You guys don't seem to understand...

No one said that morality came out of religion. They only said that religion was a medium to enforce those morals more properly. People that would have been "bad" if religion wasn't around were now fearful of doing those "bad" things.

Killing is a way too extreme example, by the way. Most would realize that death is the end of one's existence. You don't need a god to know that. But other teachings, like don't steal - don't lie - be kind to your fellow man. Things that people wouldn't pay a lot of attention to are now a bit more enforced.

The third teaching I mentioned is the hardest.

Not saying that they would immediately steal and stuff if religion wasn't around. I'm saying that it serves as an extra incentive to not do those kind of things.

I mean, people didn't have science back then, so they believed everything much more quickly. And well, being good during your earthly life sounds much better than spending eternity in damnation.

Last edited by Dr. Love at 7:59 am, Aug 30 2009

________________
source: animenewsnetwork

Join SRoMU Scanlations or visit #SRoMU at IRCHighWay.

What exactly is moral?? I mean our morality tells us that killing is bad but why exactly it is bad?? We felt more sympathy to people that been kill rather than animal that been killed, why we felt like that? Why u must not lie to ppl?? We just simply not telling the truth..Why stealing is bad?? We just take something from someone without their permission..Is it because we dun them to get mad?? Why we dun wan them to get mad?? Why we cannot rape a woman?? We just follow our instinct to mate.

Religion set to give an answer to why is it wrong and why is it right.. The answer may be vary among the religion but it will stop ppl to try to reason doing bad thing to be good.(I hope u understand this, it is like try to justify killing/lying/stealing/whatever)..

This is just my personal opinion..

________________

Slow internet is DEADLY

A god that they choosed. And I think we all agree that there was no Jupiter that decended upon them and said "you shall worship me and no other god". So they choosed the god acording to their own ideals. How do you think what had they first the ideals or god who gave them the ideals? So we have fallen back again to the part that first there were ideals only then religion.
"Um, you do realize that Romans and Greeks both had their own religions right?" - that kind off makes you think that you consider roman and greek belief systems are totaly different.



What are you talking about?! Aristotle talked about laws as well as countries. He divided countries in democracies, oligarhies, politias. As well he divided law in writen law and natural law. Writen laws differ from police to police but natural laws are the same everywere. So I really don't get it what all that you just said had to do with natural law.
So if in Athens was slavery there couldn't exist democracy? It's a direct conclusion from your statemen, that as Aristotle lived in society that accepted slavery he could not possibly harnest any kind of human rights ideas. If you know so much about ancient Greece you probably know as well that in Athens all citizens were equals (well at least at the times of democracy), and there you have it, a potencial subject on whom you can direct the humanist ideas.



This one I also have no idea why did you even mention it. You tell me it as of some kind of secret that the whole western society is built upon the foundation of Greece>Rome>Christianity. Ok let's assume that I had no idea about it, and I am realy suprised right now "wow I didn't know that", what does it have to do with this discussion? Most of the christian philosofers studied the ancient greek and roman texts. The best example is holy augustine, at whose time the texts weren't even ancient.



Then we must conclude that it's not common sence in British culture "duh" or in the humanity as a whole.
Well I can describe sun as a yellow round thingy in the sky while Nashir can describe it as concentration of gases that burn at 6000 degree heat. It's not necessary to define things in the exact same way to achieve the necessary results. In our case describe common sence. I desribed cultural common sence, Nashir gave an example of absolute common sence, sence that units majority of the humanity
You said that there are mothers that leave their babies behind but you don't have numbers. I think even without numbers you can say that it's not majority that commits these crimes. So the question, can we not say that they don't act according to common sence if they are minority.




Can you imagine a society that lives under such rules? No because that's what anarchy is called. For people to live in a society they must maintain some kind of order, and from that grew out the idea that to do all those things is bad. Religion came only as a bonus control system. Otherwise you would have Islam following young societies, not vica versa, young societies followed by Islam (or any other kind of religion with strict moral code).
If that doesn't convince you explain why in different parts of the world societies live undar the same basic rules (don't steal, don't kill, don't rape). Although the religions are completly different. And sometimes haven't had even the msallest contact between themselves.

Last edited by RexIX at 8:53 am, Aug 30 2009

________________
"Computer games don't affect kids....
I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music."
/Kristian Wilson, Nintendo Inc, 1989

Meh, I don't know why I have to post... Each post eats away valuable time, and for what?

I was going to write a long post, but you said it yourself, Religion sugar coats the laws of nature, and you have to admit that some religions do it in much better ways than others... I NEVER said HOLY SHIT THE BIBLE IS RIGHT, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH ANY OF ITS TEACHINGS, I said some things here and there are positive for ourselves, and out of all the religions I know, Buddhism (I am only familiar with some of its teachings, so I am very incomplete) is by far the best one... but whatever, I don't have the time to argue about this... see everyone on Thursday, with is my day off.


________________

Its not a direct conclusion. When I read it I did not come to that conclusion. You can't just assume that everyone will come to the same conclusions as you.



Thats true. Its also true that only men who had completed their military training could be citizens. A large majority of the people couldn't vote because they weren't actually citizens




This to me seems like pointless bashing. You just put up an argument about how the info is pointless and "has nothing to do with he discussion" and you "have no idea why you even mentioned it." If you read the first line of what you just replied to it says "Just for your information"

It's not nececcery for every person reading something to come to the same conclusion (I doubt that's even possbile), question is if the conclusion made, is right.
Perhaps I didn't express my idea idea clear enough, so my bad. Shade449 mentioned the fact that Aristotle lived in a system that supported slavery and didn't discourage it, as an example of prof that Aristotle couldn't or didn't express the idea of the most primitive human rights. So if living in slave keeper society means that you can't have at least some kind of basic human right perception. Then calling society were one part of it is practicaly tools/animals is completly impossible from modern person perspective. Even more considering the fact that democracy can't exist without acknoledging that all the citizens have the same rights.



And still they had the higher percent of people actually taking part in their countries goverment in history.



For your information many millions of years ago on earth lived dinosaurs. Hope you understand how this highly valueble information contributes to topic, if not then for your information in internet there are very many web pages and many people visit them. Just for your information.

________________
"Computer games don't affect kids....
I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music."
/Kristian Wilson, Nintendo Inc, 1989

I find it funny, when people throw the Democracy card.

First and before anything else, true democracy has NEVER existed, not in the past or in the present.

All citizens are equal? BULL SHIT

Then all the citizens should have the same chances of becoming president.

Democracy preaches about fairness, but truth to be told that is nothing more than an illusion, life is not fair, and as such democracy is nothing more than a lie.

Yeah, you can vote, yeah you have your so called human rights, and what can you do with them?

You can vote all you want, you can be informed and not be a fool, BUT in the end it doesn't matter, because the one that wins is always the guy/gal that can move the masses, the one that preaches, the one that is seen as the new messiah, the one that manipulates everyone.

Manipulation, subversion, lies and half-truths those are the realities of our world.

PS: In my eyes, these are the only Human rights:

You have the right to a free will and the right to do whatever you can do/think in order to survive, taking into account the consequences of your actions.

PS2: I must say what we have today is MUCH better, than nothing, but never claim the system is a rainbow because is not.

-----------------------------------

This topic is getting hotter again, so lets say we agree to disagree.

With that said, lets keep talking about our beliefs, always keeping in mind that the chances of a person changing they way they saw the world because a dude or gal wrote something on the internet are almost non existent.

Want to convert or convince a lot of people about your beliefs? then go and make a video.

Can't understand my reference?

Then wait until I log back again.

________________

lol this thread has actually made me rethink a lot of stuff

The goal of a debate is to strive for mutual understanding, not mutual agreement.

I think the discussion here is valid and meaningful as a run-of-the-mill sort of exploration of beliefs, provided it doesn't degrade into flaming, anyway.

________________

Reviews of my Work:
You are kind of boring - Blackorion
Congratulations! Ur an asshole! - tokyo_homi
Your awesome!!! - Cherelle_Ashley
NightSwan also said that she wanted to peg me, once, but I'm not sure whether to take that as a compliment or a threat...

I think its more like I understood what others were saying and I found that it was something I could agree with?

Stop abusing Einstein

Joking, Yeah, He who believes in God is not necessarily religious,or else ALL of the significant scientists in this world that i know would make a new religion, a special religion with an extended definition of that word.
One thing for sure is they are not Atheists, don't ask me why, but right after i get to learn the way they think, i start to believe in the Almighty of Nature

Btw, could you guys make your point concise and clear ? those walls of text really hurt my eyes, i just want to learn some English >,>

________________

The belief that something greater exist is their drive to keep investigating the truth, because there must be something to find at the end of all of this, if not, then the search was kind of worthless.

________________

Great, I knew that if I answered to the first redicolous considerations that Athens weren't democratic there defintetly will be somebody who will start flaming how terrible is democracy. And there is nobody to blame but me.


Nobody played democracy card, you just couldn't resist the temptation to shout out your pain for democratical system.


In Athens there was a direct democracy, that is, how the mob said so it was. Any citizen could become a judge and any citizen could become the one in charge. Such a wonderful thing isn't it? Not quiete, people criticized this system and loughed it out just like you do now, the present system - when a next door junky isn't likely to become the president of state. The fact is such people as you are never happy they just sit around whine how horrible is everything. I won't go into details why exactly what you just said couldn't be more wrong because then it would go even more into offtopic.
The fact is every person HAS equal rights, and you can say whatever you want but law for every person is the same. To make us equal in the way you want would mean to make us all clones. Because a retard from madhouse would never be as able to become a judge as a person who just finished magister in law.

________________
"Computer games don't affect kids....
I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music."
/Kristian Wilson, Nintendo Inc, 1989

really? ive never met any person who believes in the bible that morality does not come from it.(and when i say morality i mean what is good and bad) i was brought up in a pentecostal family and thats what they and the churched believed, at least from my understanding. i could be wrong maybe its just that i haven't met someone who is religious and thinks differently about that, who knows.

silencer i was a little confused by what you said. Einstein didn't believe in a personal god either. when most scientist say "god" they usually don't mean the invisible guy upstairs they usually mean something along the lines natural law.

God is neither the invisible guy upstairs nor simply natural law. There are other choices. Many scientists are believers.