Originally posted by 667joeto 667joe
With or without religion,you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. Steven Weinberg
yes, religion is created by man, to manipulate the masses, and because it is man made it is fallable
and the only people that are still connected to mainstream religions are, the nieve and the foolish and the manipulators.
Dont get me wrong, i beleive in god, and this god is nothing like the biblical god we hear of
cheers vishvahetu
1 edit
Originally posted by 667joeThe sticky point in what you said is what is good and evil? How would one
With or without religion,you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. Steven Weinberg
judge when they are doing good verses evil, since they are the ones acting
doesn't it seem that their points of view will be a little weighted to justify
what they wanted? I'd also add, how would another person be able to
judge as well, without a common point of reference of what is and is not
good or evil are they limited to just opinions about the topic?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI think we all make our judgements based on our own morality. As much as you may try to make God your moral guideline, the truth is that even you judge Gods morals by your own morals. You say things like 'God is good', which would hold practically no meaning if 'good' was defined as 'what God does', or even 'what God claims is good'.
The sticky point in what you said is what is good and evil? How would one
judge when they are doing good verses evil, since they are the ones acting
doesn't it seem that their points of view will be a little weighted to justify
what they wanted? I'd also add, how would another person be able to
judge as well, without a common point of reference of what is and is not
good or evil are they limited to just opinions about the topic?
Kelly
Morals are largely 'just opinions' but they are deep rooted opinions with fairly strong and fairly specific reasons behind them.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am not quite sure what you mean by your last sentence. Is there a difference between claiming that morals are just opinions and claiming that they are beliefs? Is there a difference between claiming that morals have reasons behind them and claiming that they can have evidence in their support?
I think we all make our judgements based on our own morality. As much as you may try to make God your moral guideline, the truth is that even you judge Gods morals by your own morals. You say things like 'God is good', which would hold practically no meaning if 'good' was defined as 'what God does', or even 'what God claims is good'.
Morals are largely ' ...[text shortened]... y are deep rooted opinions with fairly strong and fairly specific reasons behind them.
Originally posted by bbarrI think the basis of morals is the ideas of fairness and cooperation that is necessary for living in a society. If a person is not moral then his fellows will not wish to live with him. This does mean that morals may vary from society to society and culture to culture. I think morals evolved in us both biologically and culturally.
I am not quite sure what you mean by your last sentence. Is there a difference between claiming that morals are just opinions and claiming that they are beliefs? Is there a difference between claiming that morals have reasons behind them and claiming that they can have evidence in their support?
They do have fairly specific rules though eg 'do not deliberately harm others with your actions', or 'protect the members of your group' etc.
I would say that a given specific moral would really be an individuals interpretation of one of these rules and so we could say it is an opinion. But one cannot just make up morals, nor can they be totally unrelated to their origin - the need to live in society. Thus, killing your neighbor would never be considered morally good as it would always be detrimental to society, whereas killing itself may be considered acceptable if it involves protecting your society.
This is why racism affects peoples morals regarding those of other races - they see them as not part of their society (local group).
-Removed-I think it is actually quite accurate. It is of course not entirely true that religion is the only culprit, but certainly things we follow religiously are. Essentially good people do evil things when they follow other people or rules without using their own common sense. This happens a lot in religions, but also in other situations - such as party politics.
Originally posted by 667joeyeah, that totally makes sense. good people need religion to do bad things.
With or without religion,you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. Steven Weinberg
Originally posted by twhiteheadoh, so a person can regularly do bad things and be still called a good person?
I think it is actually quite accurate. It is of course not entirely true that religion is the only culprit, but certainly things we follow religiously are. Essentially good people do evil things when they follow other people or rules without using their own common sense. This happens a lot in religions, but also in other situations - such as party politics.
what about a good atheist? can a good atheist do bad things? if yes, how can your claim stand?