Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Religion and Morality - Poles apart.

Options
  • 10-03-2009 9:24pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 259 ✭✭


    A bit of a long rant coming up I think but there seems to be an increasing hankering back to the good oul days espoused by a vocal fundamentalist movement both here and abroad.Some conservative commentators analysis of Irelands current social problems is depressingly simplistic;add weekly mass and insist on two parent families and the situation will improve dramatically.

    Their asumption that liberals are ducking reality by not explicitly encouraging two parent families is itself a prejudice.

    Some such families were severely dysfunctional and violent,something both church and state historically failed to appreciate and acknowledge,leaving many defenceless women and children trapped behind a veneer of conformity .There is scant regard paid to this fact and this has resulted in high rates of alcoholism and suicide not to mention mass emigration from rural areas - not always based on economic factors.But as long as the couple were "married in the eyes of god" and in the "holy roman church" then alcoholism,sexual gratification with children,beatings,mental torture and gratuitous violence were all ignored.

    Religious conservatives must realise that religion was only ever an expression of moral sense and NOT ITS FOUNDATION.

    The moral sense required to underpin the social eduction of kids should focus on ethics and morality in themselves and not the goddam religious window-dressing.

    The conservatives are shrewd enough to the sensitivity of the debate to recognise that authoritarian religion is not the answer.The type which was practised here for decades and duped the gullible masses into believing that organised religion and morality were inextricably linked and effectively one and the same thing.NOT SO.

    What we are now witnessing is the catasrophic loss of confidence in the moral codes previously based on religion,primarily because of the complete discrediting of its clergy and their exposure as a club which shields numerous highly dangerous paedophiles and exposed countles children across the world to rape and torture.

    Surely respect for others is based upon compassion and this is a human trait and NOT A RELIGIOUS ONE.

    Its time that fans of organised religion took their heads out of the sand and faced reality.Their continuing defence of organised religion as the only bullwark against a breakdown of society is doing a grave disservice to all those who have suffered from abuse and does nothing to advance the cause of proper standards of behaviour and respect for people.

    If they had as been as quick in confronting the abusers and not condemning those who did not come from 2 parent families perhaps we would not have the bleak situation which is facing society in the present day with increasing crim,lawlessness and thuggery;complete disrespect for others dignity,massive increases in litter control and a huge upsurge in sexual attacks.

    yet we are not supposed to talk about these things as the very enforcers of doctrinal and rigid adherance to religion remain detached in luxury surroundings with new cars and attended by domestic servants.They continue to propagate mass going and two parent married families as the answer.

    Respect for others can only come from ethics awareness at an early age and a true and certin knowledge that transgressors against other peoples property,personal space or health will be severely dealt with. - and those guilty will not be able to hide behind free legal aid and they "came from a broken home,Judge" baloney.

    True morality can only be formed from an early age with the certin knowlege of non-compliance.It should have nothing to do with whether you come from a one or two parent background or whether they went to mass.

    Very long post in response to some of our media commentators with their slick new presentation skills and ready access to journalists.

    You know who ye are.Lets hope ye read this at least and realise some people will NEVER fall for your religion line.

    Thanks.Over and Out.


«13456789

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Holy Wall of Text Batman! Or should I say secular wall of text? Eitherway, yes, you are correct. It's quite a bone of contention around here. Usually from the Christians actually; "If you don't believe in God there where does morality come from before you can answer it means you don't have morality go eat babies". Which I find worrying, it seems to imply that such believers think they'd go off raping to their pleasure if they ever lost their faith.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Zillah wrote: »
    Holy Wall of Text Batman! Or should I say secular wall of text? Eitherway, yes, you are correct. It's quite a bone of contention around here. Usually from the Christians actually; "If you don't believe in God there where does morality come from before you can answer it means you don't have morality go eat babies". Which I find worrying, it seems to imply that such believers think they'd go off raping to their pleasure if they ever lost their faith.

    I haven't read the OP - too dam long - but I believe that some (most?) Christians on this site have been quick to point out that they don't believe that a non-Christian is necessarily an immoral person. Indeed, it has often been said that there are countless non-believers, Muslims, Bahaist (is that the plural?) or whatever that are more moral (however one actually agrees on what that is in a pluralist post-modern society) than Christians. I believe that your characterization of the voice of Christianity is about as apt as your characterization of our general sentence construction (my mistakes aside).

    If a Christian was to loose his/her faith then the question is how that would effect aspects of their morality. I'm not convinced that rape or baby eating would become burning issues.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    I didn't claim to be representing the voice of Christianity, merely, as I stated, the Christians who come here baffled as to how an Atheist can be moral.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 112 ✭✭mickeydevine


    I haven't read the OP - too dam long -

    You should actually read it cause I'd enjoy seeing your response. It's written well and makes some good points.

    Warning: May contain anti-christian views!


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Zillah wrote: »
    I didn't claim to be representing the voice of Christianity, merely, as I stated, the Christians who come here baffled as to how an Atheist can be moral.

    Well then you ignore those Christians on Boards that don't hold such views and have fairly categorically stated opinions to the contrary. You could count me as amongst them.


  • Advertisement
  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,158 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    I'm completely baffled that this is still a debate,it's pretty obvious that morals are not an inheritley religious trait but an inherity HUMAN trait. Every culture since long before any religion that exist's today had a moral framework of some sort.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Well then you ignore those Christians on Boards that don't hold such views and have fairly categorically stated opinions to the contrary. You could count me as amongst them.

    I'm also ignoring the Buddhists, the Republicans and the Soccer fans. They, like all the people I'm not talking about, have nothing to do with my comment.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    You did rather lump all us Christians in together in your opening post. But if that acute perspective is your focus on matters then so be it.

    However, I suggest that there is more to be gained by finding common ground with sympathetic opponents rather then concentrating on those that don't share our mutual agreement.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood



    If a Christian was to loose his/her faith then the question is how that would effect aspects of their morality.

    How do you think losing faith would affect your morality? Say you were to lose your faith tomorrow...


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    I have no idea.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    I'm completely baffled that this is still a debate,it's pretty obvious that morals are not an inheritley religious trait but an inherity HUMAN trait.
    The religious can't afford to believe this.

    MrP


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Wtf.

    Organised relgion = the Catholic Church in Ireland, with emphasis on the most negative aspects of its past?

    I'm sorry, I'm no fan of organised religion, but I have to call bullshít on this one.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    I'm completely baffled that this is still a debate,it's pretty obvious that morals are not an inheritley religious trait but an inherity HUMAN trait.

    I think the crux of the argument, which rarely seems to be touched, is that do humans require a soul to be moral, or is our morality as naturally forming as our evolved traits.

    Christians, even the ones that accept evolution, imagine humans where "imbued" with a "soul" at some point in our evolution. Atheists question why there was even a need. All of our traits can be explained without needing a magical spirit to make us distinguishably human at some point. What did a soul give us that our evolution couldn't?

    So if God is not needed for the formation of the universe, or the evolution of life on this planet, or the morals and ethics that humans posess, then of what use is God?


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    What did a soul give us that our evolution couldn't?

    Ever lasting life in heaven?
    That's about the only thing that hasn't/can't been accounted for by evolution.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Ever lasting life in heaven?
    That's about the only thing that hasn't/can't been accounted for by evolution.


    Actually, if you are dealing with Christianity it's everlasting life on a new earth after heaven.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Actually, if you are dealing with Christianity it's everlasting life on a new earth after heaven.
    Which you have faith your god will get right second time round after making a complete balls of the first one?

    MrP


  • Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Simon.d


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    I'm completely baffled that this is still a debate,it's pretty obvious that morals are not an inheritley religious trait but an inherity HUMAN trait. Every culture since long before any religion that exist's today had a moral framework of some sort.

    I don't think morals are inherently human.. I'd say many different animal social groups exhibit some level of morality relative to their own social norms.. i.e. All that licking and pruning and general niceness that goes on in non-human societies coupled with an apparent lack of eating each other's babies..


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    what use is God?
    Deities are important in coercive, non-democratic, pre-secular societies, where there leaders need to acquire legitimacy and frequently did so by paying a priesthood to declare that the leader was favored by the deity and would have the moral character to rule wisely and ultimately, be able to call down a heavenly abundance upon his people. AKA the Divine Right of Kings.

    In broad terms, society looked like this:

    Top: leader (distributes taxes)
    Middle: army/police (stick) and priesthood (carrot). (consumes taxes, supports leader)
    Bottom: the population (pays taxes)

    Now that many countries establish the legitimacy of their leadership by election, the state administrations no longer require much support from their former religions, so the latter have generally sunk into a gentle slumber from which they're unlikely to awake. The USA is different, since it never had a state-sponsored religion and the religious memes evolved rapidly to cope with the lack of state support during the time when educational and economic prospects were low (when religions tend to be most attractive).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    then of what use is God?

    The monotheistic concept of a god is basically your parents or your father, and provides the same basic functions for people.
    • Source of authority on moral issues (we develop a need for moral authority from our parents and this carries over into adulthood and is replaced by god when we realise our parents are "just" humans and can be wrong)
    • Purpose (when we are children our purpose is defined by our parents)
    • Love
    • Guidance
    • Companionship


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Wicknight wrote: »
    The monotheistic concept of a god is basically your parents or your father
    That, I think, was Freud's view, but I don't believe it's still considered a plausible explanation -- the uses of the deity of most monotheistic religions goes way past a replacement father figure (tidy and all as it looks).


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    I don't know. Allot of our morals come from what religion thought us, in my catholic school we even had a class dedicated to it. Even if your family isn't all that religious their still picking up morals from a Christian society. It's easy to say I made up my own morals after the fact.

    I do think religion and morals are linked. Both popped up around the same time in human development (more or less). As I see it religion helped people overcome animal instinct. Thinking about a bigger picture helped our minds and morals flourish. Our imaginations became more powerful than the real world around us, human imagination now has a huge influence over the natural world.

    But I don't see the modern churches as being all that religious. There just institutions trying to control people and my definition of religion may be way off yours and the accepted meaning of religion. I don't like saying spiritually because that's always considered personal and I like the communal aspect of religion.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Which you have faith your god will get right second time round after making a complete balls of the first one?

    MrP

    I note the question mark but doubt if you are interested in anything other than making a snappy statement. Some things never change no matter the forum. So really I couldn't be arsed replying to you other then suggesting you read something like [http://www.amazon.com/Evil-Justice-God-N-Wright/dp/0830833986]this[/URL].


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    ScumLord wrote: »
    I don't know. Allot of our morals come from what religion thought us, in my catholic school we even had a class dedicated to it. Even if your family isn't all that religious their still picking up morals from a Christian society. It's easy to say I made up my own morals after the fact.

    The fact that your moral upbringing was highjacked by a religious group does not mean that morality is in any way dependent upon religion.
    I do think religion and morals are linked.

    The only link is one that religion has insidiously manufactured.
    Both popped up around the same time in human development (more or less).

    Er, no, morality came first. They're pretty sure of this, given that we can see many examples of moral behaviour in the animal kingdom (some of it very complex, ie, primates), and not a single species other than humanity displaying anything even remotely related to religion.
    As I see it religion helped people overcome animal instinct. Thinking about a bigger picture helped our minds and morals flourish. Our imaginations became more powerful than the real world around us, human imagination now has a huge influence over the natural world.

    That's nice and all but it sounds like a load of waffle that has no actual bearing on reality.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    ScumLord wrote: »

    I do think religion and morals are linked. Both popped up around the same time in human development (more or less).

    Can you put a date on this? Or do you have any references?

    So if morals and religion both popped up in and around the same time, what do you think us moral-less humans were like before that point? It must have been absolute chaos, it's a wonder we're still around...

    Obviously the scavenging microscopic origins we evolved from were devoid of morals... but at whatever point morality developed (if it even was a "point"), I'm pretty sure it was well before religion.


  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,158 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Simon.d wrote: »
    I don't think morals are inherently human.. I'd say many different animal social groups exhibit some level of morality relative to their own social norms.. i.e. All that licking and pruning and general niceness that goes on in non-human societies coupled with an apparent lack of eating each other's babies..

    I agree completely.
    Actually, if you are dealing with Christianity it's everlasting life on a new earth after heaven.

    Sorry,i'm not trying to bee a wise ass here, but that sounds like reincarnation, reincarnation in a prallel universe but reincarnaion none the less. Where in chrisitain beliefs does it say we end up on another earth?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    robindch wrote: »
    Deities are important in coercive, non-democratic, pre-secular societies...
    Wicknight wrote: »
    The monotheistic concept of a god is basically your parents or your father, and provides the same basic functions for people.

    :o err... thanks guys but I was really asking it more as a rhetorical question. It was also posed towards the idea of a creative God, and not the general use of the concept of God.

    My point was that from a physical and mental perspective the existence of a God or the human soul is not needed. Without both the Universe and humanity wouldn't look any different than how it does now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    It's in the Book of Revelations. Catholicism takes a wonderfully visceral take on everlasting life. While the Gnostics always went for the more esoteric stuff, Catholicism maintains that at the end of time all those that died will be reunited with their now restored bodies. It's a bit unclear but there is a new heaven and a new earth of some sort...maybe one of the believers can elaborate.

    (Ironically I'm sure the above would be news to the vast majority of believers. Homer: Have you ever actually read this thing!?)


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    :o err... thanks guys but I was really asking it more as a rhetorical question.
    Hey, you want rhetoric, you come to the right place!
    Zillah wrote: »
    we can see many examples of moral behaviour in the animal kingdom (some of it very complex, ie, primates),
    Nice one up on the Beeb today:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7934852.stm
    Zillah wrote: »
    and not a single species other than humanity displaying anything even remotely related to religion.
    Cue the opening scene from 2001...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    ScumLord wrote: »
    I do think religion and morals are linked. Both popped up around the same time in human development (more or less)
    correlation.png


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Zillah wrote: »
    The only link is one that religion has insidiously manufactured.
    Manufactured by who? Religion developed in just about every society in one way or another and being a good person has nearly always been enforced by an outside force. Monsters, spirits, dead relatives and God.

    Er, no, morality came first. They're pretty sure of this, given that we can see many examples of moral behaviour in the animal kingdom (some of it very complex, ie, primates), and not a single species other than humanity displaying anything even remotely related to religion.
    Primates are very interesting animals but is it really morality? Their social sure. Our morals probably developed out of things like like protecting your offspring and fitting in with your social groups but I don't think a chimp would be prepared to die because he believes lady chimps should be allowed to rule. (They can just fup off over to them Banobo scum across the river)[/QUOTE]

    That's nice and all but it sounds like a load of waffle that has no actual bearing on reality.
    Of course it's waffle, all talk of religion is.
    Overblood wrote: »
    So if morals and religion both popped up in and around the same time, what do you think us moral-less humans were like before that point? It must have been absolute chaos, it's a wonder we're still around...
    around 70,000 to 10,000 years ago. You can't really compare human development before the mind developed to the way it is now. Before we where just animals evolving, now what we're learning is making us develop differently.


Advertisement