NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been thinking a lot lately about the value of religion in a person's life, especially considering the impact "values" had on the recent US presidential election. I'm an agnostic (not atheist), baptized Catholic. My father is a very spiritual person; while he doesn't go to church I'd say he'd fall somewheres in the area of a conservative or evangelical Protestant. My mom is the one who took me to church and Sunday School and then youth group all those years. So I've been raised in a pretty religious, spiritual environment, but have developed my own set of values and morals that are quite disparate from the Catholic teachings I was indoctrinated with, or my father's constant reminders that Jesus loves me and that gays are bad people.

The conclusion I have come to is that religion hinders the development of one's own morality. Instead of thinking about these things, praying to one's deity, meditating, whatever, you just accept a set of rules and regulations as truth. Remember that the Bible/Torah/Koran were all written in a dangerous time with very patriarchal notions, so they tend to be lists of things you can't eat, guidelines for commerce, things like that. After all, shellfish can be toxic if eaten out of season - so the Bible says that shellfish is an abomination and unclean. But to enforce this, the writers had to invoke God - the fear of hellfire and damnation would certainly prevent *me* from touching a lobster.

The downside to this is people still take the Word literally, and thus believe vehemently that capital punishment is quite all right (think stoning) but abortion isn't (shedding the blood of innocents). I had the opportunity to talk to a state senator from Minnesota - she said that a couple elections back, she lost because the Sunday before her race, her opponent plastered all the churches in the area with posters calling her a baby-killer. It is true she is a pro-choice politician, but who has the higher moral ground in this case: the person who slandered their opponent, or the person who fights for her low-income constituents so they get the funding and welfare they deserve?

We all know that famous quote about religion being the opiate of the masses, but I think Marx didn't go far enough. Religion, in its most organized, fundamental sense, removes a person's capacity for analytical thought and analysis. Or at least that's what I think; I'd like to hear the other side. I'm not bashing spirituality or the belief in a deity of any kind, just the organized aspect of it.

In many ways this is true, but on the other hand some individuals need that opium to survive.

Normal functioning humans have a need for affiliation with something. Organized religion, however misguided it is, is the perfect affiliation for people because it DOES make them feel like they are doing something.

The best religions (notice I did NOT say 'truest') are those that successfully motivate people to listen to its codes, for in one case or another, they are beneficial codes.

However, when an individual realizes that there is no reason to follow a religious code other than the inane fear of being 'damnitized', that is when he becomes irregular, and realizes that only his moral codes matter.

The idea that one's own moral codes are of the utmost importance is only irregular because most individuals NEVER reach this stage. Stage psychologists theorized that this is the highest stage of moral reasoning development.

In many ways this is true, but on the other hand some individuals need that opium to survive.

The idea that one's own moral codes are of the utmost importance is only irregular because most individuals NEVER reach this stage. Stage psychologists theorized that this is the highest stage of moral reasoning development.

I've got to agree with you - Kohlberg's stages of moral development put most people at a level where maintaining social order is paramount, the institution must be preserved for the sake of being preserved, etc. But I see most religions, if they are followed to their conclusions, as preventing people from going beyond a strictly self-preserving, preconventional stage. Authority is accepted and obeyed for fear of reprisal.

I think a lot of organized religion relies on simplicity of habit. Most people go to church every Sunday out of routine and accept the religious morality because it's easier to use a preexisting value system then their own. Most Christians I know only worry about the ten commandments, no one's too worried about the shellfish thing. The gay issue depends more on your individual congregation - the vast majority of churches are openly antihomosexual or undertake a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Mine is more liberal, so we tend to be a bit more welcoming.

A lot of people just can't be bothered to think about morality beyond the "Big Ten." Honestly, they're pretty good rules:

1- No other gods
2- No idols either
3- None o' that swearin'
4- Take a day off every week
5- Be nice to Mom and Dad
6- Don't murder anyone
7- Don't have sex with people you're not married to
8- Don't take things that ain't yours
9- No Lies.
10- Don't covet.

1 and 2? Well, it is a religion, so it's understandable that our deity would be a bit upset if we started worshipping someone else.
3 - Aside from misusing God's name (which is the religious part) we'd probably be happier without profane language.
4 - I don't think any of you are gonna complain about a weekly vacation mandated by the Divine.
5 - You should. You want a piece of that inheritance some day.
6 - This is tricky because it leads to what is murder... murder has a different connotation than "kill" which is the more frequent (and inaccurate) translation. But we still shouldn't go around haphazardly killing other people.
7 - Prevents VD or STD's or STI's or whatever they're called now.
8 - Well, you wouldn't like it if I stole your toupee, would you?
9 - The text says "false witness." I think it means you shouldn't gossip, slander, or lie in court. White lies might be OK.
10 - Just be happy with what you have, is that so wrong? Come on people... be happy.

Really, the only point of contention is number six. They're all pretty good ones though, no?

Yes, but to an agnostic person such as myself, most of those morals are pretty obvious. I base my morality on don't do anything you wouldn't want some one to do to you.

Do I want to be murdered, raped, robbed, or lied to? No, it's that simple. Morals basically come down to: if this happened to you, would you like it? Well, at least that is morality to me.

I do see how it is easier to just use a pre-existing moral guideline, but to me many of those morals I just can't agree with. I feel every person should examine their beliefs at one time or another to see if they really agree with what they've been taught. I do believe that in most instances, morals come directly from the parents. I share most of my morals with my parents, and the core beliefs we completely agree on. Only on outside issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and such do we disagree on.

I was taught not to lie, cheat, steal, kill, rape, and to always treat others with respect. But I was also taught differently on alcohol and sex. I was taught that both can be very enjoyable when done responsibly at the right time in your life. Yes, I do enjoy the occassional drink and I love getting some booty, but to me that doesn't make me any worse of a person because my actions do not directly affect anyone other than myself(and my consensual partner).

Guess what though? I'm in college, I have no STDs and I'm not an alcoholic. Most people think I'm a Christian because of my moral values. What does that say?

Organized religion is so successfull not because they constantly work to make themselves indispensible to their flocks, but because your average joe can't handle the uncertainty that comes with independant spirituality. I'm also agnostic. I'm OK with the fact that the universe is an unknown, that I may never understand or comprehend the true nature of 'God' or the unifying force(s) of this world. I've reconciled my personal morality to be independant of any notion of heaven or hell and whether I'll end up in one or another. Most people aren't at all comfortable with such an unknown. Telling them that there is no way of knowing what the afterlife holds scares the crap out of them. They'd rather believe in a fantastic fable than live in any uncertainty. They'll vehmently defend their 'faith' no matter how fantastic or implausable rather than face the alternative, which is to admit that we don't know and may never know or may never achieve the capacity to understand the true nature of that which binds this universe together.

Guess what though? I'm in college, I have no STDs and I'm not an alcoholic. Most people think I'm a Christian because of my moral values. What does that say?

It really irritates me when a person assumes their own religion has a stronghold on morals, or when they assume that if you have certain beliefs you must belong to a certain religion. If someone said they believed in a holy war people would automatically think "holy war = jihad = Muslim", but I would be just as inclined to wonder if they thought the Crusades were a good idea. Luckily I live in a moderate-enough town and go to an openminded-enough school so I don't have to deal with that, except for the occasional conversation where the Christian God is brought up as a given.

I see the logic in your words Sur Gratis. I was raised in a loose christian household that one day went horribly insane and backwards so I began trying to avoid christianity by seeing other religions. I so far have been taking what I can from these, these religions are in place for a reason, so I want to know why. It's almost like they're all pats of a whole. I find it interesting but that is beside the point. For me my morals have been shaped by these religions, not in spite of it. I cannot adhere to a single one because I know that they do not always fit into today's life. I believe in the choices of all humanity. Therefore I have becuase accepting of all people, in some form or another, it just takes understanding, which in this world is a rare resource indeed. So what I am trying to say is that while religions may hinder personal moral growth, if one can learn to see past the walls of the religion, and into the faith, they might grow beyond anything that we could imagine. But this is a theory of mine, it makes sesnse to me though ^_^

Yes, but to an agnostic person such as myself, most of those morals are pretty obvious. I base my morality on don't do anything you wouldn't want some one to do to you.
guess what. that comes from the Golden Rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

I also am Desease free, don't drink, nor smoke. People call you Christian because that's what they see. Following God's rules is so easy anyone can do it. Now, All you need is the Faith... and you're all set.

Hope you find it. :D

I see the logic in your words Sur Gratis.

Why thanks!

I think your theory makes sense to me too - the key is that you looked beyond the organized part of those religions and took what made sense to you personally. Hence, developed your own set of morals.

It's very nice and well that we're all in such happy agreement, but I'd love to see a firebrand defender of the faith in here to stir the debate a bit...or have we scared them all off with our rational thinking skills? :p

A lot of people just can't be bothered to think about morality beyond the "Big Ten." Honestly, they're pretty good rules:
To be honest, I'm skeptical about this one (ie that people even bother thinking about the big 10).

Also your interpretations, number 1 deals with 'other gods', if it's important enough to have it's own number, then I suspect that it's not just a rehash of the directly proceeding commandment. I think the rationale is to prevent christians from turning their attention away from the Christian spirit within and toward materialistic distractions, and for very good reason too. Basically God doesnt live in glass windows and such windows may be a nice bonus in a church, but they should not come before dispensing charity to the needy.

Not long ago there was a news item about a man who (probably with good intentions) was touring about the USA enticing Christians to worship a false idol, and if the look of blissful idolotry on the faces of the committed christians was any indication, idololtry is alive and well amongst modern day American christians. The irony was the idol falsly worshipped (as though it itself were a manifestation of God and Christ themselves) was a large stone with the 10 commandments carved into it....I guess people were looking and maybe even reading, but their idolotrous worship of a hunk of rock made it clear, they sure as heck were not abidding by the word of their lord.

I also disagree with your interpretation of number 9. I think that the kind of example referred to above is also a contravention of commandment number 9 when it is interpreted in it's fullness. Witness in the bible appears to me, to most often refer not just to what you say, but to what you do as a Christian (ie as an agent of God) . To witness for the lord, isnt just to talk about God and may not involve talking about God much at all. A true witness is the person who makes others stop and wonder what it is they have, and how they can get some (not materially, but personally - emotionally/spritually). A desire for the benefits of christian practise and belief is a far greater motivation than being lectured with a guilt trip, fear of hell, promises of bribes to come, etc.

Keeping in mind that witnessing appears to mean providing an example of what it means to be close to God, acts that risk bringing christianity into disrepute, or which risk giving a misleading image of God and/or christianity, would be acts of false witness. For instance getting onto the back of a flatdeck truck to worship a rock that tells you your God doesnt want you worshipping false idols (like rocks) whilst proclaiming you are doing so for your love of God as a Christian, would most certainly be an act of false witness, whilst also an act idolotry, even though the 'false witness' might be acting in earnest sincerity.

guess what. that comes from the Golden Rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

I also am Desease free, don't drink, nor smoke. People call you Christian because that's what they see. Following God's rules is so easy anyone can do it. Now, All you need is the Faith... and you're all set.

Hope you find it. :D

I'm anti-christian and straightedge. The "Golden Rule" has been in place long, LONG before the Bible.

Sorry, but no. Doesn't work that way.






Slightly off topic, do you know how many non/anti-christian straightedge people there are? I'm the only one I've ever heard of xD

If you do not belong to a religion then what is your morality based on?

If there is no absolute (ie a Supreme Being, a universal force, or whatever), then morality is meaningless.

If there is no absolute absolute guideline to morality then morality is nothing more than what a person thinks is right. That means that a mass murderers morality is worth the same as anybody else's morality. This renders morality absolutely meaningless.

If you do not belong to a religion then what is your morality based on?

If there is no absolute (ie a Supreme Being, a universal force, or whatever), then morality is meaningless.

If there is no absolute absolute guideline to morality then morality is nothing more than what a person thinks is right. That means that a mass murderers morality is worth the same as anybody else's morality. This renders morality absolutely meaningless.

Philosophy is a wonderful thing ^_^

Likewise, if the only thing keeping you good is an invisible man in the sky, I worry about you.

Organized religion is problematic because traditions are carried down from generation to generation without regard to the necessity or rationality of the tradition. In Catholicism especially, there are far too many traditions that have no correlation to biblical teachings. It's unfortunate, really.

However, concluding that followers of organized religion (or religion in general) can't think analytically because of differences in morality seems a bit non sequitur to me.

:p Sur Gratis=lifesaver.

I thought for a moment about Piaget when talking about the moral reasoning, but it IS Kohlberg.

Aaaaaaaaaanyway.

The simple truth, if there is a simple truth, is that truth isn't benevolent. People quest for a caring world where others want to help and do their best and watch Spongebob, etc., but the world, universe ISN'T like that.

Most people disagree, believing that the universe must be good because it makes them feel better (and, heaven forbid that the universe should be based on things that make me feel worse!). However, just because something makes a person feel better doesn't mean that this process is correct or true. Processes in the universe don't discern what makes an individual happy, for they don't discern anything.

Morality isn't universal using this definition, because the universe doesn't discern right and wrong. Morality then becomes an individual's personal idea of pleasure against pain. Religion inhibits morality because it inhibits a person's ability to make his own view of right and wrong (Identity foreclosure).

However, religion is a good thing to have (just going on my own idea of morality) because it is adoptable, and the ideas that people adopt are, for the most part, solid (notice I didn't say 'good').

If you do not belong to a religion then what is your morality based on?

If there is no absolute (ie a Supreme Being, a universal force, or whatever), then morality is meaningless.

If there is no absolute absolute guideline to morality then morality is nothing more than what a person thinks is right. That means that a mass murderers morality is worth the same as anybody else's morality. This renders morality absolutely meaningless.So your morality based upon blind obiedience to what someone else tells you is right, based on your fear of damnation, is better than mine based upon logic and compassion?

Sorry Chief, I don't think so.

I've been thinking a lot lately about the value of religion in a person's life, especially considering the impact "values" had on the recent US presidential election. I'm an agnostic (not atheist), baptized Catholic. My father is a very spiritual person; while he doesn't go to church I'd say he'd fall somewheres in the area of a conservative or evangelical Protestant. My mom is the one who took me to church and Sunday School and then youth group all those years. So I've been raised in a pretty religious, spiritual environment, but have developed my own set of values and morals that are quite disparate from the Catholic teachings I was indoctrinated with, or my father's constant reminders that Jesus loves me and that gays are bad people.

The conclusion I have come to is that religion hinders the development of one's own morality. Instead of thinking about these things, praying to one's deity, meditating, whatever, you just accept a set of rules and regulations as truth. Remember that the Bible/Torah/Koran were all written in a dangerous time with very patriarchal notions, so they tend to be lists of things you can't eat, guidelines for commerce, things like that. After all, shellfish can be toxic if eaten out of season - so the Bible says that shellfish is an abomination and unclean. But to enforce this, the writers had to invoke God - the fear of hellfire and damnation would certainly prevent *me* from touching a lobster.

The downside to this is people still take the Word literally, and thus believe vehemently that capital punishment is quite all right (think stoning) but abortion isn't (shedding the blood of innocents). I had the opportunity to talk to a state senator from Minnesota - she said that a couple elections back, she lost because the Sunday before her race, her opponent plastered all the churches in the area with posters calling her a baby-killer. It is true she is a pro-choice politician, but who has the higher moral ground in this case: the person who slandered their opponent, or the person who fights for her low-income constituents so they get the funding and welfare they deserve?

We all know that famous quote about religion being the opiate of the masses, but I think Marx didn't go far enough. Religion, in its most organized, fundamental sense, removes a person's capacity for analytical thought and analysis. Or at least that's what I think; I'd like to hear the other side. I'm not bashing spirituality or the belief in a deity of any kind, just the organized aspect of it.
I have a friend raised in a conservative, Mormon family and he turned out to be a gothic, liberal, flag-burning (before someone jumps at me, I am not associating liberals and flag-burning) atheist. I suspect that he transformed this way to rebel, but nonetheless, he has become much less moral and lost a lot of basic compassion as he veered from religion. Situations like this are numerous, and yet only one aspect of the evidence. Thus, I'd have to disagree with you.

In a way, Kanatia is right.

However, going with my individualistic idea of morality, since humans are selfish (or capitalistic in nature, this is still a stretch), they might have a tendency to implant that in their ideas of morality. So, what happens is whatever they believe to be true MUST be true and that murderer's morality can't be true because it doesn't conform.

Religion feeds into this idea. Taking the murderer morality idea--with selfishness part of morality the murderer's morality CAN'T be correct because, OH, look at how many people following organizations (religions) say murder is bad. That's majority: murderer.

It's flawed, but at least it gets a standard of morality. That being said, the murderer still has his idea of morality, however overwhelmed it is by <insert name of religion banning murder> morality.

Why thanks!

I think your theory makes sense to me too - the key is that you looked beyond the organized part of those religions and took what made sense to you personally. Hence, developed your own set of morals.

It's very nice and well that we're all in such happy agreement, but I'd love to see a firebrand defender of the faith in here to stir the debate a bit...or have we scared them all off with our rational thinking skills? :pNo, it's more like, there was nothing said so far to indicate that Religion does not play a part in Morales. (note, the title of the thread is Religon and Morales... not Christianity and Morles.) So far, everyone here... excluding Gosheon has had their lives touched by Religion and the fact that even when they find other Religions or leave the Religious side all together, the base Morales are still there.

Some of those Morales are not well thought of. Like the Martydom that some Muslims are practicing. and that taints the view of that Religion to others.

What you need is a person who's line has not been touched by Religion for about two Generations I would say,(Bloody near impossible) to see what Morales can be formed without a religious background.

and remember, there is a difference between following the law and following your morales.

But about Mormon goth boy, personally I resent that remark. Sniffle, sniffle. Because I liberal, and Mormon (that's what I base my morality on, I don't necessarily take the stories too seriously).

For real, for real, that is another principle. Some people, realizing that the religion's idea of morality contrasts too much from their own, will completely break away from everything that moral view stands for.

YES! I have completly masked the fact that religion has touched my life!

No, it's more like, there was nothing said so far to indicate that Religion does not play a part in Morales. (note, the title of the thread is Religon and Morales... not Christianity and Morles.) So far, everyone here... excluding Gosheon has had their lives touched by Religion and the fact that even when they find other Religions or leave the Religious side all together, the base Morales are still there.

Some of those Morales are not well thought of. Like the Martydom that some Muslims are practicing. and that taints the view of that Religion to others.

What you need is a person who's line has not been touched by Religion for about two Generations I would say,(Bloody near impossible) to see what Morales can be formed without a religious background.

and remember, there is a difference between following the law and following your morales.

My morality is based on spirituality.

Spirituality != religion.

I have a friend raised in a conservative, Mormon family and he turned out to be a gothic, liberal, flag-burning (before someone jumps at me, I am not associating liberals and flag-burning) atheist. I suspect that he transformed this way to rebel, but nonetheless, he has become much less moral and lost a lot of basic compassion as he veered from religion. Situations like this are numerous, and yet only one aspect of the evidence. Thus, I'd have to disagree with you.

Or, it could be that he was so repulsed by the contraints of the religion that he overreacted in his rebellion. Remember, I was raised Catholic, but maintained a sense of compassion when I decided that it wasn't for me. Actually, I think it increased once I started to challenge the idea that, for instance, women can't be priests.

I guess at this point I should revise my statement, as I realize it didn't come off quite as I intended. If a religion fits your morals to a T, then great, go for it. It's the blind obedience and submission to an authority without outside thought and consideration that I have issue with; that's what I meant by organized religion in its most fundamental sense. Sorry for the confusion.

I'm anti-christian and straightedge. The "Golden Rule" has been in place long, LONG before the Bible.

Sorry, but no. Doesn't work that way.






Slightly off topic, do you know how many non/anti-christian straightedge people there are? I'm the only one I've ever heard of xD
ok Goed Twee, this question is for you.

What is your stance on Abortion?

What is your Stance on Homosexuality?

And what is your Stance on Genetic Manipulation?

Only for Goed Twee please.
Oh, and to avoid hijacking this topic, you can TG me those answers.

YES! I have completly masked the fact that religion has touched my life!No... you never said... until the post above the quoted one. I never assume a person's religious stance until they declare it. that's all.


That is... if you are REEAAALLLY Mormon. :D

So your morality based upon blind obiedience to what someone else tells you is right, based on your fear of damnation, is better than mine based upon logic and compassion?

Sorry Chief, I don't think so.

It's not blind obedience I choose it because it is the most rational from what knowledge I have. I do not listen to anyone else. I believe the Bible, but I don't trust anybody else's interpretations or beliefs about the Bible. My morality is my own and different from most others.

Your morality that is illogical. For if there is no absolute than humans (and anything else) have no intrinsic value, therefore morality is worthless as there is no intrinsic value in doing good. So to have morality and no absolute is the height of irrationality.

If your morality is not based on an absolute then it is worth the same as everybody else's morality (Which is nothing), which makes your morality worth no more and no more better than that of a mass murderer's or pedophiles morality.

In the same vein if there is no absolute then there is no intrinsic value in a human, therefore compassion for another human is meaningless and irrational as there is no value in the other person.


Likewise, if the only thing keeping you good is an invisible man in the sky, I worry about you.

If we are all random cosmic accidents then all humans are essentially worthless, and no more than accidents. Unless we were designed by something then humans have no intrinsic worth. All morality is based upon the thought that doing bad to humans is evil because humans are are instrinically valuable. Therefore, rationality suggests that morality is meaningless unless there is some absolute that gives humans value. For what does it matter what one worthless accident does to another?

My morality is based on spirituality.

Spirituality != religion.you believe you have a spirit... but you do not follow any Religion?

I have a friend raised in a conservative, Mormon family and he turned out to be a gothic, liberal, flag-burning (before someone jumps at me, I am not associating liberals and flag-burning) atheist. I suspect that he transformed this way to rebel, but nonetheless, he has become much less moral and lost a lot of basic compassion as he veered from religion. Situations like this are numerous, and yet only one aspect of the evidence. Thus, I'd have to disagree with you.

I'm taking issue at how you've linked the terms "gothic," "liberal," "flag-burning," and "atheist" with someone who has (by your count) lost a lot of his "basic compassion. Gothic does not equal Satanist, and hence does not equate to a lack of moral fibre. Liberal certainly does not equal immoral, regardless of what your American Christian Right would have you believe. If by flag-burning you mean protest against a government, then this is in fact evidence of strong moral character - this person has actually evaluated their own personal moral code against that of their government, and found the government's to be lacking. When held against the standard "put up and shut up" attitude, that seems to take a lot of thought and courage.

I'm not sure whether you're a religious person or not, so I mean no offence either way with my next observation. But it seems that it's very easy to make the mistake of thinking that because a person's moral code deviates from yours, they are an immoral person. The worst offenders here seem to be devout Christians - there is often an implicit assumption of the ubiquity of the "Ten Commandments" style of morality, particularly in the US, but also in other Western civilisations.

My own opinion is that morality can be both dependent and independent of religion. My family raised me as an Anglican, but certain differences in world views led to my adopting a form of deist-agnosticism when I was about 14, and I've developed my own personal moral code from life experiences ever since. I consider myself a highly moral being, but in several key areas (including but not limited to gay marriage and abortion) my moral code runs tangent to that of most religious institutions.

you believe you have a spirit... but you do not follow any Religion?

Why is it that Christians (and for that matter, many other religious groups) find this so hard to understand? There is no logical connection between a belief in some kind of personal life force and an overarching structure ordained by some kind of higher being(s).

ok Goed Twee, this question is for you.

What is your stance on Abortion?
Anti-abortion, pro-choice.

What is your Stance on Homosexuality?
How can I have a stance on a viable and consentual relationship two people of the same sex can have?

And what is your Stance on Genetic Manipulation?
Beats me, are we actually doing that now? I haven't heard anything in the news about it.[/QUOTE]


you believe you have a spirit... but you do not follow any Religion?
That is correct. As Marx said, religion is the opiate of the masses. While some may have a true spiritual experience in a religion, I believe it happens to coincide with the religion-not that the religion's teachings are correct, but that there merely served as a path for an individual.

Humans can give themselves intrinsic moral value, even if they were created simply by accident. This is through their accomplishments.

Have any other species reached the proportions that humans have? Have any other species been able to study themselves as we have.

This gives us our intrinsic value. Our views of morality still mean nothing until we give them power through accomplishments. Individuals are compeled to make schemas about moral views based on what the followers of these views have done. For example, people lash at Muslim morals for what a handful of terrorists have done. The morals do not justify their actions, yet these actions give negative value to the morality.

But I just like switching religions on people; keeps them out of the loop.

Why is it that Christians (and for that matter, many other religious groups) find this so hard to understand? There is no logical connection between a belief in some kind of personal life force and an overarching structure ordained by some kind of higher being(s).no. not christians, me. All the people I know personally who are against all forms of Religion do not believe in the concept of a "Soul" So, for me, this is a first.

no. not christians, me. All the people I know personally who are against all forms of Religion do not believe in the concept of a "Soul" So, for me, this is a first.
Might you be confusing spiritualists with atheists?

It all goes down to the following hypothetical experiment.

If you believe that consciousness can exist in anything other than meat just by programming a brain into it (with all the functions of a network of neurons--assuming we can ever get that perfect), then you don't necessarily believe in a soul or equivalent (or at least not a soul only possessed by humans).

However, if you believe consciousness CANNOT exist just by making an artificial brain, then something must be missing, which is the idea of a soul that I cater to.

If you could take the smallest fragment of anything, put it down, then another, and another, until you've put in the pattern of that anything, would you have an exact copy? Or would something be missing? Shouldn't the smallest fragments bundled in an exact order like that be all that a thing is made of?

Organized religion can be a benefit to some; but, I see it mostly as a way to control people. The church doctrine tells you everything you need to know about life and death.

Individualize spirituality provides a much greater connection to the earth and humanity.

A long time ago, dark ages, the churches tried to keep the masses from learning how to read; it was only for the leaders and the common folk didn't need it, because the church leaders would tell them what they needed to know. And, besides the public wouldn't know what was bad or good and the church was saving their sole by restricting what the masses were exposed to.

Even today many churches try to limit the amount of education and knowledge available to their members. What a shame.

A well informed public makes better choices.

Beats me, are we actually doing that now? I haven't heard anything in the news about it.
Stem cell research... Cloning... all are steps towards Genetic Manipulation.

That is correct. As Marx said, religion is the opiate of the masses. While some may have a true spiritual experience in a religion, I believe it happens to coincide with the religion-not that the religion's teachings are correct, but that there merely served as a path for an individual.interesting. Thanks. Just wanted to know what your Morality baised off of Logic and Compassion said about these hot topics. No malice or underlying themes here. Just curious.

It's not blind obedience I choose it because it is the most rational from what knowledge I have. I do not listen to anyone else. I believe the Bible, but I don't trust anybody else's interpretations or beliefs about the Bible. My morality is my own and different from most others.

Your morality that is illogical. For if there is no absolute than humans (and anything else) have no intrinsic value, therefore morality is worthless as there is no intrinsic value in doing good. So to have morality and no absolute is the height of irrationality.

If your morality is not based on an absolute then it is worth the same as everybody else's morality (Which is nothing), which makes your morality worth no more and no more better than that of a mass murderer's or pedophiles morality.

In the same vein if there is no absolute then there is no intrinsic value in a human, therefore compassion for another human is meaningless and irrational as there is no value in the other person.



If we are all random cosmic accidents then all humans are essentially worthless, and no more than accidents. Unless we were designed by something then humans have no intrinsic worth. All morality is based upon the thought that doing bad to humans is evil because humans are are instrinically valuable. Therefore, rationality suggests that morality is meaningless unless there is some absolute that gives humans value. For what does it matter what one worthless accident does to another?

All this seems to say that unless we have religious values and morals we are meaningless?

Human morality has evolved apace with with our own learning. We have been as we are (homo-sapien) long before any organised religion came about and as such have encompassed a set of human rules into our very being, for the majority of people, regardless of religion or values, killing each other is abhorrent on a one to one scale. Sure, at the beginning of our time we probably killed first and asked questions after but as we developed so did our reasoning, we discovered things like kinship, team working (hunting,farming) and as anyone knows being part of a team requires rules to follow in order for it to work to everyones advantage.

Religion was then invented, in it's many guises, when man began gathering in larger and larger groups in order to be of service to each other ;i.e. toolmakers making tools for farmers etc, farmers supplying hunters in lean times, hunters supplying fat for candlemakers etc etc.
In any society and/or civilised group or union rules are required to maintain a balance, from these rules morality grew even more important lest the hunters killed all the farmers thus making life hard for toolmakers etc (A simple analogy I know, but you get my drift)

At the heart of morality is the individual, we can only take on board what is already inherant in our make up as humans and improve on it as we evolve. Morality may be the mainstay of religion but it is not exclusive to it.

Stem cell research... Cloning... all are steps towards Genetic Manipulation.
If this is what life and new knowledge brings, then that is what will be brought about. Weither it is good or bad for life as a whole will be seen eventually, I suppose.

interesting. Thanks. Just wanted to know what your Morality baised off of Logic and Compassion said about these hot topics. No malice or underlying themes here. Just curious.
Heh, always glad to help

Might you be confusing spiritualists with atheists?I've alway thought of Spiritualists as being another form of Religion. Athiesm, I've always been told by people who profess to being Athiests, is one that believes only what Science can prove.

I've alway thought of Spiritualists as being another form of Religion. Athiesm, I've always been told by people who profess to being Athiests, is one that believes only what Science can prove.
Spiritualism and religion are totally different.

Religions require several things-for starters, a unified set of beliefs. This can be anything from a large and complex series of rules, to only a few small guidelines.

In fact, I guess that's the most important and key part of a religion, and what sets it apart from spiritualism-unification. "organized religion" is a slight oxymoron, since religion as a whole must be organized to at least some degree in order to be a religion.

And yes, cults easily fit into this description as well. Cults are, simply enough, religions that are not mainstream. Now, some cults can be more and rather insidious, but...well, that's a whole different game there.

I've alway thought of Spiritualists as being another form of Religion. Athiesm, I've always been told by people who profess to being Athiests, is one that believes only what Science can prove.
Spiritualism is simply the belief in spirits, beings that are not supreme over the universe. Atheism is just what the name says. A being no, much like asexual, and the like theocracy or a government run by clergy, and ism being well.....ism, I hope that doesn't require an explaination. So there is a difference. Spiritualism is a sort of religion, but not in the conventional sense. It's much like if there was no god, just angels. But the angels had less power, and resided around us. Or something to that effect.

Isn't that still a religion? Or is it just a cult of mainstream religion (using the definition that a cult is any new breakaway from established religion--a cult becomes a religion if it fluorishes even after its original founder dies. If it doesn't have a beginning leader, then it is always a cult)?

Sorry for the grammatical tangle. I guess iphail@life.com (I saw that on another website, and now I've been saying it).

What Goed Twee and Dahyj are explaining sounds more like Orgainized Religion... Religion in general is belief in a Diety or the Supernatural.

In fact While looking up Religion... found some interesting Definitions.

a subjective relationship to certain metaphysical, extramundane factors. A kind of experience accorded the highest value, regardless of its contents. The essence is the person's relationship to God or salvation. Jung called them psychotherapeutic systems and believed they contained, offered a gradiant for, and transformed instinctual (hence asceticism), nonpersonal energies, giving people a cultural counterpole to blind instinct, help through difficult transitional stages, and a sense of meaning. They also help separate the growing person from his parents. For Jung, the unconscious had a religious function, and religion rests on an instinctive basis. Different from creeds, which are codified and dogmatized versions of a religious experience. Creeds usually say they have THE truth and are a collective belief. For Jung, no contradiction existed between faith and knowledge because science has nothing to say about metaphysical events, and beliefs are psychological facts that need no proof. belief in supernatural or divine power that invites expression in conduct and often involving ethics and a philosophy (or a specific system of such belief and conduct) this one I found really interesting...
Generally a belief in a deity and practice of worship, action, and/or thought related to that deity. Loosely, any specific system of code of ethics, values, and belief.
is this about Morale and ORGAINIZED Religion or just Religion in general?

Isn't that still a religion? Or is it just a cult of mainstream religion (using the definition that a cult is any new breakaway from established religion--a cult becomes a religion if it fluorishes even after its original founder dies. If it doesn't have a beginning leader, then it is always a cult)?

Sorry for the grammatical tangle. I guess iphail@life.com (I saw that on another website, and now I've been saying it).
It's an older religion. While most modern spiritualists have adapted it. Much like many neo-pagan groups and wicca. Based on ancient ideas, made anew, different. Some has made it through the eons though. Shinto is a form of spiritualism, and polytheism (i.e. spirits as well as gods) if I'm not too terribly mistaken.

For me...my "morality" if you can call it that is based on my own happiness...I don't do things because they are good or because some god or religion commanded me to do them, my actions and how I interact in the world are based on making me happy, I do things that give me joy, I do things that make me feel alive and human, I live in the here and now and take no thought about where I am going to go when I die because I don't care. Do I believe I can do anything I want to do? Yes I do. To me everything is pure and good, I enjoy living. To me everything is permitted, I know what I am doing , so I can do whatever I want. I have taken responsibility for my life and I have made it my own. To me everything is permitted but not all things are beneficial to me...not everything will bring me happiness. If I do things to hurt another person, it won't bring me happiness and it makes me feel petty and dead , so I am compassionate to others and that makes me happy, it makes me feel alive. if I do things to hurt myself, I destroy my own happiness and have no one else to blame for what i become. The only thing that matters to me is being happy and being alive right here and now.

What Goed Twee and Dahyj are explaining sounds more like Orgainized Religion... Religion in general is belief in a Diety or the Supernatural.
It's a religion, but to be organizined it needs organization, no?

is this about Morale and ORGAINIZED Religion or just Religion in general?

Religion in general. Just organized religion is the most commonly known. Why? Because it's organized.

It's an older religion. While most modern spiritualists have adapted it. Much like many neo-pagan groups and wicca. Based on ancient ideas, made anew, different. Some has made it through the eons though. Shinto is a form of spiritualism, and polytheism (i.e. spirits as well as gods) if I'm not too terribly mistaken.Spiritualism is then a religion. and by stretching the definition of Religion... Atheism can be considered a religion... which makes it moot that Religion which guides how one lives, is closely linked with Morales.

LOL just tossing a thought out into the wind... yep... there it goes...

Spiritualism is then a religion. and by stretching the definition of Religion... Atheism can be considered a religion... which makes it moot that Religion which guides how one lives, is closely linked with Morales.

LOL just tossing a thought out into the wind... yep... there it goes...

No specifically because it is the lack of religion. Not all atheists believe science has all the answers either. Some just don't care enough either way. So no atheism is not any sort of religion. Monotheism, polytheism. Not atheism

Spiritualism is then a religion. and by stretching the definition of Religion... Atheism can be considered a religion... which makes it moot that Religion which guides how one lives, is closely linked with Morales.

LOL just tossing a thought out into the wind... yep... there it goes...

Not neccisiarily. Heh, I misread what "spiritualism" was meant to be.

For me, my spirituality is a personal experience. And, frankly, I think everyone should be the same-understanding the non-material world is an individualistic experience.

So, I don't belong to any religion, simply because I do not follow the beliefs of anyone but myself, and nobody follows my beliefs in any organized manner :p

Not neccisiarily. Heh, I misread what "spiritualism" was meant to be.

For me, my spirituality is a personal experience. And, frankly, I think everyone should be the same-understanding the non-material world is an individualistic experience.

So, I don't belong to any religion, simply because I do not follow the beliefs of anyone but myself, and nobody follows my beliefs in any organized manner :p
If your beliefs are as you say, then therin lays the truth that religion is not necissary for morals.

Not neccisiarily. Heh, I misread what "spiritualism" was meant to be.

For me, my spirituality is a personal experience. And, frankly, I think everyone should be the same-understanding the non-material world is an individualistic experience.

So, I don't belong to any religion, simply because I do not follow the beliefs of anyone but myself, and nobody follows my beliefs in any organized manner :pbut in the looses definition of Religion... Spirialism falls into that catagory. It may not be organized, but with the use of the words belief, and the fact that those beliefs "guide" how you live, it is a religion.

So technically, you should be saying, "I don't belong to any orgainized religion..."

No specifically because it is the lack of religion. Not all atheists believe science has all the answers either. Some just don't care enough either way. So no atheism is not any sort of religion. Monotheism, polytheism. Not atheism
Ohhh... shot down... Damn. :D

Is there Any Athiests out there that falls into this catagory? Now I'm interested in how they form their Morales if they truly do not believe in anything.

Ohhh... shot down... Damn. :D

Is there Any Athiests out there that falls into this catagory? Now I'm interested in how they form their Morales if they truly do not believe in anything.
Religion is a way of explaining our world. Morals are a code to rationalize and/or justify them

so there is a tie. since as you say, Morals explain the world set by Religion. Weither or not you belong to a religion of One or of Many, it's those guidlines, or Morales that shape how you live.

The problem is that the world and universe can't be rationalized properly, and when realizing this one realizes we can explain 'how' things work all day long, but never can we explain 'why'. To do so still explains 'how'.

so there is a tie. since as you say, Morals explain the world set by Religion. Weither or not you belong to a religion of One or of Many, it's those guidlines, or Morales that shape how you live.
There is a connection between all things (even if yo have to go Kevin Bacon style) While morals can be from religion, it is not necissary. Simply forming a belief about something is not the same as forming a religion.

but in the looses definition of Religion... Spirialism falls into that catagory. It may not be organized, but with the use of the words belief, and the fact that those beliefs "guide" how you live, it is a religion.

So technically, you should be saying, "I don't belong to any orgainized religion..."

Spirialism is what I bullshat up for a report in one of my classes. How the hell do you know about it? xD

Here's a better question-do our morals come from religion, or does religion come from morals?

It also depends on one's interpetation of what a religion is. If a single person's beliefs are seen as a religion, then yes, I'm in my own religion.

Alas I must retire for the night, Happy New Year's Eve.

btw. jihad really doesn´t mean islamic peoples right to murder any other people to get faster to heaven. The right idea is something like..."turn or you will regret it in the end, our god is the only god, and in the end we will see who was right" but not anything like "bomb the hell out of everyone".

Alas I must retire for the night, Happy New Year's Eve.Happy New Years... See ya in 2005!

Here's a better question-do our morals come from religion, or does religion come from morals?

It also depends on one's interpetation of what a religion is. If a single person's beliefs are seen as a religion, then yes, I'm in my own religion.it falls back to which came first the Chicken or the Egg. I would say, Religion forms the morals. and those morals are passed down from parent to child even before that child finds religion.

And if you're your own Religion... that make you the head of the Church. Congrats! :D

It's not blind obedience I choose it because it is the most rational from what knowledge I have. I do not listen to anyone else. I believe the Bible, but I don't trust anybody else's interpretations or beliefs about the Bible. My morality is my own and different from most others.

Your morality that is illogical. For if there is no absolute than humans (and anything else) have no intrinsic value, therefore morality is worthless as there is no intrinsic value in doing good. So to have morality and no absolute is the height of irrationality.

If your morality is not based on an absolute then it is worth the same as everybody else's morality (Which is nothing), which makes your morality worth no more and no more better than that of a mass murderer's or pedophiles morality.

In the same vein if there is no absolute then there is no intrinsic value in a human, therefore compassion for another human is meaningless and irrational as there is no value in the other person.Well I believe that humans do have an inate morality, something programmed into them. You choose to attribute it to religion, I see it as intrinsic to humanity outside of religion. I see your reliance on some text as spineless and a perversion of true morality. It is also somewhat concieted to think that religion has some sort of lock on morality or that it defines morality. History is full of examples of people doing terrible things because some hierarchy deemed it OK and 'moral'. I will never fall into such a trap because I won't follow some outside definition of morality but answer to that which is whithin us all if we only choose to acknowledge it.

btw. jihad really doesn´t mean islamic peoples right to murder any other people to get faster to heaven. The right idea is something like..."turn or you will regret it in the end, our god is the only god, and in the end we will see who was right" but not anything like "bomb the hell out of everyone".

Um, Jihad, roughly translated, means "struggle." It has absolutly nothing to do with war or harming others at all.

it falls back to which came first the Chicken or the Egg. I would say, Religion forms the morals. and those morals are passed down from parent to child even before that child finds religion.

And if you're your own Religion... that make you the head of the Church. Congrats!

I'm the opposite-from morals came religion, which in trn has perverted some of those morals.

And...if I'm the head, where the hell are my tax rebates?! xD

And...if I'm the head, where the hell are my tax rebates?! xD
Sorry dude... I think that only for ORGANIZED religions

and if you think a religion of one is weird. I know someone who managed to create an Anarchist Organization... complete with bylaws... Imagine that... Organized Anarchists...

Of course... it fell apart shortly afterwards... but it was still a sight to behold. :D

Well I believe that humans do have an inate morality, something programmed into them. You choose to attribute it to religion, I see it as intrinsic to humanity outside of religion. I see your reliance on some text as spineless and a perversion of true morality. It is also somewhat concieted to think that religion has some sort of lock on morality or that it defines morality. History is full of examples of people doing terrible things because some hierarchy deemed it OK and 'moral'. I will never fall into such a trap because I won't follow some outside definition of morality but answer to that which is whithin us all if we only choose to acknowledge it.

I'm not saying religion has a lock on morality. I'm saying apart from the existence of an absolute, morality is illogical and meaningless because morality is totally subjective.

I'm not saying religion has a lock on morality. I'm saying apart from the existence of an absolute, morality is illogical and meaningless because morality is totally subjective.

Morality is not meaningless and illogical apart from an absolute. It is an extension of empathy and reason which are evolutionary developments that have allowed people to live in organized societies and make enormous advancements over the last 15000 years.