The Impact of Religion in Shaping Modern Society.

[Alyxx Thorne]

I don't think religion itself is a bad thing, but rather people who do bad things and use religion as an excuse.

[ProHypster]

I don't think religion itself is a bad thing, but rather people who do bad things and use religion as an excuse.

 

Good to know, then you understand that just as me.

[Axeldeath]

But people do bad things in the name of their religion, just because people say "But x wasn't a real christian" doesn't mean x wasn't motivated to do things because of his religion.

[Attilio]

Religion is like a penis

 

It is fine to have one,

It is fine to be proud of it,

but PLEASE do not whip it out public, and start to wave it around,

and PLEASE do NOT try to shove it down your/my children's throats!

[Rover]

But people do bad things in the name of their religion, just because people say "But x wasn't a real christian" doesn't mean x wasn't motivated to do things because of his religion.

 

+rep

 

When some theist does horrible things, the 'no true Scotsman' fallacies come flying hard and fast.

[ProHypster]

I find that argument stupid, go ahead minus rep me.

 

If x is stupid, someone will use the stupidity and teach him (No matter if it is religous or scientific related) and explain to him that he should kill people.

[Rover]

I find that argument stupid, go ahead minus rep me.

 

If x is stupid, someone will use the stupidity and teach him (No matter if it is religous or scientific related) and explain to him that he should kill people.

 

There's something to that. But throughout history people have been shown to be more willing to kill if they believe they are acting in accordance with the wishes of their deity. After all god is the supreme arbiter of morality, if god tells you to kill people it must not only be okay, it is righteous. Just like in the old testament.

 

Also, I only -rep you when you engage in logical fallacies because you're so big on philosophy.

[ProHypster]

I disagree with the whole post.

 

EDIT: More specifically.

 

But throughout history people have been shown to be more willing to kill if they believe they are acting in accordance with the wishes of their deity.

 

Inductive Reasoning.

 

After all god is the supreme arbiter of morality, if god tells you to kill people it must not only be okay, it is righteous. Just like in the old testament.

 

I disagree + Logical fallacy.

 

By the way, it turns out my educated guess is turning true in the "bullying" thread.

Remember..

It shows it affected their own lives in a bad way I guess, either that or they are voting uninformatively, or they are rebels.

[Rover]

I disagree with the whole post.

 

EDIT: More specifically.

 

But throughout history people have been shown to be more willing to kill if they believe they are acting in accordance with the wishes of their deity.

 

Inductive Reasoning.

 

After all god is the supreme arbiter of morality, if god tells you to kill people it must not only be okay, it is righteous. Just like in the old testament.

 

I disagree + Logical fallacy.

 

By the way, it turns out my educated guess is turning true in the "bullying" thread.

Remember..

It shows it affected their own lives in a bad way I guess, either that or they are voting uninformatively, or they are rebels.

 

If you as a person accept the basic premises of a monotheistic religion, you accept that god is the supreme arbiter of morality. Religion's laws are the laws of god. If you accept the existence of god and adhere to an interpretation of god in line with one of the three monotheistic religions, then the premise that god is sole arbiter of what is moral is what is not logically follows. The only way you can be exempt from this is if you call yourself a deist. But you cannot call yourself a christian or a muslim and not accept that morality comes from god. Accepting god as the arbiter of morality is inherent in the definition of christian, jew or muslim. Don't make this any more nebulous and vapid than it has to be. I know you like to obfuscate.

Therefore, whatever god claims is moral, is moral. Even if god commands you to go into a city and slaughter every man, woman, child and animal. As he did in the old testament, hence why I mentioned it.

I am not the only one making this point, many christian apologists agree with me: whatever god decides is moral, is moral.

Of course, this all depends on whether or not a person A: Believes god is real and B: Believes morality comes from god.

Maybe I did not make this sufficiently clear in my previous post.

But if you accept A and not B you're at best a deist, you don't get to call yourself a christian since you simply don't meet the requirements for that category.

 

As for saying that people are more willing to kill if they believe they are acting in accordance with the wishes of their deity, maybe I was too hasty as I can't find a conclusive study on that. Maybe the desire to kill comes first and religious commandments are used to legitimize these violent desires. Still the fact that they can so easily be used to legitimize all kinds of heinous behavior is sufficient for an indictment.

 

If you disagree, which I have no doubt you will. Please explain your position more fully rather than just saying you disagree.

[Alyxx Thorne]

"Thou shall not kill."

Any Christian who kills in the name of God is a moron to begin with.

[Rover]

"Thou shall not kill."

Any Christian who kills in the name of God is a moron to begin with.

 

Actually it says "thou shalt not murder."

A distinction is made between killing in battle and murdering someone. You could argue that's mere semantics, and I'd be inclined to agree. However most christian apologists and every christian soldier and general you can find will make that distinction.

 

From Numbers 15 KJV

15:32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.

15:33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.

15:34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.

15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

 

here we have god ordering the killing of a man, for gathering sticks on the sabbath.

So the question is, is this a moral act? A man is killed for doing nothing but gathering wood, yet his killing is commanded by god.

Who's morality is superior here, ours or god's?

[Alyxx Thorne]

Actually it says "thou shalt not murder."

A distinction is made between killing in battle and murdering someone. You could argue that's mere semantics, and I'd be inclined to agree. However most christian apologists and every christian soldier and general you can find will make that distinction.

I don't make any distinction myself. Though I probably would defend myself or someone I care about, I would never fight for my country or God, it would feel wrong for me. To me, all human life is sacred and I don't feel I should take it away. I always seek a peaceful resolution when possible.

[Dan-95]

Looking on the debate:

-lol Alyxx, so humble, prolly why you have so much rep.

 

-cmon guys, be civil, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

-I would just like to reminds everyone that your vote is an opinion, which can be based on facts if you wish. We can't undo the past and test other options (Yet O.O), so there isn't really a right or wrong answer. Postulate using deductive or inductive thinking, just don't blatantly or disrespectfully saying 'you're wrong!'. So far it's been good though .

[Alyxx Thorne]

As long as we keep it civil and refrain from flaming each other, I'm all for sharing views and opinions.

[ProHypster]

If you as a person accept the basic premises of a monotheistic religion, you accept that god is the supreme arbiter of morality.

Incorrect statement. Inductive reasoning. Assuming all monotheists accept god as a supreme arbiter of morality because you only know of that kind of people.

 

If you accept the existence of god and adhere to an interpretation of god in line with one of the three monotheistic religions, then the premise that god is sole arbiter of what is moral is what is not logically follows.

There is more then three monotheistic religions.

 

The only way you can be exempt from this is if you call yourself a deist. But you cannot call yourself a christian or a muslim and not accept that morality comes from god. Accepting god as the arbiter of morality is inherent in the definition of christian, jew or muslim.

Well, I already said that there is more religions than just this that are monotheistic.

Don't make this any more nebulous and vapid than it has to be. I know you like to obfuscate.

I try to be as clear as possible, that's why I write in short sentences and use terminology to the fullest.

 

Therefore, whatever god claims is moral, is moral. Even if god commands you to go into a city and slaughter every man, woman, child and animal. As he did in the old testament, hence why I mentioned it.

I am not the only one making this point, many christian apologists agree with me: whatever god decides is moral, is moral.

Of course, this all depends on whether or not a person A: Believes god is real and B: Believes morality comes from god.

Maybe I did not make this sufficiently clear in my previous post.

But if you accept A and not B you're at best a deist, you don't get to call yourself a christian since you simply don't meet the requirements for that category.

No, if you believe in God/Gods and at least one other person agrees with your point of view and you study and teach what you believe in then you are participating in a religion.

 

As for saying that people are more willing to kill if they believe they are acting in accordance with the wishes of their deity, maybe I was too hasty as I can't find a conclusive study on that. Maybe the desire to kill comes first and religious commandments are used to legitimize these violent desires.

Abductive reasoning (You narrowed it down to only religious commandments while in reality it could be any info in the world making relious commandments specifically look bad)

 

If you disagree, which I have no doubt you will.

Showing some wisdom there.

Please explain your position more fully rather than just saying you disagree.

I hope I did

 

PS: Congrats to Alyxx for becomnig mod!

[Rover]

If you as a person accept the basic premises of a monotheistic religion, you accept that god is the supreme arbiter of morality.

Incorrect statement. Inductive reasoning. Assuming all monotheists accept god as a supreme arbiter of morality because you only know of that kind of people.

 

I am generalizing for the sake of the argument, this is what I meant with you obfuscating. the 3 major mainstream monotheistic religions we here in the west are most likely to encounter all share the common doctrine of god as the supreme arbiter of morality. The topic is modern society, after all. Acknowledging god as the source of all morality is a basic tenet of those religions and a requirement in order to be considered a believer by the religious doctrines which founded the religion. If people call themselves christians but do not believe god is the source of their morality, they're by definition not christians.

You do not get to re-define the basic tenets of christianity, judaism and islam to your hearts desire.

 

If you accept the existence of god and adhere to an interpretation of god in line with one of the three monotheistic religions, then the premise that god is sole arbiter of what is moral is what is not logically follows.

There is more then three monotheistic religions.

 

See what I said above.

I am restraining the argument to only encompass what we call modern western society.

 

Therefore, whatever god claims is moral, is moral. Even if god commands you to go into a city and slaughter every man, woman, child and animal. As he did in the old testament, hence why I mentioned it.

I am not the only one making this point, many christian apologists agree with me: whatever god decides is moral, is moral.

Of course, this all depends on whether or not a person A: Believes god is real and B: Believes morality comes from god.

Maybe I did not make this sufficiently clear in my previous post.

But if you accept A and not B you're at best a deist, you don't get to call yourself a christian since you simply don't meet the requirements for that category.

No, if you believe in God/Gods and at least one other person agrees with your point of view and you study and teach what you believe in then you are participating in a religion.

 

Red Herring.

There is such a thing as mainstream religion, defined by the many commonalities all the different sects share. Which also wields considerable influence which can't be ignored.

Having a few people out there believing wildly different things has no effect on the behavior of the elephants in the room, so to speak.

You're giving me the impression you're deliberately ignoring the bigger picture by focusing on small details.

 

As for saying that people are more willing to kill if they believe they are acting in accordance with the wishes of their deity, maybe I was too hasty as I can't find a conclusive study on that. Maybe the desire to kill comes first and religious commandments are used to legitimize these violent desires.

Abductive reasoning (You narrowed it down to only religious commandments while in reality it could be any info in the world making religious commandments specifically look bad)

 

I will regard this a Non sequitur until you can clarify.

My point was using a deity's position of supreme arbiter of morality, religious commandments (as passed down by that deity) can be used as a perceived irrefutable legitimization of inherently immoral behavior. Such as stoning a person for being gay, just to name an example. Something which can't be done with ideologies which do not include deities.

[ProHypster]

Ok, so you are specifically talking about the three main monotheist religions.

Sure, next time say exatcly that, as this is a religion in general thread.

 

Now to the stoning and

Something which can't be done with ideologies which do not include deities.

 

Haven't you heard fascism originated from the misused natural selection.

Naziism then developed fascism?

 

Karl Marx's and Engels (Everybody forgets Engels , and he was the one getting things doen too!) communist theory was misused for North Korea's despotism.

 

Both theories rejected religion specifically and still they got misused.

Especially Karl Marx's theory who stated that you will work 1 hour in a day and enjoy the rest of the day in a perfect communist state through the extermination of corruption. Everyone should participate in the community, and the poor shall become equals. Children are the future... etc etc

 

I don't see that happening in North Korea.

[Rover]

Ok, so you are specifically talking about the three main monotheist religions.

Sure, next time say exatcly that, as this is a religion in general thread.

 

You are correct. I should have done that, my apologies.

 

Now to the stoning.

 

Haven't you heard fascism originated from the misused natural selection.

Naziism then developed fascism?

 

Karl Marx's and Engels (Everybody forgets Engels , and he was the one getting things doen too!) communist theory was misused for North Korea's despotism.

 

I've heard this before and I think I saw you mention it in the evolution creationism thread as well.

Social Darwinism is pure pseudo-science. A deliberate twisting and mangling and misrepresentation of evolution and natural selection to justify pre-existing racial intolerance and hatred.

Just like the KKK is pseudo-christianity.

 

However, religious commandments to order the death of certain individuals, such as non believers or homosexuals, or people who gather sticks on the sabbath, can be quoted ad verbatim. Though sometimes maybe out of context, but in general the bible torah and koran are pretty explicit on who should die, and why.

 

A religious commandment issued by a supreme being who is perceived by those who seek to carry out the commandment as infallible and righteous can not be questioned at any time by those who accept the deity's position as supreme moral arbiter.

Thus, my point, acceptance by an individual of a deity's supreme authority on the question of morality can lead to that individual carrying out inherently immoral acts, but perceive those very acts as morally righteous.

 

After sitting here for a while I realize that Social Darwinism is in fact similar, the nazis believed that slaughtering millions of people was not morally objectionable in accordance with their ideology. Though Social Darwinism could be easily argued against, it was inherently dishonest and deceitful, and has largely died out.

 

I think we can both agree that our wider problem then is with the vigorous and blind pursuit of an ideology, which can lead to disastrous results.

But I will have to reiterate that when it comes to religious scriptures there are some pretty explicit commandments in all 3 major holy books which are by todays standards down right evil. And it's up to people to develop a moral compass independent from their religion in order to decide which commandments to follow and which ones to ignore.

 

And with that I rest my case for the evening.

[ProHypster]

Ok, so you are specifically talking about the three main monotheist religions.

Sure, next time say exatcly that, as this is a religion in general thread.

 

You are correct. I should have done that, my apologies.

 

Now to the stoning.

 

Haven't you heard fascism originated from the misused natural selection.

Naziism then developed fascism?

 

Karl Marx's and Engels (Everybody forgets Engels , and he was the one getting things doen too!) communist theory was misused for North Korea's despotism.

 

I've heard this before and I think I saw you mention it in the evolution creationism thread as well.

Social Darwinism is pure pseudo-science. A deliberate twisting and mangling and misrepresentation of evolution and natural selection to justify pre-existing racial intolerance and hatred.

Just like the KKK is pseudo-christianity.

 

However, religious commandments to order the death of certain individuals, such as non believers or homosexuals, or people who gather sticks on the sabbath, can be quoted ad verbatim. Though sometimes maybe out of context, but in general the bible torah and koran are pretty explicit on who should die, and why.

 

A religious commandment issued by a supreme being who is perceived by those who seek to carry out the commandment as infallible and righteous can not be questioned at any time by those who accept the deity's position as supreme moral arbiter.

Thus, my point, acceptance by an individual of a deity's supreme authority on the question of morality can lead to that individual carrying out inherently immoral acts, but perceive those very acts as morally righteous.

 

After sitting here for a while I realize that Social Darwinism is in fact similar, the nazis believed that slaughtering millions of people was not morally objectionable in accordance with their ideology. Though Social Darwinism could be easily argued against, it was inherently dishonest and deceitful, and has largely died out.

 

I think we can both agree that our wider problem then is with the vigorous and blind pursuit of an ideology, which can lead to disastrous results.

But I will have to reiterate that when it comes to religious scriptures there are some pretty explicit commandments in all 3 major holy books which are by todays standards down right evil. And it's up to people to develop a moral compass independent from their religion in order to decide which commandments to follow and which ones to ignore.

 

And with that I rest my case for the evening.

Have a good night then

Concentrate on the fact that natural selection didn't even have anything written about killing or murder of other people and it certainly didn't write anything about how should someone live.

 

And yet some types of Fascism and Naziism were more evil and worse then any religious actions done in the world (Not that it means religion is any better then any other ideology)

 

I'll let you think about it, I think you will come to the same conclusion as me eventually.

 

In fact, read my older posts on this thread, you may find that I already wrote further then what you did but in similar context.

[Doom Shepherd]

Wait, there are Monotheists who DON'T believe that God is the supreme arbiter of morality? Which cult is that?