The New School Prayer » Forum Post by WOM

I'm also positively surprised of the nice climate of different opinions in this thread.
I'll take back my earlier comment about "how easy people begin to argument with anger, in the name of God and religion."

I was wrong this time.

Successfully updated karma reason!

starkers

Join Date 05/2004

+1153

Everybody! Take a moment and listen to Lennon`s Imagine song, and comeback to this thread...

'Imagine' is one of the most thought provoking songs I have ever heard. When I listen to the wisdom of the words, Lennon's intended message, I cannot help but think that his was one of the greatest minds in history.
John Lennon may have indulged in some lunacy at times, particularly with the Beatles (Sign of the times), we was a deeply thinking and profound man whose philosophy could teach many a member of the human race a happier way to co-exist.

Even God himself would have agreed whole heartedly about 'imagine there was no religion'....for He did not create it, MAN did....and in doing so, corrupted the original intent of our existence, which is to co-exist peacefully, in harmony with nature and our environment...to love one another but to never covet, murder or steal.
That, in essence, in the short form, is morality...what John Lennon believed without religion as the basis for his ideals.

Greed is probably mankind's worst enemy....greed for power, wealth and dominance, and greed is most often, if not always, the underlying reason/motive for immorality, the pillaging, rape and murder of our brothers/sisters....the planet.

We speak of 'races', but these are not natural occurences, rather they are man made divisions, created for the aforementiomned reasons...greed, and how the priveleged few assert control over the masses. Sure society needs to be ordered/structured, but heck, we could well do without some of the arsewipes who've assumed positions of power/influence.

Rant off..shall medicate and retire to slumber now.

Successfully updated karma reason!

A number of posters have tried to use logic as a defense for religious beliefs. While I feel even the examples in this thread are themselves flawed, I would like to point out a couple larger issues with logic and faith.

First, semantically--that is, if words mean what the dictionaries say and we all use them with their intended meaning--faith and logic are essentially mutually exclusive. "Faith", in a religous context, is belief despite contrary evidence and logic, or at least, belief without provable reason.

This distinction is important at the fundamental level of most religious belief. For example, most religions include an omnipotent deity. This gives rise to the logical paradox I think was summed up best by Homer Simpson, "Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot, that He Himself could not eat it?" Jokes aside, this isn't some fancy play on words, nor of negligible import. Omnipotence presents a fundamental logical fallacy at the heart of religion.

Another example of underlying fallacy is a bit more specific. The crux of the Intelligent Design theory is that something so wonderful, complex, and awe-inspiring as the universe could only be the result of a creator. If this is an accepted assumption, it begs the question, "Who designed the designer?" Which leads to an infinite regression and fundamental logical flaw in the argument. If another assumption is added, that the designer needs no designer itself, we have directly contradicting assumptions. We cannot base an argument on the assumption that A) Incredibly marvelous things DO require a designer and

Some incredibly marvelous things DO NOT require a designer, as they are directly contradictory, so this extended argument also is fundamentally logically flawed from the beginning.

Because at the heart of religious faith lies direct, fundamental flaws by the rules of logic and reason, any attempts to prove them true using the rules of logic and reason are doomed. Certainly one could use reason to support such an argument, but because, again, the conclusion is flawed, that reason must have been misapplied.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Faith goes beyond human understanding, logic and reason. That's why it's called faith. There are actually many things beyond our limited thinking.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Yeah. But people of faith don't care if it is logical. Scientists work by logic. The religious and spiritual work on beliefs and faith, often based on an unprovable experience, or they were just brought up in that environment.

I would support Intelligent Design if someone in the Intelligent Design group would say that maybe it is a deity that is the designer, or maybe it is another life form. Well, maybe I wouldn't exactly support it, but aliens are just as likely to have 'designed' us as any deity.

Man, this thread has sure gone through a lot of topic changes.

Successfully updated karma reason!

A number of posters have tried to use logic as a defense for religious beliefs. While I feel even the examples in this thread are themselves flawed, I would like to point out a couple larger issues with logic and faith.

My argument using logic was based on relative morality, and that if you grant the premise of a universal "right", than you need to bite the bullet and say there is a universal "standard" that is bigger than our whimsical selves or government. Nothing more. Of course you can argue this and just say there is no universal "right". Which makes it all relative. ...but then you cannot fault me for any injustice that I may cause because there is no such thing.

...of course you did not site my examples, so perhaps you were talking about another.

Successfully updated karma reason!

kona0197

Join Date 02/2003

+86

OK let me explain my logic a bit more. To deny that something exists you must acknowledge it does exist first otherwise your denial is based on nothing. Hope that makes it easier to understand.

Successfully updated karma reason!

What kona? That is just repeating what you said. As someone said, I can deny I have a million dollars in the bank. Does that mean that there really is a million dollars in the bank? No.

The point is, people either believe in the supernatural, like God, or they think there is nothing supernatural. It's pretty black and white.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hmm I think I just got what you're saying. But you're just playing semantics. Atheists don't deny God, like criminals deny committing a crime.

Atheists do not think there is a God, or anything supernatural. The only thing atheists acknowledge is that other people believe in God.

I don't think there is a God, and choose to ignore it. I think there is no God, or supernatural whatever.

Successfully updated karma reason!

...That, in essence, in the short form, is morality...what John Lennon believed without religion as the basis for his ideals.

My problem is seeing how a solid idea of morality can exist without religion.
Sure, you can say (as a random example) 'shooting you neighbor in the face for fun is wrong,' but without religion, by what authority can you say something is actually wrong or right?
(Like SD said, either morality is relative, and each of us comes up with our own idea of 'right and wrong,' or there is a definate universal standard.')

He also asked, 'what if my morality tells be thats its ok for me to do something that your morality says is wrong?'

Imagine (in morally-relative world) a man on trial for (random example) what we nowadays would call the cold-blooded murder of an entire family. He would undoutably claim that 'his morality told him it was ok.' He could say that since the law that made killing illegal (assuming there was one) was against his morality, he did not have to obey it. What would/should he be convicted of? Nothing perhaps?

...Adamness, you said you look to humanity for your authority.

if humanity says 'genocide, (systematic extermination based on ethnicity/nationality) is definately ok,' would it be ok? Would you think it is 'ok'?

Calling a horse's tail a 'leg' does not mean the horse has five legs...Along the same lines, saying that genocide is 'ok' does not make it so...
Some things are just plain 'wrong,' regardless of the 'perception' of the viewer.

Greed is probably mankind's worst enemy....greed for power, wealth and dominance, and greed is most often, if not always, the underlying reason/motive for immorality, the pillaging, rape and murder of our brothers/sisters....the planet.

Are you saying that atheists don't have feelings at all? Nope. We are still humans. We care about others other than ourselves. We simply don't believe or even have need for any deities to represent anything.

I dont believe 'feelings' come into it, but I see what you are saying. Let me try to explain...

All people are innately selfish. (Meaning, they naturally put themselves and their well-being/intrests first on their list of priorites.) It is the way they are, the 'status quo.'

You can't change people's natures, but you can put in barriers (morality, laws, etc.) to prevent anarchy.
But, humanity will not worry about 'morality' if humanity is the authority behind it. (as you believe it is) People will, by default, put themselves and their interests first, not the transitory 'feelings' of society.

Without some sort of outside 'influence,' 'Bob' (a member of humanity) will begin to wonder 'why' he should care about morality. (As did the kids in Golding's 'Lord of the Flies') Why should he care about what 'humanity' thinks? Why should he care about murder, theft, rape etc.
There is no reason why he should care...as long the (what we would call) 'bad' things don't happen to him. (as then it would become a concern of the 'self')

XX, people wont care about morality unless there is a logical reason to do so.
(as I said before) I know that if I were an atheist, I would find morality baseless, (I would ask, why should I care about anyone else but myself? ...I challenge you to answer) and act accordingly.
Selfless Nobility, Charity, Philanthropy etc...All these fall away without religion because there is no reason for a person to do/worry about them. The 'self' becomes the supreme concern when deciding whether you should do something or not.
If 'action ABC' is not in the best interest of the self, it should not be done. If breaking the law is not in the best interest of the self, dont do it...If by helping your neighbor, you expect to get something back, do it. If philanthropy gains you praise and admiration among humanity, do it.
If not, dont bother. If you can steal, rape, and/or murder without getting caught, do it.

The common reply is 'well, Im an atheist, and Im not going around (random example:) raping villages and burning women. (or vice versa)'

No, you arent doing those things because society and its laws wont let you. But without morality, the creators and enforcers of laws would slide down the slippery slope of relative morality, eternally justifying their actions as 'ok.' (The aryan race is superior, therefore its ok to gas millions who arent aryans to death. This would be justifible in a morally-relative world...But I think all of us in this thread can agree that it would be/was undeniably wrong, and always will be.)

My point is that you cannot have a successful society without a tangible idea of morality, and without religion, you cannot have that tangible idea of morality.

My 2 cents...for what they're worth.

Successfully updated karma reason!

People see something like genocide as bad though. And people have committed genocide in the name of their religion, and for other reasons altogether. I don't think religion affects peoples morality. We interpret things as 'morally reprehensible,' but it may just be evolutionary traits we inherited. It obviously would be a bad idea for the species to kill ourselves in mass numbers.

However, it could be said that killing in smaller numbers is survival of the fittest. I'm not sure that this is true, but it could be argued.

I'd say that our morality is something internal we got through millions of years of evolution, rather than something external we got through a deity. This is why we haven't destroyed ourselves, and for the most part, we try to improve ourselves as much as we can.

I'm still confused, though, about God being moral. God obviously killed thousands and thousands of people in the Old Testament, and killed many more in the New, including his own son. (Sure the Romans ended up actually doing the killing, but God knew what would happen, and sent his own son to Earth to be killed. I mean, it's God, he certainly could have found a way to 'save' us with out killing his only offspring. It would be far more meaningful for Jesus to have stayed on Earth and helped us directly, rather than be killed. This is, of course, assuming there is a God and Jesus, which I don't think exists.)

But I digress.

Successfully updated karma reason!

My point is that you cannot have a successful society without a tangible idea of morality, and without religion, you cannot have that tangible idea of morality.

Outstanding! My thoughts in different words! Very good argument, EventHorizon.

I'd say that our morality is something internal we got through millions of years of evolution, rather than something external we got through a deity.

Our belief systems and religions may have grown from millions of years of evolution, yes. Cro-magnun man sees two tribesman killed by an attacking saber-toothed tiger, one his mate and one his offspring. Since no other animal buries it's dead, Cro also does not. The Cro-man's tribe is camped nearby, and fell a herd animal for meat. As the others put the herd animal down, and as the life of the animal is ebbing away, Cro-man sees his offspring awaken. There is now, in his mind, a way to bring the dead back to life: through sacrifice of an animal. Religion begins.

And to say that morality is learned only from a deity or a religion with deities, those greater than ourselves that give us rules to live amoungst each other with a greater survival rate, cannot be in itself the only truth. For hundreds, even thousands, of years, mankinds wisest have debated the best way for the individual to survive with the populace. Many philosphies have been written with these roots. I am trying to say that religion is not our only basis for moral behavior.

Religion and government were both created for the sole reason to keep a community bound together, working together to further the community's numbers and reach. If we do not have a solid, uniform standard of moral basis, we have nothing to learn from other than our own mistakes.

It is not to be said that "God" is moral. It is said that he is the creator and we are created in His image. If you look closely, you'll see that it is man who wrote the Scriptures. They say that they were inspired, through dreams or visions. Tehy believed that the words they wrote, to help mankind further itself, were given to them by their creator. What better way to get more of the people to understand with them, the words of moral behavior that were given?

God did not kill thousands of people in the Old Testament, man did. The 7 plagues can be explained away by scientific data, but God was not involved. The curse was spoken by Moses. Moses killed them all, if he spoke the curse.

Jesus never claimed to be the only son of God, one of his Apostles did. And it would be easier to assume that there is a Jesus, than to try to prove there is a God. Jesus could have existed, afterall he was a man.

And so I proclaim that you can have a "tangible" idea of morality without religion. However, with religion, the reinforcement of the ideas is easier, as there is something greater than man, something that man cannot touch, set fire to, beat down, argue with, or feed to the lions.

The only real way to enforce morality, though, is first to admit that there is a greater authority. It does not have to be a deity. It could be law enforcement. It could be the local minister. It could be a rock. As long as you give yourself someone or something to answer to.

I hope I have spoken myself clearly enough to be understood, as this all came in a rush and it was hard for my fingers to keep up with my thoughts. Thanks for reading, and thanks for posting.

Successfully updated karma reason!

If religion was never created, and humans never had any ideas of any deity or supernatural being or force, I still think we would have the same general morality.

I don't think it's fair to think the only way people will be good, and know the difference of good and bad, is for them to be told. At a certain age, children know the difference between good and bad, much sooner than they can fully comprehend religion.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I don't think it's fair to think the only way people will be good, and know the difference of good and bad, is for them to be told. At a certain age, children know the difference between good and bad, much sooner than they can fully comprehend religion.

CS Lewis was the author of the movie currently playing called "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe". In his book Mere Christianity (BTW he started as an atheist until he set out to disprove the existence of God), he mentions almost your exact words to indicate that there is some other force outside of our natural world that lets us know right from wrong. It is not our parents. It is not our schools or governments. Due to it being outside our natural world of "what we see, feel, taste" etc, he calls it "Super Natural". A loaded phrase, I know. But it is "other" oriented. Again I would say, that this is the beginning of faith (IMHO), to admit to something "other" than what we know, sniff, touch, learn and see.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Without intending any offense, I have to say that the argument that morality can only stem from religion is immature and demeaning.

To hold this viewpoint one must make certain assumptions about the nature of humanity.

First, it must be assumed that man is inherently immoral. That's easy if you're the type that believes in a Garden of Eden and Original Sin, but most of us like to think we are nice people, and our friends and family are too.

You must also assume that man is incapable of mature thought and reason. The argument is that the only thing preventing us from behaving evily is the threat of some supernatural punishment--treating all of us as if we are children who behave only to avoid a spanking.

I, for one, behave civily and with respect for others for a very logical (and ancient) reason: I'd want others to behave that way towards me. That's a bit of a simplification, but it does define a moral stance and requires no religion, dogma, or threat of eternal damnation.

There is again the unspoken assumption that "religious" implies "moral". As the studies and books linked in my first post explain, that is simply an urban myth.

Another undercurrent of the argument for religion based morality is the desire for absolutes in moral terms. But where are the absolutes in the Bible-based morality makers of this argument would have us obey? Is it absolute that "Thou shalt not kill?"--no, of course not. Soldiers kill, states execute, eople defend themselves and their loved ones. So already we have to introduce some semblance of relativity/situationally applied morality--the absolute is, well, not.

(Aside here. Many times I use "Thou shalt not kill" as an example, because it is specific, from the Ten commandments, and familiar. Often some guy will chime in and say "But it should say, 'Thou shalt not murder'." To that person, I ask, before you say it, tell me, are you admitting there are errors in the bible? And what is your point anyway (they always say that and only that) )

What about the other rules in the book many hold as absolute example of morality? The bible states very explicityly that the seventh day is the Lord's day, and no work shall be done on it, under penalty of death. But who today would consider it moral to kill the delivery boy for brining you your Sunday paper? Not I, and I suspect, not you.

In summation. Morality without religion is not only possible, but straightforward and undeniable. (But if you like thinking about this, you might enjoy this book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805075208/103-0432759-8192669?v=glance&n=283155 ) Those who argue that their religion holds the key to morality nevertheless behave no more morally than other people (really. Chirstians need to get their shit together and lead by example, but they haven't, and until they [as a group now] do, they are hypocrites). And finally, the so-called absolute morality of the Bible is neither absolute nor moral.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The difference in "Thou shalt not murder" and "thou shalt not kill" is the taking of an innocent life, allowing for capitol punishment or death in warfare. Again, God is dealing with people where they are and would not hold a soldier liable for killing while he is serving his country. More in a minute.

Successfully updated karma reason!

What about the other rules in the book many hold as absolute example of morality? The bible states very explicityly that the seventh day is the Lord's day, and no work shall be done on it, under penalty of death. But who today would consider it moral to kill the delivery boy for brining you your Sunday paper? Not I, and I suspect, not you.

During the initial Judao Christian Theocracy (before Israel demanded a king), God set up a group of rules that needed to be followed for the protection of all. Many of them seemed harsh, but they were harsh times. Many of the stiputlations were to protect people. Overworking was one such issue, as was eating raw meat. Neither of which are very healthy. Jesus brought about a new plan, and again the religios people condemned him on the Sabbath, saying he was breaking the Law. He mentioned a similar situation as you did, RR, that it is ok for man to do good on the Sabbath and that it was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. I would encourage you, RR, to get a good understanding of the entire Bible, instead of just bits and pieces. You can make it say anything by grabbing bits and pieces. There is a theme that runs through it from beginning to end. It is about redemption.

Those who argue that their religion holds the key to morality nevertheless behave no more morally than other people (really. Chirstians need to get their shit together and lead by example, but they haven't, and until they [as a group now] do, they are hypocrites). And finally, the so-called absolute morality of the Bible is neither absolute nor moral.

If you read some of my earlier posts, this is not what it is about at all. It is about all of us coming up short. No people, religious or otherwise, are any better than any others.

Successfully updated karma reason!

"Christians", and I use the word hesitantly, have always been the problem with Christianity. The reason for this is that so many get the "better the thou" attitude when that particular attitude is exactly what Christ condemned. The humble servant was the one who was praised, and the Holy thinking religious people were the ones Christ called "brood of vipers". I urge anyone to read the book yourself. I certainly cannot give it the justice it deserves. Or at least the book of Matthew or John to get the low down on Jesus' teachings

Successfully updated karma reason!

Just for the record, is it foolish to try to prove there is or isn't a God. As I said, religion and spirituality is about faith and beliefs, not logic and proof.

Anyway, just because our parents, schools and governments don't tell us what is moral or not (which I'm not too sure about) it doesn't mean God or any deity or force is what's telling us about morality. Instinct and evolution dictate our morality. And I'm not just talking about evolution from ocean slime to man, I'm talking about the evolution of morals. As SD said, Jesus had different morals than the strict Jewish leaders of the time, and we have very different morals than Jesus.

Just as morals change over time, they also change from culture to culture. And yet, no cultures or religion tell people to kill each other, or steal from each other. That, to me is a universal inherited trait we got over time through evolution. At the same time, someone may look at that as God putting morals into us, or however that would work.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Just for the record, is it foolish to try to prove there is or isn't a God. As I said, religion and spirituality is about faith and beliefs, not logic and proof.

Well said. I certainly am no match for Carl Sagan to debate this and most here cannot equal St. Thomas Aquinas (sp?), or Anselm or any other great thinkers on the subject. It comes down to faith. Well said, Adamness.

But (in my opinion) God gave us a mind to ask the questions, find the answers, and to seek. It is only those who seek, who find. Only those who question receive answers.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'd hoped to avoid dueling Bible quotations, and hopefully we will. I also appreciate the upfront admission that "[A person] can make [the Bible] say anything by grabbing bits and pieces". But I am more familiar with the subject than you give me credit for.

The argument that in the New Testament Jesus trumps anything in the Old Testament only seems to come out when it is convenient. It is convenient to say Jesus doesn't want us killing the Sunday delivery boy no matter what the Old Testament says. Yet we don't have people wanting to put Jesus's rules for forgiveness on monuments in the courthouses. No, then it is much more vindicating to post the Old School, eye-for-an-eye style Ten Commandments. Where's Jesus's values of brotherly love on the homosexual marraige issue? Nowhere to be seen; it would plainly negate the OT quotes people use to defend their position.

My point is, I'm not the one picking and choosing what rules of the Bible I want to follow, and when I want to follow them. The people doing the picking and choosing--which as you say, can defend nearly any viewpoint--are the people who (when convenient) actually believe in it.

Additionally, if the Bible is intended to be, and indeed can be fully understood only when, read as some sort of unified whole about "redemption", then what use is it as a moral guide?

Basically, SD, I am in agreement with you. People should read the whole Bible, not just the bits and pieces. They should read the Song of Solomon http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Sgs/Sgs001.html#top . Give Ezekiel a good read. http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Eze/Eze004.html#12 Then, if you can really integrate hot-sex and shit-cakes into a unified whole about redemption worthy of guiding your life by, then I admit, you, sir, know your Bible better than I.

Successfully updated karma reason!

kona0197

Join Date 02/2003

+86

Well I'm not going to argue anymore. I know based on faith that there is a God. That's what I believe in.

Successfully updated karma reason!

But (in my opinion) God gave us a mind to ask the questions, find the answers, and to seek. It is only those who seek, who find. Only those who question receive answers.

To me, that's a cop out. Whenever I get into bitter, angry arguments (friendly discussions?) with my friends about religion, I always say something like 'If God is up there, throw a fish at my head.' Obviously nothing happens, and my point is proven. To me at least.

But they say that God shouldn't answer me, but rather I should seek out and answer God. Now, to me, that is bs. I won't go on, since I don't want to start a religion vs. atheism debate that will turn into Flamefest '06, but you all at least know what I'm saying, whether you agree with me or not.

To tie this back to the original post, I think we can all see now why religion and spirituality shouldn't be a part of public schools. If the point is to put morality into kids, morality may or may not be tied to religion, and we shouldn't teach things that may or may not be true, when there really is no evidence either way as to where morality originates. That was a long sentence.

Successfully updated karma reason!

starkers

Join Date 05/2004

+1153

Well I'm not going to argue anymore.

Well I don't know that I had...or at least never intended to....

I'm not going to kill, slay or murder anyone today...ever
I'm not going to steal from the local shop tomorrow...ever
I'm not going to covet my neighbour's wife today, tomorrow...any day
I'm not going to commit adultery today or tomorrow...any later I'll be too old

I'm not going to stop loving my neighbour as I would myself.
And I most certainly will continue to honour my mother and father, etc, etc.

I firmly believe in the existence of God (non denominational), and therefore in the ten commandments. I also respect and admire the ideals and view of people such as John Lennon, etc.

However, the I'm not going to's have nothing to do with either religion or the ideals of admirable men/women who base their morality on other principles. There's something else inside of me that says I shouldn't do any of these things. Maybe it's just that simply I don't have the heart or guts to, not out of fear of punishment or being caught, but because I'm just not built that way. We're all born with a conscience....it's just that some choose to ignore it, and those of us who listen to it, try to lead decent, respectable and moral lives, irrespective of faith or the lack thereof. If God gave me this conscience, then I'm grateful for it, but by the same token, then, God did similarly for aetheists, whether they believe it or in Him or not (did I just open a can of worms there or not

)

As I see it, There's a place for faith/religion, scientific proof and aetheism in this world, and if we can draw from all these resources to find way of teaching our young practical morality/decency, then we are part way towards winning the battle.

Successfully updated karma reason!