Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion? - Page 3

KillerNN · 07-12-2010, 12:58 AM

If I cut out someones eye, then they cut out my eye in revenge, I couldn't really do shit about it.

Besides kill them. But then you would get killed anyway. -.-

ninjalostboy95 · 07-12-2010, 01:00 AM

Are you on both sides TU? Why are you going against your own side.

Nerox · 07-12-2010, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueUCHIHA

As i said the answers yes. However my stance was that because of the world we live in to day it would be a feat to do.
FIN

will you make sense in this debate, or is that not likely?

**Miburo** · 07-12-2010, 01:03 AM

Told you guys he was a moron.

Gotta start just taking my word on this shit, people.

TrueUCHIHA · 07-12-2010, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerox511

will you make sense in this debate, or is that not likely?

Do u have past a high school education or no?

Nerox · 07-12-2010, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueUCHIHA

Do u have past a high school education or no?

we don't have high schools here, so no.

TrueUCHIHA · 07-12-2010, 01:18 AM

eh im done talking all smart and such. cool thread cant wait till i get to battle the whole surs up crew one on 40

**Tsuna** · 07-12-2010, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueUCHIHA

Tsuna, I appreciate you making fun of my intellegence in this thread, It shows your maturity level in this debate and wether or not i can hold your views valid.

That would have been an insult at your intelligence if I had said, "or RATHER lackthereof". In that sentence, I was representing both sides of the equation, not trying to undermine your intelligence. I didn't explain the reference to Victor because I thought you were stupid, but because it's an obscure reference that I doubted most people on an animu forum would recognize without sufficient elaboration.

Also my "maturity level" has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not my argument could be deemed as valid. If I make a valid point, it's a fucking valid point, regardless of whether I have the maturity of a toddler or a goddamn senior citizen. Seriously.

Nice try though, buddy.

Quote:

Where this may be true we can not verify this. Mostly because one we will never again live in a world without religion, and two whos to say that the "moral reasoning" a person comes up with in the absence of religion is moral at all.

Who's to say that it isn't? Is the idea of morality suddenly null and void if religion hadn't been invented? That's like saying there would be no such thing as rationality and logic if something like, say, algebraic proofs hadn't been invented. Just because a certain thing exercises rationality or morality specifically, doesn't mean that either wouldn't exist if certain methods of expressing said ideas weren't present.

Your argument hinges far too much on asking us the question of "Why?" To which we could just as easily rebuke with a simple, "Why not?"

Quote:

Now im not saying that positive moral reasoning outside of religion isnt possible im just saying a valid example has yet to be seen. Because as i said our laws today are based off religion similar to how hamurabis code was tied to religion as well

In that case, why are we having this debate?
If this whole argument hinges on whether or not either side can be proven as right or wrong, then this thread is pointless. You cannot prove, undeniably, that religion and morality are inseparable; that without one the other would not exist, or would not have the same meaning, whatever it is you're trying to get at here - I've given up on trying to figure out your stance on this by now.

Likewise, though, I cannot prove, undeniably, that our concept of "morality" would exist without religion, based on your rebuttal that "a valid example has yet to be seen", if that is what it takes to convince you. Because the irrefutable proof is not there, and we're using logic to support our arguments. Hence why this is a debate, and neither of us are writing a fucking textbook.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueUCHIHA

And you cant be serious about this can you? For instance just because someone is not aware of who are what Jesus is does not mean that their life has been uninfluenced by him at all. Ignorance to a fact does not make it untrue.

Except for the fact that we're not fucking talking about Jesus.
Jesus exists as a concept whether or not someone is "aware of who or what he is".
We're not talking about that kind of ignorance. We're talking about the kind of ignorance to where you have no exposure to a concept, and thus do not know it exists, PERIOD.

Am I like, speaking Russian or something? Why is this so hard for you to understand?

**Miburo** · 07-12-2010, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueUCHIHA

eh im done talking all smart and such.

I hadn't even realized that you started.

yum yum bubblegum · 07-12-2010, 04:31 AM

Me eghter.

Law&Order · 07-12-2010, 07:10 AM

I am showing up late to this debate. Page 1 was interesting but now it is losing its steam. The premise behind Religion is FAITH. It is a weapon for those who try to live a moral life while the immoral around them turn to savagery. They use Faith to tell themselves that they are doing the right thing. It gives them Faith that their dieing parents will be ok. It tells that they aren't worthless even though they can't hold a job while having three mouths to feed. It helps to give them the strength that they couldn't find on their own to go on, to keep pushing forward. Let's put it this way most people who aren't/don't have faith in any religion and are immoral will typically never find religion, they may fake it but they won't have FAITH in what they pretend to believe.

The better question would have been can someone be religious (Truly Believe) and lead an immoral life?

On another note many men use people's Faith in religion as a weapon against the believers. They try and bend the beliefs so that they can get those with Faith to act as they say. They look to blur the lines of morality.

I.E. - Muslim Sheiks declaring holy wars and sending kids to their deaths as suicide bombers or Nancy Pelosi talking about her faith and how it has brought her to realize that it is everyone's civic duty to care for their fellow man, so the rich should be ok with the government seizing their money. Both are perverse uses of the religions that many use as their guiding light. Both feed on the moral believers to give up their rights ("one their right to life", "the other their right to their mind, the right to their wealth") They guilt those with Faith into believing that sacrificing themselves for the greater good is what God wants of them. Though no God would ask someone to sacrifice themselves to someone else who isn't willing to sacrifice anything first.

Edit: This Kid is starting to scratch the surface

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninjalostboy95

Just adding my 2 cents, I think it's possible for man to live a moral life without religion due to that the fact that religions conflicting with others back then led to numerous amounts of death i.e the crusades. It also led to Martin Luther's thesis(There was a number forgot) which showed the Church was using religion as a profit. I don't know about any countries which contained a majority as atheist.(I don't think there's any.)No offense to religous people.But,then again I dont know cause I'm just 14.

It's not the religion that did the killing or stealing. You can't blame the words. It's those who take advantage of the words to look to reap benefits from it that are to blame.

stubborn_d0nkey · 07-12-2010, 07:16 AM

I’ll add my 2 cents on this (couldn’t earlier, timezone difference + during the summer I usually wake up around 11-12)

easily skip-able

I do believe that human beings have the capacity to be moral without religion. Actually, I believe that all humans (perhaps with negligible exceptions; later in text PWNE) are by default moral, even savages, since everybody (PWNE) have some feeling of right or wrong, even if you or most people don’t concur with their “right” or their “wrong”.

That is what makes discussing morality very tricky, which is why most people talk about “objective” or “general” morals mostly. That doesn’t make it much easier, since there is no true “objective” morality. Morality slightly differs from person to person in certain situations (probably the most famous example: abortion) morality can also differ from place to place, which makes me come to an important part about morality: nurture.

Nurture is what shapes a big portion of a person’s morality. This holds for both religious and nonreligious people. Nurture comes from your family, and your society. This is why religion has had an influence on everybody’s morality. It didn’t have to be a direct influence (you being religious), but it could come indirectly. It could come from your surroundings, if it’s religious, however that is not the only way, and not the most prominent way.

I think we can all agree that every religion has its own morality that it tries to propagate. Even though you might not be religious, people in your society might not be religious, even if the same holds for your parents and grandparents etc., and their parents and grandparents etc ., some way down the line your ancestors were religious (if not, I must say WOW!!!!). Religion influenced their morality, and through nurture that same influence came to you, which is why religion as influenced the morality of everybody. It doesn’t necessarily define a person’s morality, but influence’s it.

To give some sort of conclusion:

Nature: gives the foundation of morality (the concept of right and wrong)

Nurture (which was influenced by religion): shapes one’s morality.

Individuality (be it because of nature or nurture- I don’t want to get into a debate about that): gives the finishing touches to one’s morality (ex. abortion :P)

P.S. Some things I’d like to add:

I wrote the first part thinking that my post would be longer (I’m not just a stubborn_d0nkey but also a lazy_d0nkey) so it turned out that it wasn’t really necessary, but I’ll leave it anyways (with the spoiler tag and comment)

I’d also like to comment on some types of arguments, and their strength when dealing with morality.

I myself despise arguments like “everybody says…” “most people believe…”, however when dealing with (general) morality they can’t be dismissed as easily as in other debates. Yeah the don’t prove something true, but when talking about morality it is usually close to impossible, if not impossible, to prove something true (ex. abortion again)

Also often, one exception doesn’t disprove an argument about “general” morality as it does with other things (like seeing one blue elephant automatically disproves the statement: all elephants are pink)

I had some other things I wanted to add (that were more crucial than what I did add) but I forget them (I’m not just a stubborn_d0nkey or a lazy_d0nkey but also a forgetful_d0nkey)

EDIT1: First thing I remembered

If it is not obvious: I do think I person can be moral without religion, however I also believe that that person's morality was influenced by religion.

ACt · 07-12-2010, 08:14 AM

Oh the things that happen when you are sleeping. Very interesting - and a thorough win by OH.

This one is pretty much wrapped up until someone argues the other side, but I'd just add a bit. I won't go long because it is pretty much the Dawkin's Argument from The God Delusion (yeah, I know - very preachy Atheist, but his arguments are mostly sound).

Simply, social animals who act against the desires of the group often find themselves on the outside of mating. Therefore, these rogue individuals either A) conform or B) do not procreate decreasing the rogue behaviour in the group. The basic need to produce offspring in a species that relies on its own members for prosperity (such as humans are) will naturally give rise to a code of morality. Religion is an effective manner to pass this morality to a larger group. Therefore, religion is more likely a product of moral teachings and not the other way around. By this, if you have morality before religion, you can have morality without religion.

More simply: we are good because we want sex.

Law&Order · 07-12-2010, 08:15 AM

Religion is an attempt to define morals. No different than a culture or a government trying to define rules. Anyone can define morals as they see fit to their situation. A thief can justify his reasons for stealing as a killer can justify his own actions. Just like a government justify their need for taxes and reasoning for capital punishment. But to others these acts are immoral. Doesn't each person being able to define to himself what is or isn't immoral make the only act of immorality able for a human to commit is the act against oneself?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AkamaruChewtoy

Simply, social animals who act against the desires of the group often find themselves on the outside of mating. Therefore, these rogue individuals either A) conform or B) do not procreate decreasing the rogue behaviour in the group. The basic need to produce offspring in a species that relies on its own members for prosperity (such as humans are) will naturally give rise to a code of morality. Religion is an effective manner to pass this morality to a larger group. Therefore, religion is more likely a product of moral teachings and not the other way around. By this, if you have morality before religion, you can have morality without religion.

This statement is laughable and what I despise in a human being. No man should rely on others for their prosperity, they should only have to rely on themselves to create their own prosperity. This comments is not towards you Chewtoy just a comment in general of how no man should be able to determine another mans value or worth but how each creates his own for himself.

TrueUCHIHA · 07-12-2010, 09:29 AM

Hey...i hope you all dont think this is over. i forgot that every one on this forum is athiest. Next time ill pick a less one sided arguement

07-12-2010, 12:58 AM	#31
KillerNN Λυρικής Σκέψεις Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Vagabond Posts: 2,097 Thanks: 3,614 Thanked 4,322 Times in 1,976 Posts	Re: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion? If I cut out someones eye, then they cut out my eye in revenge, I couldn't really do shit about it. Besides kill them. But then you would get killed anyway. -.- __________________ The Cap'n

07-12-2010, 01:00 AM	#32
ninjalostboy95 Osu! = the best game ever Join Date: May 2010 Location: NY, Far Rockaway(currently) Age: 17 Posts: 5,771 Thanks: 8,239 Thanked 4,587 Times in 2,795 Posts	Re: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion? Are you on both sides TU? Why are you going against your own side.

07-12-2010, 01:03 AM	#34
Miburo Deos Fortioribus Adesse Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Valhalla Posts: 3,543 Thanks: 34,417 Thanked 17,643 Times in 5,442 Posts	Re: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion? Told you guys he was a moron. Gotta start just taking my word on this shit, people.

07-12-2010, 01:18 AM	#37
TrueUCHIHA Missing-Nin Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: sasuke Posts: 793 Thanks: 484 Thanked 1,005 Times in 742 Posts	Re: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion? eh im done talking all smart and such. cool thread cant wait till i get to battle the whole surs up crew one on 40

07-12-2010, 04:31 AM	#40
yum yum bubblegum Academy Student Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: In your refregiator eating your cake Age: 19 Posts: 4 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion? Me eghter.

07-12-2010, 08:14 AM	#43
ACt Heart Wizard Join Date: May 2009 Location: The Halls of Irreverence Posts: 3,256 Thanks: 5,325 Thanked 18,690 Times in 4,850 Posts	Re: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion? Oh the things that happen when you are sleeping. Very interesting - and a thorough win by OH. This one is pretty much wrapped up until someone argues the other side, but I'd just add a bit. I won't go long because it is pretty much the Dawkin's Argument from The God Delusion (yeah, I know - very preachy Atheist, but his arguments are mostly sound). Simply, social animals who act against the desires of the group often find themselves on the outside of mating. Therefore, these rogue individuals either A) conform or B) do not procreate decreasing the rogue behaviour in the group. The basic need to produce offspring in a species that relies on its own members for prosperity (such as humans are) will naturally give rise to a code of morality. Religion is an effective manner to pass this morality to a larger group. Therefore, religion is more likely a product of moral teachings and not the other way around. By this, if you have morality before religion, you can have morality without religion. More simply: we are good because we want sex.

07-12-2010, 09:29 AM	#45
TrueUCHIHA Missing-Nin Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: sasuke Posts: 793 Thanks: 484 Thanked 1,005 Times in 742 Posts	Re: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion? Hey...i hope you all dont think this is over. i forgot that every one on this forum is athiest. Next time ill pick a less one sided arguement

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Merry Christmas, or Happy Holidays?	Sharingan Lord	Debates Section	58	04-05-2008 01:22 AM
Islam Protesting against Danish Cartoons	DarkAztek	Debates Section	124	12-29-2006 09:59 PM
~ In for a good, long read?	Nuerhachi Niru	Chit Chat	13	11-30-2006 07:20 AM
live it up, a song	kakashi29	Music Talk	3	06-13-2006 09:08 PM
You all knew it was comming... ABORTION	«Artos»	Debates Section	372	04-26-2006 12:27 AM