of any of those and in fact it got men into more trouble than what it was worth.
Abraham's sleeping with one of his servant begat Ishmael and we all see how that turned out.
Noah suffered consequences as well.
David suffered for the same thing.

None of it was condoned or upheld by God and you see that many of those men suffered consequences for their actions.
again man's sin leads to death and destruction. as proven above.


Yet, that is speaking about the idea. However, Exodus 21:10 speaks of if a man takes more than one wife, the obligation to the first wife can not be diminished.
 
Compared to your own morality? You don't get to subjectively choose what is objective. Something that is objective is provable, like math. 2+2 will always equal 4, that's an objective truth. Morality is nowhere near that kind of objectivity. To say otherwise is nonsense.

I absolutely do get to choose what I believe is objective morality, just as you do. We all have choices to make, and to be held accountable for.

Your god's "absolute truth" has led him to murder innocent women, children, and innocent people for no other reason other than he said so. How is that moral?

Who is innocent? Innocent of what?

If you want to make the claim morality can only come with god, you must prove god. If you are unable to prove god, than the argument leads nowhere.

No, I don't. I just have to believe. You are also free to believe what you will.


How can you write this kind of sentence and not realize how freaking diabolical that sounds? I don't know you very well, but you don't seem like the type to "deserve death." If god was moral, he wouldn't wish death upon you for skepticism.

So you know how God should handle things? You are greater? God loves all and does not wish that any should perish. But like you, there are many who hate God. If he is not just he has no love. Justice is what we all deserve. Mercy is what we get if we believe and repent. How could it be any other way? Even you likely believe in punishing evil people. How much more so God?

And what of the innocent and good people that are hurt or killed by wrong-doers, should they have to go through hardship like rape, assault, and/or losing their life to evil people? Again if God has the capability to end strife, to prevent good people from being hurt by bad people but yet chooses to do nothing makes him just as evil as the sinners he judges by association.

He will judge everyone. The problem secularists have in wrapping their heads around this is that they don't acknowledge eternity, just this life. It's a huge paradigm shift and changes things dramatically.

No, men do not adhere to some extend of God's morality. The only morality they subscribe to is the ones they feel is right. If they choose to follow the morality inside a first century book filled with parables, loopholes, and moral contradictions they chose to do so subjectively.

This is your opinion.


If that were true, then why do some Christian boys and girls at a young age die of horrible diseases like cancer? And while some atheists live well beyond their religious peers?

Again, your focus is on this life. With God, this life is but a very short blip in time. It is an important blip from our perspective, but eternity is much longer.
Where are the Christian children who die of cancer? With God. How is that bad?

Even in your rebellion God loves you. But does he not have to judge you based on your living for yourself or living for Him? Christ came here for you, that you might be saved from death. How evil is He?
 
when faced with something that can be described with the word "neurotoxic", would you rather piss it off with a swing and a miss, or be nice to it?

kill it! kill it KILL IT!!!!!
 
Yet, that is speaking about the idea. However, Exodus 21:10 speaks of if a man takes more than one wife, the obligation to the first wife can not be diminished.

you should also know that in ancient Hebrew it wasn't the ceremony that made the marriage official it was the consummation of that did.
so if you slept with a women then she technically became your wife and you were obligated (whether you wanted to or not) to marry her.

this also was enacted as to not bring shame to her or her family or make her a whore.
also that chapter is talking about slaves. so the context is a bit different.
 
So you just grabbed a list of atheist that are known for being terrible people and you think that proves a point? But if you want to go down this road we could talk about the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, the Crusades, Genocides, Spanish Inquisition, and countless other horrific nightmares that were sponsored, pushed, and fueled by Christian Theology. But please, continue on trying to push a premise that dictators like Pol Pot were motivated by atheism to murder innocent people. :roll:

wrong he grabbed a bunch of people that felt that they set morality and that they figured slaughtering millions of people were ok.
the slave trade was set by dutch traders for the most people and the African people were selling their own people to the slave traders.

no one said they were motivated by atheism that is a strawman.

well known and studied philosopher Fyodor Dostoevsky's in his novels and books wrote.
If there's no God and no life beyond the grave, doesn't that mean that men will be allowed to do whatever they want?




God doesn't have a morality, or at least the biblical god. He's an absolute monster who has either ordered his followers to commit genocide and war, or has killed millions of others on his own. Morality is ultimately subjective, if it were objective we would not be having this discussion.

Not at all his morality was absolutely objective. Perfection allows for His morality to be objective. You don't know much about ancient warefare.
it was common in those days if you sacked a town you killed all of the men and most of the boys. you kept the women and babies and sometimes you let none live.
why? if you were passing through an area you didn't want that king or people to come up behind you afterward.

you didn't want them to exact revenge later on.
no they were killed for violating the laws that God set down in order to keep his people pure.



I'm sure it is, but God is an immoral, petty, and disgusting creature.
what you fail to realize is that in God's eyes you are all that and more. yet even though you are worse than that attributes you attempt to describe to God he
loves you enough to sacrifice his own son for your salvation.


And what if they refuse to conform their morality to match god's and yet still live peacefully and cohesively?

Show me where that has ever happened. people still commit crimes etc ...
 
Compared to your own morality? You don't get to subjectively choose what is objective. Something that is objective is provable, like math. 2+2 will always equal 4, that's an objective truth. Morality is nowhere near that kind of objectivity. To say otherwise is nonsense.



Your god's "absolute truth" has led him to murder innocent women, children, and innocent people for no other reason other than he said so. How is that moral?



Nor do dictators and fascist that are atheist represent what atheism is. The fact of the matter is that religion has been used to motivate and drive people to do horrible, horrible things. They quote scripture, the bible, the Quran, etc.



If you want to make the claim morality can only come with god, you must prove god. If you are unable to prove god, than the argument leads nowhere.



How can you write this kind of sentence and not realize how freaking diabolical that sounds? I don't know you very well, but you don't seem like the type to "deserve death." If god was moral, he wouldn't wish death upon you for skepticism.




And what of the innocent and good people that are hurt or killed by wrong-doers, should they have to go through hardship like rape, assault, and/or losing their life to evil people? Again if God has the capability to end strife, to prevent good people from being hurt by bad people but yet chooses to do nothing makes him just as evil as the sinners he judges by association.



No, men do not adhere to some extend of God's morality. The only morality they subscribe to is the ones they feel is right. If they choose to follow the morality inside a first century book filled with parables, loopholes, and moral contradictions they chose to do so subjectively.



If that were true, then why do some Christian boys and girls at a young age die of horrible diseases like cancer? And while some atheists live well beyond their religious peers?

Ask anyone in the world what 2+2 equals and except for a few nut jobs you would get the same answer. Ask anyone in the world if it's ok to decapitate someone at random and except for a few nut jobs you would get the same answer.
 
you should also know that in ancient Hebrew it wasn't the ceremony that made the marriage official it was the consummation of that did.
so if you slept with a women then she technically became your wife and you were obligated (whether you wanted to or not) to marry her.

this also was enacted as to not bring shame to her or her family or make her a whore.
also that chapter is talking about slaves. so the context is a bit different.

Not quite. You are right that in the marriage ceremony it was not official until consummated. However, you are wrong in the fact if a man slept with a woman, she did not automatically become his wife.
 
Were he so omniscient... Why wouldn't that mother****er come down here and just tell us all the goddamn answers? Seems like a jackass deity to me.

Also, that bond stuff is bull****. The average human has over 5 SEXUAL partners over the course of their life last time I checked.

As to the bonding stuff as you call it here is an article that talks about it, I have read several reserach papers on the subject as well so if you are still questioning the concept I can get those for you but they are more technical. Sex: Why it makes women fall in love - but just makes men want MORE! | Daily Mail Online

As for why God doesnt give us all the answers it is for the same reason doesnt give a child all the answers. He tells us what we need to know and we have to trust that he has our best interests at heart. He gave us laws, and gave us the bible, that to me seems like more then enough "answers" to get through this life. The reason he doesnt come down in person and show us the reality of his existence is that would violate free will. Belief is meant to be a choice, it is no longer belief if you are shown the absolute proof. To remain a choice instead of a fact he can only guide.
 
As to the bonding stuff as you call it here is an article that talks about it, I have read several reserach papers on the subject as well so if you are still questioning the concept I can get those for you but they are more technical. Sex: Why it makes women fall in love - but just makes men want MORE! | Daily Mail Online

As for why God doesnt give us all the answers it is for the same reason doesnt give a child all the answers. He tells us what we need to know and we have to trust that he has our best interests at heart. He gave us laws, and gave us the bible, that to me seems like more then enough "answers" to get through this life. The reason he doesnt come down in person and show us the reality of his existence is that would violate free will. Belief is meant to be a choice, it is no longer belief if you are shown the absolute proof. To remain a choice instead of a fact he can only guide.

Great cop-out for a douchebag deity.
 
Great cop-out for a douchebag deity.

You seem very personally angry at God. It is not a cop-out for him to not tell us everything, it is the only way to allow for faith. While not a Biblicaly accurate movie there is a great line in Constantine(dont remember it exactly but something like this), Gabriel says to him, you dont believe you know, there is a difference.
 
This has already been pointed out but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If there was an objective Christian morality there wouldn't be hundreds of different denominations with hundreds of different belief structures and interpretations of the bible.

If you were right there would be one objective set of moral beliefs that all Christians could agree on. As it stands now you can't really agree on anything. Just because you've declared your own personal beliefs to be objective doesn't mean it is.

I mean Jesus, your bible contradicts itself over and over and over again especially on moral matters. So it simply comes down to picking which verse and interpretation you like the best. Is killing someone wrong? Depends on what verse you pick and who you ask.

No one ever said morality was simple. Actually a lot of times it is highly complex. People make mistakes in discerning it from time to time. But overall most "natural law" is widely understood and acknowledged across the globe. It is not nearly as fragmented and isolated as you try to convey.
 
Would all the problems in the world be solved if there were no religions? Religions really look like a thing of the past since we reached the space decades ago and didn't find any gods in the sky.
However I think that religion is still important for us even if there is no God. Christianity teaches us morals which make us better. Without Christianity people will lose all moral grounds and such things as killing and stealing may become totally acceptable. That's kinda what we see now; all sorts of perversions are getting justified and destigmatized and it's only a matter of time when the things we consider as completely disgusting and unacceptable (pedophilia, zoophilia, incest, etc.) will be considered as normal.

Thread: Is religion needed to teach us morality?

No.

"Character First" is a program of values instruction which was endorsed by Tom Selleck (IIRC) which was designed so that EVERYONE, no matter their religion or lack of religion could support and teach their kids.

And if they all did just that we would have a MUCH better America.

Curriculum | Character First Education

Is Character First a religious program?

Thus far, all Character First Education curriculum is compatible with public education (non-sectarian lessons). If we develop “faith-based” resources in the future, they will be clearly marked so there is no confusion.

About | Character First Education

Wary of the minefield between church and state, most new character educators, including Character First!, are careful not to discuss religion when they teach values. "You don't need to believe in God to believe in trustworthiness," says Michael Josephson, founder of Character Counts!, a popular character-education program with no religious affiliation that is based in Marina del Rey, Calif.

Character-Building Program Linked To Religion Poses Dilemma for Schools - WSJ



Check it out and see if there is anything there you disagree with.
 
Last edited:
Would all the problems in the world be solved if there were no religions? Religions really look like a thing of the past since we reached the space decades ago and didn't find any gods in the sky.
However I think that religion is still important for us even if there is no God. Christianity teaches us morals which make us better. Without Christianity people will lose all moral grounds and such things as killing and stealing may become totally acceptable. That's kinda what we see now; all sorts of perversions are getting justified and destigmatized and it's only a matter of time when the things we consider as completely disgusting and unacceptable (pedophilia, zoophilia, incest, etc.) will be considered as normal.

It was civic institutions that created the first laws governing how people acted in a society. Religion borrowed heavily from the Code of Hammurabi. Of course, religions tend to go beyond "this is how people live near each other" to "this is how your sex life, thoughts, personal actions, and beliefs shall be governed". So...I'm very happy our morality and laws are moving away from being based on religious text.
 
Most of these comments, if not all, should begin: "Based on my beliefs my opinion is..."

Fun fact: not everyone thinks the same way you do. We don't base things on beliefs. We base them on facts. And that makes them a great deal more potent than mere opinion.

So you just grabbed a list of atheist that are known for being terrible people and you think that proves a point?

Genghis Khan was part of normal Mongol religious tradition and Mussolini was Catholic.

You seem very personally angry at God. It is not a cop-out for him to not tell us everything, it is the only way to allow for faith. While not a Biblicaly accurate movie there is a great line in Constantine(dont remember it exactly but something like this), Gabriel says to him, you dont believe you know, there is a difference.

Why is allowing for faith good? And how can it possibly be better than knowledge?
 
Fun fact: not everyone thinks the same way you do. We don't base things on beliefs. We base them on facts. And that makes them a great deal more potent than mere opinion.



Genghis Khan was part of normal Mongol religious tradition and Mussolini was Catholic.



Why is allowing for faith good? And how can it possibly be better than knowledge?

There is nothing that says knowledge and faith are opposed. While there are extremists in any group who make strange claims Christians do not decry science. There are in fact many Christians who are scientists. The existence of science and the existence of faith are not two opposed systems. As for why faith is good, it is because faith is free will. If there was no opportunity for faith, for instance if God sat on an earthly throne from which he issued his directives, then there would be no free will. You would see God himself and know for absolute certainty that you must always behave this way or go to hell. With this behavior would be tightly controlled by the entire populace, not out of a desire to do good, not out of faith in the dictates of God, but out of fear of punishment.
 
There is nothing that says knowledge and faith are opposed. While there are extremists in any group who make strange claims Christians do not decry science. There are in fact many Christians who are scientists. The existence of science and the existence of faith are not two opposed systems. As for why faith is good, it is because faith is free will. If there was no opportunity for faith, for instance if God sat on an earthly throne from which he issued his directives, then there would be no free will. You would see God himself and know for absolute certainty that you must always behave this way or go to hell. With this behavior would be tightly controlled by the entire populace, not out of a desire to do good, not out of faith in the dictates of God, but out of fear of punishment.

How is issuing those commands, still under the threat of hell, any less controlling because it's done through a vague parable in an old book? It's still "do what I tell you or suffer", only you have to make this decision on shoddy information. Faith means guessing? That's not a good thing. Free will doesn't mean acting on ignorance. It means making choices. I could no more choose to believe in your god that you could choose to believe in Amon-Ra. The information to do simply isn't there. That's not faith, either. That's just being a part of your culture.

So, again, why is faith good? The reasons you give demonstrate why faith is bad.
 
Thread: Is religion needed to teach us morality?

No.

"Character First" is a program of values instruction which was endorsed by Tom Selleck (IIRC) which was designed so that EVERYONE, no matter their religion or lack of religion could support and teach their kids.

And if they all did just that we would have a MUCH better America.

Curriculum | Character First Education



About | Character First Education



Character-Building Program Linked To Religion Poses Dilemma for Schools - WSJ



Check it out and see if there is anything there you disagree with.

Although I did not have time to explore much of the content in your links, I would say that most of it is agreeable but one thing it really doesn't answer and maybe you can help me with this. WHY would I do this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom