Religions are morally wrong.

wesmorris

Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N
Valued Senior Member
Because they judge god.

They judge 'him' by believing words in books are directly from 'him'.

They judge god by believing particular things about 'him'.

Stuff like that.

Just a thought.
 
Because they judge god.

They judge 'him' by believing words in books are directly from 'him'.

They judge god by believing particular things about 'him'.

Stuff like that.

Just a thought.

I do believe that religions are morally wrong, for different reasons, but I don't see where you get that by believing words in books are from God, they are judging God.
Also, even if that is true, why is judging God necessarily immoral?
 
SAM,

What is morality?
The difference between good and bad.

God and bad for who?

From a theist perspective it is whatever is good or bad for the respective deity.

From the rational perspective it is whatever is good or bad for people.

The two scenarios overlap in some areas and in others they are bizarrely different.

From the rational perspective a theist religion is morally wrong since it doesn't place humanity at the center.
 
Is eating your babies rationally good or bad, if you're really really hungry and cannot afford to feed them anyway?
 
It's bad to have the babies in the first place if you aren't in a position to feed them.
 
SAM,

Is eating your babies rationally good or bad, if you're really really hungry and cannot afford to feed them anyway?
If your god tells you to do that, you would do it, right, because that would be good for your god if he said so.

Using reason rather than a set of outdated ancient archaic rules allows us to make informed choices that best optimize available resources and needs. The primeval instincts within us that center around communal support prevent all normal people from eating their own children. Our rational creativity further allows us to find more appropriate alternatives to your bizarrely contrived suggestion.
 
SAM,

If your god tells you to do that, you would do it, right, because that would be good for your god if he said so.

Using reason rather than a set of outdated ancient archaic rules allows us to make informed choices that best optimize available resources and needs. The primeval instincts within us that center around communal support prevent all normal people from eating their own children. Our rational creativity further allows us to find more appropriate alternatives to your bizarrely contrived suggestion.

I don't know which God my mice worship. I was asking for the rational explanation.
 
SAM,

If your god tells you to do that, you would do it, right, because that would be good for your god if he said so.

Using reason rather than a set of outdated ancient archaic rules allows us to make informed choices that best optimize available resources and needs. The primeval instincts within us that center around communal support prevent all normal people from eating their own children. Our rational creativity further allows us to find more appropriate alternatives to your bizarrely contrived suggestion.

yeah but the wrath of god sucks. big time. turn your ass into salt, bitch.
 
no
no, it is not a good thing to do

Its the quickest way to obtain the required nutrients. Babies cannot get away, saves time and effort too. Most mice will eat the weakest child, since that is a humongous waste of resources.

It has even been seen, presumably as a response to stress (though that seems like anthropomorphism) in primates
Mother-infant cannibalism in species of galagos as in several other species of non-human primates is a common phenomenon. In non-human primates kept in laboratory conditions many of the observed cases of cannibalism were not associated with starvation and with infanticide. Cannibalism in galagos was observed in at least five different species.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/ywn4336j34xv3326/
 
Is eating your babies rationally good or bad, if you're really really hungry and cannot afford to feed them anyway?

It depends on all the circumstances.

For example, are you in an isolated location where the babies are the only possible source of food? Or do you have the option to give the babies to somebody else to look after? Will you die if you don't eat them? Will they suffer and die in agony if you don't kill them?

In short, you haven't specified enough about the circumstances to make it possible to answer the question.
 
Why are other circumstances relevant? Rationally speaking, here is a source of energy that you do not need to work for. The easiest decision if one ignores unnecessary social taboos one is brainwashed into.
 
Back
Top