Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion? - Page 4

Law&Order · 07-12-2010, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueUCHIHA

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

Stop being a baby and find holes in their answers. Atheists (constructive atheists) can still believe in a religion and many times its the worst religion of all. When I speak of religion I speak of Faith and when I speak of Atheists being religious I mean those who place their faith in government. Marx was an atheist and Marxism is the most immoral law human's could live under. Where men are forced to deal with each other. Where people have to beg for their needs. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." These are possibly the most immoral words ever spoken. Let no man define another mans need and let no man demand of another his ability.

But by throwing your hands up and claiming that you can win because they are atheist is not rational.

TrueUCHIHA · 07-12-2010, 09:54 AM

Hey never said i couldnt win. This was just a warm up debate. now i know how they argue so ill be ready for next time. And plus...whos to say Marxisim is immoral. Whos to say anythings immoral. This is what it comes down to.
1. What is good/morality?
2. Who gets to decide what is good/moral and what is not?
3. Why should I care? If I decided killing someone is good, should I go ahead?

Law&Order · 07-12-2010, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueUCHIHA

Hey never said i couldnt win. This was just a warm up debate. now i know how they argue so ill be ready for next time. And plus...whos to say Marxisim is immoral. Whos to say anythings immoral. This is what it comes down to.
1. What is good/morality?
2. Who gets to decide what is good/moral and what is not?
3. Why should I care? If I decided killing someone is good, should I go ahead?

You missed my earlier posts then. By my premise that since morality is defined by each person the only immoral act one could truly commit is one against themselves since they are deciding to do something wrong to themselves. Every other act performed can be explained in the realm of ones own mind no matter how perverse the reasoning.

1. That's for you to decide.
2. You
3. The question is why should I care if you kill somebody? I shouldn't unless it affects me. Then it is my right to do whatever I feel necessary to stop you from affecting me.

Marx may decide that in his realm of morality and good that my ability is needed but my need is little. The problem with his ideal is that his morality has affected me and it is my right to do whatever I feel necessary to stop him from affecting me.

**Miburo** · 07-12-2010, 11:05 AM

On my lunchbreak. Will rape some faces real quick though.

Hey, L&O, just because the topic has "religion" in the title doesn't mean your default response to it should be talk about how stupid religion is (Don't get me wrong, I think it's stupid too.).

Topic is asking if it's possible for man to live a moral life without religion. Going into the evils of religion and faith doesn't really address that...you know, at all. Don't be an idiot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stubborn_d0nkey

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.

You know we're talking about morality right? You know, a personal code of conduct. We're not talking about behavior traits or something that would actually make sense to use the nature/nurture shit on. A person ultimately decides on his own what his personal morality is. It isn't decided for him.

Just because people are raised to believe in the tooth fairy doesn't mean they'll go through life believing in the tooth fairy. Same concept applies here. If you're raised being taught certain things are right and wrong, you can still later decide that you don't believe in any of that shit and choose your own morals to adhere to.

Your personal morality isn't something that is imprinted on you. It's something you decide on your own. We're talking about morality. That's the topic of this thread. How you were raised might effect a number of things. But it doesn't mean there is a direct effect on your morality itself, since humans are capable of reason and thinking on their own. Not that they all use it, but they are still capable of it.

You'll pretty much have to show that we're not capable of thinking for ourselves in regards to making fully conscious decisions if you're going to disagree with what I've just wrote.

Quote:

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)

The only time someone made a comment of what the general people believed in this thread was when TU was talking about people associating religion with morality. Not about what the general moral beliefs are of some particular culture.

And you can show that a particular morality is logical or not based on the reasoning behind it. Which is what debates about moralities revolve around.

Quote:

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)

Uh, alright, whatever. Thanks for trying to share, I guess. Don't see why you're bringing this up. But whatever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueUCHIHA

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

This should be pretty obvious to almost everyone by now, but you don't seem to know how debates actually work. How many people agree with you doesn't matter. What matters is that your arguments are actually logical.

Lalalila · 07-12-2010, 11:25 AM

Most of people have good sense of morality, they know what's good and what's bad, and most of them are trying to live moral. In religion doing something against your morality is sin, if you have too many sins you will go to hell but if you're good person you will go to heaven.

That's the carrot and stick approach, people without religion doesn't have something like this, but of course non-religious person can have moral life.

RNB · 07-12-2010, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueUCHIHA

1. What is good/morality?
2. Who gets to decide what is good/moral and what is not?
3. Why should I care? If I decided killing someone is good, should I go ahead?

I don't feel like reading through the brick walls of text that are present in this thread, but I will address these questions.

1. and 2. Metaphysics decides what is good, and therefore, what is moral. You can form your own morality based on eating pizza. According to that morality, you will do everything you can to eat pizza since that is at the top of your moral hierarchy. What improves your chances of eating pizza is moral and what lowers them is immoral.

Your morality is not moral, in an objective sense. Why is eating pizza the highest goal of their morality? If you cannot provide valid reasoning as to why pizza is the good then your morality is not objective. In order to find the objective morality, we must ask what we mean by "objective" and then we must find what we mean when we say "good."

What does "objective" mean? We could use the dictionary to solve this problem, but what is more important than a dictionary definition is what objective means in the statement, "What is the objective morality?" Of course, we are specifically refering to humans. That means that we are asking "What is the objective morality for humans to follow?" Now we know that "objective" is the opposite of "subjective." "Subjective" pertains to the individual, whereas objective pertains to the whole. So we are asking the question, "What is the morality for all humans to follow?"

We already answered the questio, "What is morality?" Morality is a set of principles which leads one to his goal. We are finding a set of principles, which will lead all humans to their goal. Now, the only thing we need to know is what the objective human goal is.

The good in human life is pleasure and the evil is pain. If one immerses himself in a pleasurable moment, not thinking about its consequences or the sequence leading up to it, he experiences the "good" moment. Of course, the opposite would be a bad moment.

What leads to more pleasure is good, and what leads to more pain is evil. I would like to stress that this is not hedonism we are looking at. Hedonism persues the pleasure of moments. Wouldn't more pleasure in the long run be better. If you can guarantee future pleasure, wouldn't that be better than sacrificing the future for a moment of pleasure. After your moment is up, you are thrust into moments of pain, which is the evil. Hedonism cannot be the objective morality.

3. If killing someone is good, according to the objective morality, than one should go ahead and kill someone. However, I would argue that it would be irrational to kill any human who is not a threat to you. Once you acknowledge that you will kill people at will, people don't want to be around you any more and will probably want to kill you. The highest human relations are win-win situations, and since we are social beings, we benefit from from these situations the most.

ACt · 07-12-2010, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Law&Order

Quote:

Originally Posted by AkamaruChewtoy View Post
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.

I understand your ideal of "a man should stand on his own", but I think you misunderstood my point. By prosperity, I meant "survival of the species to the point where they can thrive." Humans evolved out of Africa amid a wide variety of megafauna which were either in A) direct competition with humans for resources or B) actively preying on humans. To overcome this, humans developed A) large, complex brains for thinking and B) a complex social network (becoming social animals) to organize enough numbers for safety and prosperity. (We can argue which came first some other time.) This mix of intelligence and society allowed humans to out-compete other animals for resources, produce more offspring and become a dominate force in the animal kingdom.

Yeah, now that we are top of the food chain and horribly overpopulated on this earth, reliance on one's own is far more feasible and recommended. We're running out of resources and it is up to those fortunate and talented enough to get what they need (headed towards severe internal species competition) but in the ancient past, reliance on your fellow human would have been paramount to survival of your group/tribe/clan.

**Tsuna** · 07-12-2010, 11:51 AM

Ah, so now his dude's jumped in? Lol.

Law&Order · 07-12-2010, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miburo

On my lunchbreak. Will rape some faces real quick though.

Hey, L&O, just because the topic has "religion" in the title doesn't mean your default response to it should be talk about how stupid religion is (Don't get me wrong, I think it's stupid too.).

Topic is asking if it's possible for man to live a moral life. Going into the evils of religion and faith doesn't really address that...you know, at all. Don't be an idiot.

I never said that religion is stupid, I just merely said that it is my belief that religion is based around faith in something higher. I said that faith can be a great thing but can also be used for evil. You can't debate the problem until you have defined the factors. Each of us will come at religion from a different angle. The use of religion to define morals for a group of people is practically impossible because ones interpretation of their religion / their own faith is different than anyone else's interpretation even within the same religion. Religions do lay out a standard set of moral laws that many do agree upon such as don't murder, steal, etc... But on the flip side it creates much debate within the religion about the gray areas of morality. Is it my moral obligation to turn over my mind my wealth earned by me to any man? Some say morally yes others say no. No religion can define this as to be a concrete moral. Therefor religion can't determine whether I have or haven't lived a moral life. I stated that it is a question that can't be answered and posed another question. Can someone be religious (Truly Believe in their Faith) and lead an immoral life?

When I see the question I read it as this. Is it possible for man to live a moral life without Faith? I say no. Everyone has Faith in something and this shapes their morality. Whether it is faith in yourself, faith in your god, faith in your community, faith in the government or faith in nothing at all. It is this faith that bring you to what is your own personal right or wrong.

There are my two answers. When you see religion as purely a following of written laws and beliefs then I say that it is impossible for anyone to judge if a man has lived a moral life. But when you define religion as a faith (in whatever it is you have faith in) then no you can't live a moral life without your faith.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tsuna

Ah, so now his dude's jumped in? Lol.

Who are his dudes? Don't confuse me telling him to stop whining and think a little more to continue the debate with being his dude.

Lalalila · 07-12-2010, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tsuna

Ah, so now his dude's jumped in? Lol.

stubborn_d0nkey · 07-12-2010, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miburo

You know we're talking about morality right? You know, a personal code of conduct. We're not talking about behavior traits or something that would actually make sense to use the nature/nurture shit on. A person ultimately decides on his own what his personal morality is. It isn't decided for him.

I wasn't the one who brought up the "nature/nurture shit" it was katrina, oops (sorry) katie if I'm not mistaken

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miburo

Just because people are raised to believe in the tooth fairy doesn't mean they'll go through life believing in the tooth fairy. Same concept applies here. If you're raised being taught certain things are right and wrong, you can still later decide that you don't believe in any of that shit and choose your own morals to adhere to.

Your personal morality isn't something that is imprinted on you. It's something you decide on your own. We're talking about morality. That's the topic of this thread. How you were raised might effect a number of things. But it doesn't mean there is a direct effect on your morality itself, since humans are capable of reason and thinking on their own. Not that they all use it, but they are still capable of it.

You'll pretty much have to show that we're not capable of thinking for ourselves in regards to making fully conscious decisions if you're going to disagree with what I've just wrote.

I never disagreed with what you've just wrote, not in the post you've quoted, have I? Yeah, your persona, your thinking and reasoning influences your morality. I acknowledged it. I just didn't dwell on it that much since I assumed it was a given. I didn't agree that religion has no effect on morality, even with nonreligious people. Thats what my post was mostly about. If I argue for religion having an effect on ones morality via nurture, and dwell on that, it by no means I'm saying that a person can't decide otherwise.

Quote:

If you're raised being taught certain things are right and wrong, you can still later decide that you don't believe in any of that shit and choose your own morals to adhere to.

You can! Exactly. You can, and you probably will change your opinion on some things. However, do you really think anybody has ever completely changed their whole morality from what they were taught? Or even a bigger portion of it? I would say no. Nurture DOES have an effect on your morality, if you think otherwise you are..... Would any random person have the same morality if they grew up and lived where you did, or in a cannibalistic tribe? No. if you think yes, you are.....

Anyways, I see you are using one of your usual tactics. Making your arguments not about what the other person wrote, but something that seems similar, but what isn't what that person meant. They are usually solid arguments since you usually pick something similar that is easy to defend. If somebody read your post they would think you are arguing against something totally different than what I wrote.

I argued for religion through nurture (and thus nurture) influencing one's morality. You argued for people being able to chose/decide upon their morality through reasoning and thinking. They are not contradicting statements! Nurture influencing one's morality does not mean people can't decide for themselves! That is why your post is useless as a reply to my post!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miburo

The only time someone made a comment of what the general people believed in this thread was when TU was talking about people associating religion with morality. Not about what the general moral beliefs are of some particular culture.

And you can show that a particular morality is logical or not based on the reasoning behind it. Which is what debates about moralities revolve around.

Uh, alright, whatever. Thanks for trying to share, I guess. Don't see why you're bringing this up. But whatever.

Both of those were mostly to avoid future arguments of that type.

BTW. You can show, but you can't prove something is moral. If you believe that it is possible, then you are somewhat contradicting yourself.

RNB · 07-12-2010, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Law&Order

When I see the question I read it as this. Is it possible for man to live a moral life without Faith? I say no. Everyone has Faith in something and this shapes their morality. Whether it is faith in yourself, faith in your god, faith in your community, faith in the government or faith in nothing at all. It is this faith that bring you to what is your own personal right or wrong.

If we are talking of faith as irrational belief than you are wrong. If you mean faith as in belief in general, than you would be right. You have to have values in order to be moral. I don't think that this "belief in general" was what the OP meant. He was likening it to religious belief, so the discussion would be on irrational belief.

Secondly, there is no such thing as "faith in nothing." You cannot "believe in nothing." Belief is an affirming action. When you say, "faith in nothing" the correct way to phrase that would be to "not believe." The way you phrase it makes it seem like it is related to faith, except when you look at what the statement actually means, it means non-belief. Non-belief is not related to faith at all since faith is a form of belief.

Quote:

You can! Exactly. You can, and you probably will change your opinion on some things. However, do you really think anybody has ever completely changed their whole morality from what they were taught? Or even a bigger portion of it? I would say no. Nurture DOES have an effect on your morality, if you think otherwise you are..... Would any random person have the same morality if they grew up and lived where you did, or in a cannibalistic tribe? No. if you think yes, you are.....

This is only correct if one is choosing his morality based on subconscious beliefs. A conscious chooser would choose his morality based on reason, whereas one who chose on subconscious feelings would be choosing his morality based on influences.

Let me demonstrate. We ask 100 people whether killing is wrong based on how they feel towards it. You will probably get some mixed results spanning from "absolutely wrong" to "sometimes just" and maybe you will get some crazy nut who believes everyone should die. Now if we ask 100 people what two plus two equals, what do you think their answers will be? Their might be a few oddballs or jokers, but a hell of a lot will say four. One is devoid of conscious problem-solving and the other is devoid of subconscious feeling.

**Tsuna** · 07-12-2010, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Law&Order

Who are his dudes? Don't confuse me telling him to stop whining and think a little more to continue the debate with being his dude.

I wasn't talking to you.

stubborn_d0nkey · 07-12-2010, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RNB

This is only correct if one is choosing his morality based on subconscious beliefs. A conscious chooser would choose his morality based on reason, whereas one who chose on subconscious feelings would be choosing his morality based on influences.

Let me demonstrate. We ask 100 people whether killing is wrong based on how they feel towards it. You will probably get some mixed results spanning from "absolutely wrong" to "sometimes just" and maybe you will get some crazy nut who believes everyone should die. Now if we ask 100 people what two plus two equals, what do you think their answers will be? Their might be a few oddballs or jokers, but a hell of a lot will say four. One is devoid of conscious problem-solving and the other is devoid of subconscious feeling.

Can you answer one question before I reply? Is morality void of subconscious belief?

**Miburo** · 07-12-2010, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stubborn_d0nkey

I wasn't the one who brought up the "nature/nurture shit" it was katrina, oops (sorry) katie if I'm not mistaken

I don't care who brought it up. I was responding to what you typed in your post. Unless someone else is responsible for the shit you type, then 'who brought it up' doesn't matter.

Quote:

You can! Exactly. You can, and you probably will change your opinion on some things. However, do you really think anybody has ever completely changed their whole morality from what they were taught? Or even a bigger portion of it? I would say no. Nurture DOES have an effect on your morality, if you think otherwise you are..... Would any random person have the same morality if they grew up and lived where you did, or in a cannibalistic tribe? No. if you think yes, you are.....

The topic isn't about nurture. It's about morality without religion. If you're taught right and wrong based on religious principles, then later decide to base your morality on reason, then what you were taught doesn't matter.

If I'm taught as a child that killing is wrong because the bible says so, then later decide that killing is wrong based on a logical reason instead, then my morality in that regard isn't being influenced by religion at all. It's being influenced by reason.

It's not a hard topic of debate to comprehend. Can one live a moral life without religion? Yes. Does that include any direct influence on one's morality by religion? Yes. If you agree with this, then your argument is wrong. It doesn't matter if people can be influenced by religion, since that's not what the topic is about. If that's what you're saying, then whatever. I don't give a fuck. Since that's not the question you're suppose to be answering in this debate.

Quote:

Anyways, I see you are using one of your usual tactics. Making your arguments not about what the other person wrote, but something that seems similar, but what isn't what that person meant. They are usually solid arguments since you usually pick something similar that is easy to defend. If somebody read your post they would think you are arguing against something totally different than what I wrote.

What? I'm directly arguing against what you wrote. You cannot point out any strawman fallacies in my arguments.

Quote:

I argued for religion through nurture (and thus nurture) influencing one's morality. You argued for people being able to chose/decide upon their morality through reasoning and thinking. They are not contradicting statements! Nurture influencing one's morality does not mean people can't decide for themselves! That is why your post is useless as a reply to my post!

Except they are contradicting claims. Example where the nurture argument actually applies: Let's say homosexuals are attracted to people of the same sex due to the environment they were raised in. They do not consciously choose this attraction. They cannot just will an attraction towards something else.

That isn't the case with one's choice of personal code of conduct. Not in the least. I can willingly choose all aspects of my moral code without any influence by religion at all by simply basing my morality solely on reason. If that is possible, which is it, then the claim that religion influences one's morality is false. Sure, it can, if someone chooses to base their morality on religion. But, like I said, that doesn't matter. Since the question isn't can morality be influenced by religion. It's if one can be moral without religion.

Quote:

Both of those were mostly to avoid future arguments of that type.

BTW. You can show, but you can't prove something is moral. If you believe that it is possible, then you are somewhat contradicting yourself.

Well, thanks for the tips, debate wizard. I'd focus more on making sure my own arguments were solid before handing out advice if I were you. But whatever.

And okay. I can prove something is logical or illogical though. And in the realm of rational thinking, that's pretty significant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stubborn_d0nkey

Can you answer one question before I reply? Is morality void of subconscious belief?

If it's based on reason and logic, then yeah.

07-12-2010, 09:54 AM	#47
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 never said i couldnt win. This was just a warm up debate. now i know how they argue so ill be ready for next time. And plus...whos to say Marxisim is immoral. Whos to say anythings immoral. This is what it comes down to. 1. What is good/morality? 2. Who gets to decide what is good/moral and what is not? 3. Why should I care? If I decided killing someone is good, should I go ahead?

07-12-2010, 11:25 AM	#50
Lalalila TrueCREW - White Rook Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Moon Posts: 1,776 Thanks: 366 Thanked 1,108 Times in 759 Posts	Re: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion? Most of people have good sense of morality, they know what's good and what's bad, and most of them are trying to live moral. In religion doing something against your morality is sin, if you have too many sins you will go to hell but if you're good person you will go to heaven. That's the carrot and stick approach, people without religion doesn't have something like this, but of course non-religious person can have moral life. __________________ We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. - Richard Lewontin

07-12-2010, 11:51 AM	#53
Tsuna ♪S♥NE~소녀시대♪♪ Join Date: Jun 2005 Age: 21 Posts: 4,221 Thanks: 193 Thanked 2,472 Times in 1,140 Posts	Re: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion? Ah, so now his dude's jumped in? Lol.

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

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