Can we separate Morality from Religion? (Poll)

[crazymf]

It was once part of the religion of bronze Ireland that the king would have sexual intercourse with a mare once a year......I believe they considered this act of congress to be quite moral

The practice stopped a few hundred years after the introduction of christianity......

King MacGlom was standing on the platform and doing his royal duty huffing and puffing away when all the spectators started laughing at him. He was enraged and went into this long winded rant about the value of religious and cultural traditions and the decline of morality when one young turk heckled...

oh yea we kin all that ya gob shite...we be laughing at ye cause the mare ya chose is ugly.......

HAHA!!

[Figleaf]

The idea that ethics(morals) can't exist without religion doesn't just strike me as incorrect. It seems, moreover to be nobsensical. Maybe some religious type will help me understand by answering this question:

If you poll a religious person and a non-religious personand each one tells you she thinks "Murder is wrong", how is one moral and the other not?

Although I am not overly religious but definitely support Christianity for reasons pertaining to culture and to the goodness of promoting an anti-pagan society, I will attempt to answer your question.

Relating to Christianity, God teaches "Thou shalt no kill", so killing or murdering is totally against the law of God with absolutely no justification to kill whatever the reason and which also constitutes a mortal sin. This of course is coupled with my private convictions as to why it is wrong to kill.

Relating to secularism, if I learned or came to my own conclusion that it is wrong to kill but with no conviction other than my own logic, I could be tempted to kill for reasons I consider justifiable and could very well complete the act depending on circumstance.

I don't get it. Within the example, both persons report that it is 'wrong' to commit 'murder'. You suggest that the difference it that one is externally imposed and the other internally imposed (thus subject to internal reassessment). I don't see how that changes the morality of the initial (unreassessed) reported view that murder is wrong. Your position fails to explain how the views are different while they are held.

[gc1765]

Relating to Christianity, God teaches "Thou shalt no kill", so killing or murdering is totally against the law of God with absolutely no justification to kill whatever the reason and which also constitutes a mortal sin. This of course is coupled with my private convictions as to why it is wrong to kill.

Relating to secularism, if I learned or came to my own conclusion that it is wrong to kill but with no conviction other than my own logic, I could be tempted to kill for reasons I consider justifiable and could very well complete the act depending on circumstance.

Then why are so called Christians (ie bush and his supporters) starting wars that kill people if you believe that there is "absolutely no justification to kill"?

[Leafless]

I don't get it. Within the example, both persons report that it is 'wrong' to commit 'murder'. You suggest that the difference it that one is externally imposed and the other internally imposed (thus subject to internal reassessment). I don't see how that changes the morality of the initial (unreassessed) reported view that murder is wrong. Your position fails to explain how the views are different while they are held.

Whether or not you accept it, the accepted standards of human behavior relating to good and bad IMO are primarily propagated or taught by religion and reinforced especially relating to the Catholic religion during the whole time spent in primary school.

Christianity teaches what morals are from a religious point of view backed up your faith in that religion.

You can also harbour the legal definition of what is good and bad on top of your religious definition which reinforces the overhaul concept between good and bad.

I really don't know how children of secularist are guaranteed accepted standards of moral behavior from pagan parents and attend public schools with little time spent on morals if any.

Generally speaking children of Christian parents will receive moral training in the home, some at school and through the church as in comparison to possibly none or very little moral training concerning children raised by securalist parents.

That's what the difference is.

[Leafless]

Then why are so called Christians (ie bush and his supporters) starting wars that kill people if you believe that there is "absolutely no justification to kill"?

You must be confused concerning defending national interest with 'illegal' murders.

When national interest are threatened and military force is utilized to combat the problem, it is not considered murder.

Without national interest being defended their would be no base for religion nor anything else if the country is lost or risk being lost to the interest of another country.

[Drea]

You can also harbour the legal definition of what is good and bad on top of your religious definition which reinforces the overhaul concept between good and bad.

I really don't know how children of secularist are guaranteed accepted standards of moral behavior from pagan parents and attend public schools with little time spent on morals if any.

Generally speaking children of Christian parents will receive moral training in the home, some at school and through the church as in comparison to possibly none or very little moral training concerning children raised by securalist parents.

That's what the difference is.

You make it sound as though we make our kids eat off the floor and teach them to kill cats!

I don’t need to fear a God in order to be moral. The conscience is the moral compass.

You mistakenly assume that children raised in non-believing households are heathens. Not so.

I do not believe schools should be responsible for teaching morals. They should teach academics and leave the morals to the parents.

Generally speaking, children raised by non-believers are more open and tolerant of others. They are more open minded and are able to process information based on facts rather than emotions.

[gc1765]

You must be confused concerning defending national interest with 'illegal' murders.

When national interest are threatened and military force is utilized to combat the problem, it is not considered murder.

Without national interest being defended their would be no base for religion nor anything else if the country is lost or risk being lost to the interest of another country.

But you just finished saying there is "absolutely no justification to kill whatever the reason"

Now you're saying it's justified if national interests are threatened?

[Figleaf]

I don't get it. Within the example, both persons report that it is 'wrong' to commit 'murder'. You suggest that the difference it that one is externally imposed and the other internally imposed (thus subject to internal reassessment). I don't see how that changes the morality of the initial (unreassessed) reported view that murder is wrong. Your position fails to explain how the views are different while they are held.

Whether or not you accept it, the accepted standards of human behavior relating to good and bad IMO are primarily propagated or taught by religion

Oh, I accept that that is your opinion. But that doesn't help make any sense of why the same opinion is moral if held by one person but not by another.

I really don't know how children of secularist are guaranteed accepted standards of moral behavior from pagan parents and attend public schools with little time spent on morals if any.

Say again? That last bit was too garbled for me to parse out your meaning.

Generally speaking children of Christian parents will receive moral training in the home, some at school and through the church as in comparison to possibly none or very little moral training concerning children raised by securalist parents.

Even if that view were factaully precise (which it is not), it sheds no light on the question we are dealing with on this thread.

So, I'm still looking for someone to exlpain how the same opinion can be moral in one person but not another.

[Leafless]

So, I'm still looking for someone to exlpain how the same opinion can be moral in one person but not another.

It's like saying you have a university degree when you've never been inside a university.

Morals are the same.

If your not taught morals at an early age especially in school in a professional manner relating to religion, you will probably never consider them in the same serious light as someone who was taught morals from a religious point of view.

You probably would not be asking this question if it was not for Trudeau's fairy equality charter and would still be in the closet with your other atheist friends.

[Leafless]

You must be confused concerning defending national interest with 'illegal' murders.

When national interest are threatened and military force is utilized to combat the problem, it is not considered murder.

Without national interest being defended their would be no base for religion nor anything else if the country is lost or risk being lost to the interest of another country.

But you just finished saying there is "absolutely no justification to kill whatever the reason"

Now you're saying it's justified if national interests are threatened?

National interest and the military override personal beliefs relating to war.

Religious beliefs relating to morals concerning killing can only apply during the normal times of one's self existence.

But you could be EXTREME and go to jail if conscripted, rather than fight for your country.

[gc1765]

National interest and the military override personal beliefs relating to war.

Religious beliefs relating to morals concerning killing can only apply during the normal times of one's self existence.

But you could be EXTREME and go to jail if conscripted, rather than fight for your country.

So, who decides what is in "National interest" and therefore justified? God?

[Figleaf]

So, I'm still looking for someone to exlpain how the same opinion can be moral in one person but not another.

It's like saying you have a university degree when you've never been inside a university.

Morals are the same.

Ahhh! I see... from the religious pov morality is a question of arbitrary definition. Okay.

If your not taught morals at an early age especially in school in a professional manner relating to religion, you will probably never consider them in the same serious light ...

1. What shred of evidence have you got ror that?

2. Woman A comes to you on the street and says 'Gee it's terrible what's happening to Israelis.' Later, Woman B meets you in an elevator and says 'Gosh it's terrible what's happening to Israelis.' Which one is the religious one?

You probably would not be asking this question if it was not for Trudeau's fairy equality charter and would still be in the closet with your other atheist friends.

Excellent debate technique there. You look good now, don't you.

[Leafless]

National interest and the military override personal beliefs relating to war.

Religious beliefs relating to morals concerning killing can only apply during the normal times of one's self existence.

But you could be EXTREME and go to jail if conscripted, rather than fight for your country.

So, who decides what is in "National interest" and therefore justified? God?

In a free society supporting the government on important issue's relating to national interest are decided by a combination of concerns relating to opposition parties and Canadians themselves by displaying approval or disapproval in the way of voting in the next election.

[Leafless]

I don't get it. Within the example, both persons report that it is 'wrong' to commit 'murder'. You suggest that the difference it that one is externally imposed and the other internally imposed (thus subject to internal reassessment). I don't see how that changes the morality of the initial (unreassessed) reported view that murder is wrong. Your position fails to explain how the views are different while they are held.

Whether or not you accept it, the accepted standards of human behavior relating to good and bad IMO are primarily propagated or taught by religion

Oh, I accept that that is your opinion. But that doesn't help make any sense of why the same opinion is moral if held by one person but not by another.

I really don't know how children of secularist are guaranteed accepted standards of moral behavior from pagan parents and attend public schools with little time spent on morals if any.

Say again? That last bit was too garbled for me to parse out your meaning.

Generally speaking children of Christian parents will receive moral training in the home, some at school and through the church as in comparison to possibly none or very little moral training concerning children raised by securalist parents.

Even if that view were factaully precise (which it is not), it sheds no light on the question we are dealing with on this thread.

So, I'm still looking for someone to exlpain how the same opinion can be moral in one person but not another.

Your question is illogical.

Prior to the charter in this country Christianity and other religions substantially served as a standard concerning morals.

With the advent of the charter, political legislation overruled the natural societal evolution of this country especially in the areas of religion and language.

Your question cannot be answered because of this federal intervention. IMO the charter is destroying the fabric of this country.

For your question to be answered the federal government would have to implement some sort of STANDARDS relating to morals like it did for language, concerning 'official bilingualism' and employment in the federal government.

[Figleaf]

Your question is illogical.

That's rich! My dear fellow -- you wouldn't know logic if it bit you in the ass. (We know this because we see it happen on the forum every day.)

Prior to the charter in this country Christianity and other religions substantially served as a standard concerning morals.

Here's an example. Logic should tell you that competing beliefs can't serve as a standard .

'

With the advent of the charter, political legislation overruled the natural societal evolution of this country ...

Others would say that the Charter represented natural societal evolution.

Your question cannot be answered because of this federal intervention.

Nonsense. My question has nothing to do with Canada, or with any legislstion anywhere. What you are doing here is trying to sow confusion to disguise your inability to effectively address the issue.

[Leafless]

Here's an example. Logic should tell you that competing beliefs can't serve as a standard .

Exactly.

And this is why condescending minority beliefs such as yours will never be taken seriously by those of the MAJORITY Christian religion, also a believe, my dear man.

[gc1765]

In a free society supporting the government on important issue's relating to national interest are decided by a combination of concerns relating to opposition parties and Canadians themselves by displaying approval or disapproval in the way of voting in the next election.

True. So, how do Canadians themselves decide whether or not to support the government on the issue of a specific war? Do they use religion, and if so how?

[Figleaf]

Here's an example. Logic should tell you that competing beliefs can't serve as a standard .

Exactly.

And this is why condescending minority beliefs such as yours will never be taken seriously by those of the MAJORITY Christian religion, also a believe, my dear man.

Absurd. WHICH "majority" Christian religion?

And you're still quite beside the point anyway ... what makes the religious belief that murder is wrong moral while a non-religious belief that murder is wrong is not moral? You should just admit you have no answer and move on.

[Leafless]

In a free society supporting the government on important issue's relating to national interest are decided by a combination of concerns relating to opposition parties and Canadians themselves by displaying approval or disapproval in the way of voting in the next election.

True. So, how do Canadians themselves decide whether or not to support the government on the issue of a specific war? Do they use religion, and if so how?

Personally, I decide this by evaluating to the best of my knowledge, what degree a foreign threat is to Western style democracy and freedoms and well being to our country that could detrimentally affecty our country or will affect it if left unattended.

Religion does not enter this equation concerning the fate of my country other than hopefully keeping it primarily Christian.

How do you decide whether or not to support your government regarding issue's of national interest?

[Leafless]

Here's an example. Logic should tell you that competing beliefs can't serve as a standard .

Exactly.

And this is why condescending minority beliefs such as yours will never be taken seriously by those of the MAJORITY Christian religion, also a believe, my dear man.

Absurd. WHICH "majority" Christian religion?

And you're still quite beside the point anyway ... what makes the religious belief that murder is wrong moral while a non-religious belief that murder is wrong is not moral? You should just admit you have no answer and move on.

In Canada Roman Catholics are the majority Christian denomination and I am not going to dig the numbers out again as they already have been many times on this site and others.

The answer to the second part of your question is that there is no difference concerning the simple answer between a religious belief and a non-religious belief regarding murder is not moral per se.

But there is in the sense of how you arrive at that conclusion without religion and the many other issue's that require some sort of religious believe to confirm your moral belief's without resorting to any legal definition.

I'am not expanding on this any further with examples, since this is what separates religious morals from non-religious morals which could or will result with different convictions which could lead to conflicting values concerning ethics.

[Figleaf]

In Canada Roman Catholics are the majority Christian denomination and I am not going to dig the numbers out again as they already have been many times on this site and others.

So, basically, you are seeking that Canada become a feudal vassal to the papacy. Remarkable notion. Good luck with that.

The answer to the second part of your question is that there is no difference ...

Exactly. Glad we agree.

[Leafless]

In Canada Roman Catholics are the majority Christian denomination and I am not going to dig the numbers out again as they already have been many times on this site and others.

So, basically, you are seeking that Canada become a feudal vassal to the papacy. Remarkable notion. Good luck with that.

No one is seeking anything.

[gc1765]

Personally, I decide this by evaluating to the best of my knowledge, what degree a foreign threat is to Western style democracy and freedoms and well being to our country that could detrimentally affecty our country or will affect it if left unattended.

Religion does not enter this equation concerning the fate of my country other than hopefully keeping it primarily Christian.

How do you decide whether or not to support your government regarding issue's of national interest?

Good. Now, please explain to me how this is not a contradiction:

if I learned or came to my own conclusion that it is wrong to kill but with no conviction other than my own logic, I could be tempted to kill for reasons I consider justifiable and could very well complete the act depending on circumstance.

Personally, I decide this by evaluating to the best of my knowledge, what degree a foreign threat is to Western style democracy and freedoms and well being to our country that could detrimentally affecty our country or will affect it if left unattended.

[Leafless]

There is no contradiction.

You are using quotes from post #24 and used only part of the entire quote in which I was making comparisons between the reinforcement of moralistic convictions between a Christian and a secularist.

The entire part you quoted from post #24 is:

"Although I am not overly religious but definitely support Christianity for reasons pertaining to culture and to the goodness of promoting an anti-pagan society, I will attempt to answer your question.

Relating to Christianity: God teaches "Thou shalt no kill", so killing or murdering is totally against the law of God with absolutely no justification to kill whatever the reason and which also constitutes a mortal sin. This of course is coupled with my private convictions as to why it is wrong to kill.

Relating to secularism: If I learned or came to my own conclusion that it is wrong to kill but with no conviction other than my own logic, I could be tempted to kill for reasons I consider justifiable and could very well complete the act depending on circumstance."

Religion provides further spiritual moralistic conviction as to why it is wrong to kill.

[bradco]

I don't get it. Within the example, both persons report that it is 'wrong' to commit 'murder'. You suggest that the difference it that one is externally imposed and the other internally imposed (thus subject to internal reassessment). I don't see how that changes the morality of the initial (unreassessed) reported view that murder is wrong. Your position fails to explain how the views are different while they are held.

Whether or not you accept it, the accepted standards of human behavior relating to good and bad IMO are primarily propagated or taught by religion and reinforced especially relating to the Catholic religion during the whole time spent in primary school.

Christianity teaches what morals are from a religious point of view backed up your faith in that religion.

You can also harbour the legal definition of what is good and bad on top of your religious definition which reinforces the overhaul concept between good and bad.

I really don't know how children of secularist are guaranteed accepted standards of moral behavior from pagan parents and attend public schools with little time spent on morals if any.

Generally speaking children of Christian parents will receive moral training in the home, some at school and through the church as in comparison to possibly none or very little moral training concerning children raised by securalist parents.

That's what the difference is.

absolute rubbish.

Your argument that non-religous parents cant or wont teach morals is absolutly ridiculous. I grew up in a non-religous household and my parents constantly enforced morals on me (as allparents do) as to what is right and what is wrong. These morals were based in logical human thought about what is decent. They had nothing to do with what an unproven higher being or work of fiction said was the right way to live.

My personal opinion is that the majority of religions preach immoral behaviour such as intolerance. I prefer to base my morals on the belief that all humans are equal and my morals come from that belief.