Religions are morally wrong.

[one_raven]

one_raven:

Are you saying that human beings owe no moral duty to other animals? Or just to mice? Or what? And why?

Not at all, James.
In fact, quite the opposite.
I am saying that humans are the only animals who should be judged by a moral yardstick as they are the only ones who have the capacity to weigh the situation fairly and soberly.
They are the only ones who can imagine what the outcome of a situation will be.
They are the only ones with the facutlties to truly understand philosophy.
(as far as we can observe)
Humans have the capacity to override instinct through reason and value judgements, so they should be held responsible and accountable for their actions.
They made a choice - a moral decision.

 

[Enmos]

Not at all, James.
In fact, quite the opposite.
I am saying that humans are the only animals who should be judged by a moral yardstick as they are the only ones who have the capacity to weigh the situation fairly and soberly.
They are the only ones who can imagine what the outcome of a situation will be.
They are the only ones with the facutlties to truly understand philosophy.
(as far as we can observe)
Humans have the capacity to override instinct through reason and value judgements, so they should be held responsible and accountable for their actions.
They made a choice - a moral decision.

You are an optimist

 

[Lori_7]

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.

if a particular scripture says that it's been inspired by, or authored by the holy spirit, then i don't see how it is morally wrong to either believe it or not believe it, it is simply a choice. and if the scripture is supposed to have been authored by god, then it is an autobiography. religions aren't "morally wrong" but are wrong because they seek to determine and impose morals on people.

 

[Gustav]

Not at all, James.
In fact, quite the opposite.
I am saying that humans are the only animals who should be judged by a moral yardstick as they are the only ones who have the capacity to weigh the situation fairly and soberly.
They are the only ones who can imagine what the outcome of a situation will be.
They are the only ones with the facutlties to truly understand philosophy.
(as far as we can observe)
Humans have the capacity to override instinct through reason and value judgements, so they should be held responsible and accountable for their actions.
They made a choice - a moral decision.

positively biblical

/sneer

altruism abounds in the animal kingdom
go look

 

[one_raven]

You are an optimist

Having the capacity does not necessarily imply that they act on that potential.

 

[Myles]

if a particular scripture says that it's been inspired by, or authored by the holy spirit, then i don't see how it is morally wrong to either believe it or not believe it, it is simply a choice. and if the scripture is supposed to have been authored by god, then it is an autobiography. religions aren't "morally wrong" but are wrong because they seek to determine and impose morals on people.

Give scripture a rest ! Try reading the Wall Street Journal.

 

[lightgigantic]

wes morris
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
and if they judge god as being deserving of obedience, what is exactly morally wrong with that?
”
The very notion of obedience is morally repugnant to me.

assuming you aren't contributing to sciforums from a prison computer, somehow you manage to live with yourself ...

“
Who has ever been held as occupying the moral high ground by being bereft of judgment?
(actually being bereft of judgment is the quality of a fool)
”
Depends on what you're judging. The dog doesn't judge his master. Obedience is so fucking icky. ICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Ack. phlahgnyahflickingerk.

I'll see if I can come with a better explanation, pardon.

hence to have the judgment capacities of a dog is not enviable ... namely because the master one accepts could be far from ideal

 

[superluminal]

Religions are morally wrong because they are lies perpetrated by one group in order to subjugate another.

"I am the direct representative of an entity so powerful that if you displease him (me) you will suffer for eternity. Conversely, if you please him (me) you will be rewarded for eternity. Now, bow down to him (me)."

It always amazes me how such a simple con has been blindly accepted by so many for so long.

 

[lightgigantic]

Religions are morally wrong because they are lies perpetrated by one group in order to subjugate another.

please don't go running away behind the barricades of weak atheism/agnosticism again and tell us exactly how you know they are lies (hint - follow the signs "negative absolute this way --->" )

"I am the direct representative of an entity so powerful that if you displease him (me) you will suffer for eternity. Conversely, if you please him (me) you will be rewarded for eternity. Now, bow down to him (me)."

given that even mundane diplomacy operates on identical principles, it's not clear why a bonafide representative can not represent the needs, interests and concerns of their superior - if you don't believe me, just try blowing up american embassies while simultaneously trying to be friendly with the US president

It always amazes me how such a simple con has been blindly accepted by so many for so long.

It always amazes me how atheists can lodge arguments that are even absurd in mundane life

 

[wesmorris]

please don't go running away behind the barricades of weak atheism/agnosticism again and tell us exactly how you know they are lies (hint - follow the signs "negative absolute this way --->" )

Ha. lol. Uhm, so since there are a lot of religions they aren't all right eh? So some of them are definately lying. They're all lying but one? Is that it?

 

[wesmorris]

wes morris
“
assuming you aren't contributing to sciforums from a prison computer, somehow you manage to live with yourself ...

so compliance and obedience are the same? methinks that rather twisted. most laws aren't contrary to my want or behavior, so why should i be in jail?

hence to have the judgment capacities of a dog is not enviable ... namely because the master one accepts could be far from ideal

So let's consider degrees then:

A dog to its master...

A human to its god...

of the two, which is more superior to its subject and thus by comparison, is possibly closer to the capacity for judgement... ?

further, you say ideal as if there is one? to me if there is a single anything that is intrinscially ideal, everything else must also be. by presuming an ideal on your own, even interpreted through your master's 'teachings' - do you not judge your master's imperfection? Who are you, he who is obedient to his master - to question his creation? How could you presume the possibility of 'less than ideal'?

i just can't help but think that to assign properties to your master or by extension, his creation - of which you are a part, is to judge him. establishing a single thing about it beyond its initial definition is to say you know about it. what does a dog know of his master? what is human knowledge compared to an 'entity' existing outside of time and responsible for *all that is*?

Every element of the human mind quite fundmentally tied to linear time. Even the notion of concepts don't make much sense with no notion of time implicitely tacked on, as concepts embody elements of human experience through time.

So I'd say a dog to his master's comprehesion is a far closer match than a man to his *god* - assuming for the sake of argument that such an entity could *exist* or that the idea *exist* could even apply to something outside of time.

 

[wesmorris]

Religions are morally wrong because they are lies perpetrated by one group in order to subjugate another.

I don't think lies are necessarily morally wrong, and I think it's sometimes "assimilate" rather than subjegate, but of course it's often a fine line.

Lies are just mentally unhealthy IMO, for the most part, depending on how you look at it I guess.

For instance, if you're mentally unhealthy and lies are the only thing keeping you from total breakdown, are they healthy or unhealthy?

Just sayin.

 

[James R]

SAM:

Yeah, and I think the mice that eat the weak babies are being entirely rational.

I think that's more a matter of instinct.

Cannibalism for necessity hasn't generally been considered absolutely wrong. Nobody blamed those guys in the Andes plane crash for eating their dead teammates. They had to do it to survive. This is a good example of where "one size fits all" doesn't work, don't you think?

So you'd absolutely understand if in times of famine, mothers would eat surplus babies, right?

Yes, I'd understand it.

Wouldn't you?

 

[Zephyr]

Well, let's look at just one suggestion from secular philosophy: Kant's "categorical imperative". What he said was that something should be considered "good" or morally acceptable only if one could wish that it become a general rule, applicable to all.

That seems open to manipulation. Some people might be happy with the universal application of a rule like "blacks are inferior and should be slaves to white people". That doesn't make it moral.

How about: Every mother should eat her babies, if she is starving and unable to provide for them.

Would that work? In the long term?

Unless the babies are going to die painfully it would probably be more moral to let them die naturally rather than kill them, to allow for the possibility of finding food unexpectedly. Once they're dead, I don't see what difference it makes. Emotional attachments aside, a dead body is just meat. Eating members of your own species may put you at greater risk of disease, but if no other food is available and starvation is imminent it may be worthwhile risking disease to keep yourself alive.

 

[lightgigantic]

Ha. lol. Uhm, so since there are a lot of religions they aren't all right eh? So some of them are definately lying. They're all lying but one? Is that it?

what on earth makes you say that?

 

[wesmorris]

what on earth makes you say that?

my smart alec, sarcastic tendency i suppose.

 

[lightgigantic]

wes morris
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
wes morris
“
assuming you aren't contributing to sciforums from a prison computer, somehow you manage to live with yourself ...
”
so compliance and obedience are the same? methinks that rather twisted. most laws aren't contrary to my want or behavior, so why should i be in jail?

Because you used the word "most"

“
hence to have the judgment capacities of a dog is not enviable ... namely because the master one accepts could be far from ideal
”
So let's consider degrees then:

A dog to its master...

A human to its god...

of the two, which is more superior to its subject and thus by comparison, is possibly closer to the capacity for judgement... ?

I would have thought that would be an easy one to answer

further, you say ideal as if there is one? to me if there is a single anything that is intrinscially ideal, everything else must also be. by presuming an ideal on your own, even interpreted through your master's 'teachings' - do you not judge your master's imperfection? Who are you, he who is obedient to his master - to question his creation? How could you presume the possibility of 'less than ideal'?

not sure what you mean by saying an ideal means everything else is
Do you mean that because you may have a notion of an ideal woman, that all women are ideal?
Or do you mean that because you have the notion of an ideal women, that there must also be an ideal man, an ideal child, an ideal parent, an ideal house, etc etc?
Or do you mean something else?

i just can't help but think that to assign properties to your master or by extension, his creation - of which you are a part, is to judge him.

And what is wrong about that?
For instance if you see someone hand a person back their wallet after it slipped out of their pocket, where is the harm in you judging them as honest?

establishing a single thing about it beyond its initial definition is to say you know about it.

and why is that a problem?

what does a dog know of his master

quite a lot

what is human knowledge compared to an 'entity' existing outside of time and responsible for *all that is*?

sure, we may not know god in full, but we certainly can know enough about god to lift ourselves out of illusion

Every element of the human mind quite fundmentally tied to linear time.

hence there is the suggestion that the mind must be transcended to enable one to realize the noumena of the mind - namely the soul.

Even the notion of concepts don't make much sense with no notion of time implicitely tacked on, as concepts embody elements of human experience through time.

quite simply, the mind is not advocated as the final last word of the self - rather it is a (subtle) material ingredient of the corporeal body

So I'd say a dog to his master's comprehesion is a far closer match than a man to his *god* - assuming for the sake of argument that such an entity could *exist* or that the idea *exist* could even apply to something outside of time.

There is the suggestion that to know the quality of god one must also take on that same quality - namely purity. If a person is still under the influence of material contamination, the best they can do is approach god as a concept (which again, isn't a bad starting point, but is insufficient for liberation/salvation etc)

 

[lightgigantic]

my smart alec, sarcastic tendency i suppose.

and that's the root cause for your assumption that all religions advocate that all other religions are completely false?

 

[greenberg]

The very notion of obedience is morally repugnant to me.

So you find it morally repugnant when your daughters eat their vegetables as you ordered them to?

 

[greenberg]

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'.

This implies that you are absolutely certain that nothing of what various theistic scriptures say about God has actually been said by God,
and also that you are certain nobody knows God or knows anything about God.

That is some very bold implication you have there.
What makes you so sure that none of the theistic scriptures and no person knows anything about God?

Stuff like that.

Just a thought.

You're not serious, are you.