Church influence down, morals changed?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Mad_maxx wrote: »

so who will then provide moral guidance because vacuums are always filled ?

perhaps Una Mullaly will appoint herself the new Mc Quaid ?

Where do you think arthiests get their moral guidance from as it is?

the_syco

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Actually, so how do I become a level 100 die hard atheist?

Burn down a church every full moon :pac:

Deleted User wrote: »

Not even Northern Ireland can be easily described as that.

Is that the Norn Iron where catholics would be passed over for a job because they were catholics?

Mad_maxx wrote: »

a small minority of fiends in the catholic church should not mean we completely dismiss the stability in society that a strong church provided

im a non believer too by the way

Instead of being kicked out, the pedos were moved to another parish where they could start again with fresh victims. They threw single mothers into forced labour camps, and sold the babies to foreigners. They threatened non-compliance with isolation from the community.

The RCC were mostly horribly bad people, from the top down, with a minority of good priests.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I feel like if you removed the community and charity aspects of it, there'd be nothing worth saving about the Church in Ireland.

Is the community & charity aspects based on if the receiver is RCC?

Strumms

Mad_maxx wrote: »

so who will then provide moral guidance because vacuums are always filled ?

perhaps Una Mullaly will appoint herself the new Mc Quaid ?

She was woke before woke was even a thing. She might have even invented woke... she used to post on the old hotpress message board going ways back maybe 15 years ago... a wokie melt.

JupiterKid

Ireland is far better off without the influence of the church in every possible way.

Humans do not need religion for moral guidance - religion is all about subjugation, power and control through fear.

ShatterAlan

LuasSimon wrote: »

Attending church, been told not to kill your neighbour etc gave people a basic grounding of rights and wrongs of life.
These days many people have zero boundaries and are only interested in themselves and have little/no regard for their neighbours or community

You don't need a cult based on the supernatural to instill that idea.


The LAW is sufficient enough.

AmirPelavin01

Actually I am a curious about why religion causes trouble if it just teaches us to do good. we all have different religion and they teach us to be good. I don't think any religion says that we should fight with other religion. I pray and I do good. I'm okay with no fights with other religion. I know that will be better.

Hamsterchops

2lazytogetup wrote: »

church influence down, morals changed?

church flatulence down, mopeds charged?

I'll have to get a larger font on my iPhone

Mad_maxx

the_syco wrote: »

Burn down a church every full moon :pac:


Is that the Norn Iron where catholics would be passed over for a job because they were catholics?


Instead of being kicked out, the pedos were moved to another parish where they could start again with fresh victims. They threw single mothers into forced labour camps, and sold the babies to foreigners. They threatened non-compliance with isolation from the community.

The RCC were mostly horribly bad people, from the top down, with a minority of good priests.


Is the community & charity aspects based on if the receiver is RCC?

So you think most priests we're "horribly bad " ?

theological

2lazytogetup wrote: »

im not religious, but think the aul JC was cool. he said be nice to each other, forgive etc. probably good teachings.

just wondering if people have notice morality been lost somewhat over the last 20 years since the catholic church influence has wained.

for example, the religious school i went to had priests that hammered home STIs and no sex before marriage. and between the indoctrination and women generally having to interest in my attempts, that area of my life wasnt going anywhere till i was much older. so are the new generation meeting up, having loads of action and babies galore?

Christianity isn't in essence about moral performance. The gospel (the good news) is that Jesus Christ came to save sinners (1 Timothy 1:15). That means that from the outset we have fallen short of God's standards and we need a Saviour. The reason why this is good news is that I don't need to do X, Y or Z to be right with God. I am right with God already through the death and resurrection of Jesus (Romans 5:8-9).

So what does that mean for morality? We don't do what God declares to be good because we fear judgment. If we believe in Jesus that is sorted already through the cross (Galatians 2:21). We do what God desires for us because we love Him and want to live for Him. We use our freedom to serve God (Galatians 5:1). This freedom means that we don't have to be chained to the expectations of others. We don't need to seek after other things to find our worth or significance in the world. Our value comes through Jesus. By saving us through His death and resurrection He welcomes us as adoptive children into God's family (Galatians 4:4-5).

Although I'm happy to respond to anything here, why not pop over to the Christianity forum if you want to find out more?


Edit: Actually, some more, there's some interesting assumptions on this thread.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I feel like if you removed the community and charity aspects of it, there'd be nothing worth saving about the Church in Ireland.

From an atheistic perspective, I'd agree. From a Christian perspective the church (lower case c - the people of God, rather than the institution) are definitely worth saving because they are needed to share Christ with others. Not that we really "save" God's people, God will preserve them as He has done from day 1.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

People are not empty vessels for a would-be overlord to fill. They're capable of rational thought. The days where we needed the Church's perversion of morality are long gone.

Also an interesting assumption that those who believe in Christianity do so in spite of rational thought than because of it. I decided to become a Christian over 10 years ago because of investigating the life of Jesus and His claims in the gospels.

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

Also an interesting assumption that those who believe in Christianity do so in spite of rational thought than because of it. I decided to become a Christian over 10 years ago because of investigating the life of Jesus and His claims in the gospels.

I'm disputing the idea that we can't have morality without religion. What you do with your life is up to you.

uptherebels

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No we aren't. But Catholic schools tend to be fairly academic anywhere.



Maybe, but every form of education has some indoctrination in it.



No I didn't but that wasn't the point I was replying to. I was replying to the claim that all catholic schools did in Ireland was teach religious indoctrination.

Did you actually read my post and the one I was replying to?
My response was to a post that talked globally, so yes we were.
I don't know what classes you had but the only indoctrination attempts I had was by the "religious". So no not every type of education has indoctrination, that's just deflection as a defense.
I didn't make the claim that all catholic schools did was teach religious indoctrination so what point are you referring to?

uptherebels

Mad_maxx wrote: »

do you think proponents of a wholly secular education system do not wish to indoctrinate ?

your last line is just reductive

Indoctrinate in what way?
One of the main aspects of an education is to develop critical thinking. You can't do both. You either educate or you don't.
Reductive in what way? It's either true or it isn't.

Mad_maxx

uptherebels wrote: »

Indoctrinate in what way?
One of the main aspects of an education is to develop critical thinking. You can't do both. You either educate or you don't.
Reductive in what way? It's either true or it isn't.

Are you aware of the proposals for the new curriculum?

Teaching primary school kids about gender and "LGBT"

That's ideological indoctrination from a young age

strandroad

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Are you aware of the proposals for the new curriculum?

Teaching primary school kids about gender and "LGBT"

That's ideological indoctrination from a young age

LGBT people demonstrably exist. As opposed to deities, angels, demons etc.

ancapailldorcha

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Are you aware of the proposals for the new curriculum?

Teaching primary school kids about gender and "LGBT"

That's ideological indoctrination from a young age

It really isn't.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

AmirPelavin01 wrote: »

Actually I am a curious about why religion causes trouble if it just teaches us to do good. we all have different religion and they teach us to be good. I don't think any religion says that we should fight with other religion. I pray and I do good. I'm okay with no fights with other religion. I know that will be better.

This depends on how you define "good". Catholicism used to preach that homosexuality was evil and still teaches that masturbation and sex outside of marriage is sinful; and that people who indulge are evil. So do other Chrsitian religions. Ans some non-Christian religions to be fair.

But I can't accept that any of this is "teaching us to do good".

Mad_maxx wrote: »

do you think proponents of a wholly secular education system do not wish to indoctrinate ?

your last line is just reductive

Sexual health awreness isn't indoctrination, it's practical knowledge and safety.

Teaching that heterosexualty is prefered or more acceptable in some way is indoctrination.

Mad_maxx

strandroad wrote: »

LGBT people demonstrably exist. As opposed to deities, angels, demons etc.

" LGBT" is a politically loaded term

Mad_maxx

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

This depends on how you define "good". Catholicism used to preach that homosexuality was evil and still teaches that masturbation and sex outside of marriage is sinful; and that people who indulge are evil. So do other Chrsitian religions. Ans some non-Christian religions to be fair.

But I can't accept that any of this is "teaching us to do good".





Sexual health awreness isn't indoctrination, it's practical knowledge and safety.

Teaching that heterosexualty is prefered or more acceptable in some way is indoctrination.

how do you mean " preferred " exactly ?

Tchaikovsky

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Are you aware of the proposals for the new curriculum?

Teaching primary school kids about gender and "LGBT"

That's ideological indoctrination from a young age

They just need to teach them that whatever someone else does with another person is of no concern to them.

theological

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm disputing the idea that we can't have morality without religion. What you do with your life is up to you.

Who said that you can't? I don't think Christians would argue that atheists can't be moral. However, you said that Christian morality isn't based on reason, I'd dispute that.

I think there's problems with moral reasoning in the absence of a moral law giver. In an atheistic worldview, the only way we can justify our moral positions is by saying that I think X or Y is wrong or right. The problem with that is that it lacks authority. Your position is no more authoritative than the guy who argues to the contrary. We obviously don't as society believe that "what you do with your life is up to you" really.

From a Christian point of view, at least the buck stops with someone who is beyond myself and someone who has a greater authority to make these calls, and indeed someone who has spoken based on what He knows about creation.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Are you aware of the proposals for the new curriculum?

Teaching primary school kids about gender and "LGBT"

That's ideological indoctrination from a young age

Personally I'm perfectly happy with the idea of children learning about other positions on these matters. In the event that I have children of my own I hope to engage with the wider culture rather than shirking away from it. I'd reserve the right to teach what God has said on this and other matters at home.

A number of people I know are increasingly moving towards home schooling or enrolling in independent Christian schools in order to teach from a Christian worldview, but I think this is flawed for two reasons. Firstly, they will learn that people conduct their lives differently anyway, and secondly there will be no Christian kids in the classroom to engage with others. It'll make the classroom a more liberal secular zone rather than the other way around.

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

Who said that you can't? I don't think Christians would argue that atheists can't be moral. However, you said that Christian morality isn't based on reason, I'd dispute that.

I think there's problems with moral reasoning in the absence of a moral law giver. In an atheistic worldview, the only way we can justify our moral positions is by saying that I think X or Y is wrong or right. The problem with that is that it lacks authority. Your position is no more authoritative than the guy who argues to the contrary. We obviously don't as society believe that "what you do with your life is up to you" really.

From a Christian point of view, at least the buck stops with someone who is beyond myself and someone who has a greater authority to make these calls, and indeed someone who has spoken based on what He knows about creation.

It's been stated and implied that we need religion for moral instruction. The comment about rational thought was a clear reference to people working out morality for themselves and I think you know that.

The problem with the rest of your post is that there's no way to prove the existence of your moral authority beyond that of a fictional invention that has endured for generations so that point is moot. It also hasn't stopped Christians slaughtering each other and non-Christians for centuries so I don't think they're thinking too much about that either.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Mad_maxx wrote: »

how do you mean " preferred " exactly ?

There is the opinion (not saying it's yours) that sex education should be in schools but that it should NOT teach homosexuality or LGBT-related issues. To me, this is giving the message that traditional heterosexuality is prefered. I am open to to alternate interpretations though, if you care to present one.

But the question remains: why shoud LGTB issues NOT be taught in sexual health classes? A lot of these kids are will be gay, lesbian, bisexual or even trans - I'd argue that these kids have the same right to state-provided education and health information as much as any other.

theological

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's been stated and implied that we need religion for moral instruction. The comment about rational thought was a clear reference to people working out morality for themselves and I think you know that.

The problem with the rest of your post is that there's no way to prove the existence of your moral authority beyond that of a fictional invention that has endured for generations so that point is moot. It also hasn't stopped Christians slaughtering each other and non-Christians for centuries so I don't think they're thinking too much about that either.

How does that actually work in practice? For example, what happens if someone disagrees with you about what is right and and what is wrong on a particular issue? What happens if they are not persuaded by your logic?

How do you work out what is actually right and wrong ultimately? Or is it just a matter of opinion? If it is just a matter of opinion how is a moral position on anything more than just a preference?

The Christian skips this piece by being able to appeal to what God has spoken. The Christian can point to a clear moral authority.

My bottom line on morality would be yes, atheists are capable of being largely moral, but they lack any cohesive means of reasoning as to what is objectively good and evil in the absence of God and what He has spoken.

As for there being "no way to prove the existence of God". Personally, I'd dispute that, from a Christian perspective Jesus verifiably walked on this earth in history and we have the eyewitnesses in history.

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

How does that actually work in practice? For example, what happens if someone disagrees with you about what is right and and what is wrong on a particular issue? What happens if they are not persuaded by your logic?

We're not bees, we're human beings. We agree to disagree and move on.

theological wrote: »

How do you work out what is actually right and wrong ultimately? Or is it just a matter of opinion? If it is just a matter of opinion how is a moral position on anything more than just a preference?

Debate, empathy, compassion and logic. A significant improvement on a centuries-old book by numerous authors about a fictional entity in my opinion.

theological wrote: »

The Christian skips this piece by being able to appeal to what God has spoken. The Christian can point to a clear moral authority.

My bottom line on morality would be yes, atheists are capable of being largely moral, but they lack any cohesive means of reasoning as to what is objectively good and evil in the absence of God and what He has spoken.

As for there being "no way to prove the existence of God". Personally, I'd dispute that, from a Christian perspective Jesus verifiably walked on this earth in history and we have the eyewitnesses in history.

The Christian skips this by not thinking about it and enforcing their views on other people with predictably atrocious results across history.

And I was talking about the existence of God specifically and there's not one iota of evidence for that.

ohnonotgmail

theological wrote: »

How does that actually work in practice? For example, what happens if someone disagrees with you about what is right and and what is wrong on a particular issue? What happens if they are not persuaded by your logic?

How do you work out what is actually right and wrong ultimately? Or is it just a matter of opinion? If it is just a matter of opinion how is a moral position on anything more than just a preference?

The Christian skips this piece by being able to appeal to what God has spoken. The Christian can point to a clear moral authority.

My bottom line on morality would be yes, atheists are capable of being largely moral, but they lack any cohesive means of reasoning as to what is objectively good and evil in the absence of God and what He has spoken.

As for there being "no way to prove the existence of God". Personally, I'd dispute that, from a Christian perspective Jesus verifiably walked on this earth in history and we have the eyewitnesses in history.

can you not figure out for yourself what is right and wrong? why do you need somebody else to tell you?

TheValeyard

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

can you not figure out for yourself what is right and wrong? why do you need somebody else to tell you?

Well, none of us did that to be fair. We all had family, friends, teachers help guide us with morals until we became of age to decide ourselves. Some may feel the religious guide to morals in their lives are beneficial and aligned to their own personal beliefs.

ShatterAlan

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

don't forget the blessing for the Brits and the Normans to invade ireland came from the pope and our own church convinced us we deserved it for being sinners shinners

FYP

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

TheValeyard wrote: »

Well, none of us did that to be fair. We all had family, friends, teachers help guide us with morals until we became of age to decide ourselves. Some may feel the religious guide to morals in their lives are beneficial and aligned to their own personal beliefs.

I'd argue it's a natural sense of empathy. We see seomeone hurt or in trouble and the natural instict is to help. I've seen toddlers see other toddlers crying and immediatly point it out to the nearest adult. There's no sense of what should ot should not be done or good or bad - they just do it. And there's no religious teaching involved.

theological

TheValeyard wrote: »

Well, none of us did that to be fair. We all had family, friends, teachers help guide us with morals until we became of age to decide ourselves. Some may feel the religious guide to morals in their lives are beneficial and aligned to their own personal beliefs.

It's the other way around. It differs from case to case, but when I became a Christian it was because I read the Bible and heard God's standards and I was convicted by how I fell short. This is the standpoint we reach before we can see that we need Jesus to rescue us from sin (Romans 3:23, Romans 5:8-9) I aligned myself to God rather than the other way around.

If God's word just said everything I already agreed with then it would be likely that He would be just a figment of my imagination. A God who speaks and challenges us to live differently and says things that might grate isn't likely to fall into the imaginary category.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

We're not bees, we're human beings. We agree to disagree and move on.

What happens if the issue is serious enough? I don't think we usually just shrug it off.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Debate, empathy, compassion and logic. A significant improvement on a centuries-old book by numerous authors about a fictional entity in my opinion.

More categories which are simply subjective in the absence of an objective source of truth. It just expands the problem further. In the absence of a concrete definition of what is compassionate, or empathetic we fall into the same problem in a dispute. This is a huge logical weakness of atheism from my standpoint.

The Christian has the objective model from history:

1 John 4:6-10 wrote:

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

Therefore we don't need to grope around in the dark with subjectivity. The objective God has spoken in history.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The Christian skips this by not thinking about it and enforcing their views on other people with predictably atrocious results across history.

I give my faith and its outworking in my life huge thought. I give God's words a lot of consideration as does pretty much any Christian I know. Are you sure your assumptions about Christianity in practice are correct?

I don't dispute that politics has been used to warp faith in the past. But then again, politics also warped atheism in the past.

The simple way is to go straight to the source, that is the accounts we have of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

And I was talking about the existence of God specifically and there's not one iota of evidence for that.

Not true. We've got eyewitness testimony in history.

TheValeyard

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'd argue it's a natural sense of empathy. We see seomeone hurt or in trouble and the natural instict is to help. I've seen toddlers see other toddlers crying and immediatly point it out to the nearest adult. There's no sense of what should ot should not be done or good or bad - they just do it. And there's no religious teaching involved.

Ive also seen toddler turn into Hitler mode seconds after acting like Gandhi. Id argue they live by their emotions and in the moment rather than a greater sense of empathy.