Are religious folks ethically challenged?

Why do so many people rely on books (mostly the Bible, the Quran or the Torah) to guide them in ethical matters? If you had a strong sense of what is right and wrong you wouldn't need that kind of a crutch.

I've come to the conclusion that agnosticism is the only honest way to roll. We simply don't have sufficient data to let the scale tip in one way or the other. Now, do I live a murderous, philandering, evil life? No, I don't! My internal compass tells me what to do.

Are religious folks missing that internal point of reference therefore they need a book to tell them?

Originally posted by AllIsOne
We simply don't have sufficient data to let the scale tip in one way or the other.

So you don't know the difference between good and evil or you don't believe either exists?

You get religious folk who are right twits just as often as you get non religious folks that are right twits.

I don't think that religion, or lack thereof, is an excuse for bad behaviour.

-m0r

reply to post by badgerprints


Very good question! I meant that there is a lack of data when it comes to the existence of a deity. We don't know - therefore agnosticism is the only honest way.

But you have raised a much larger aspect as well:

A wise farmer had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing this news, his neighbors came to visit him. "Such bad luck," they said sympathetically. "Maybe," the farmer replied. The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. "How wonderful," the neighbors exclaimed. "Maybe," the farmer replied.

The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses and was thrown off the horse and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on this misfortune. "Maybe," answered the farmer. The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the farmer’s son’s leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out. "Maybe," said the wise farmer.

Thanks for participating :-)

heres my take on morals. Religion doesn't give anybody morals at all. I think religion and morals are a non issue.

I believe that since humans are generally a social species that requires by and large the support of other humans to survive morals are actually a part of our hard wiring. human morals are actually a by product of our social evolution.

No morals hardwired over time into the homo sapiens brain= no human species because we wouldn't have gotten this far without mutual cooperation.

Religions would actually have more risk of corrupting our morals by overriding our natural hardwiring with a lot of it's nonsense.

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
heres my take on morals. Religion doesn't give anybody morals at all. I think religion and morals are a non issue.

What about the 10 Commandements?

what about them. they are pretty subjective. I don't believe there is anything in the ten commandments that is really a revelation morality wise to any sect of humanity before it's commission or after. Wow. try not to steal. try not to murder people (original bible said thou shall not murder-not kill. killing is A-OK with God according to the 10 commandments as long as it's in his name and advancing his agenda.) no duh.

All humans are hardwired with a basic set of morals that we developed as a species over time as we evolved. Basically the gist is don't do onto others that you would want done to your self. but there's a catch. our morals are generally only applicable to our clan or region. if another group comes and starts competing with our natural resources than our morals towards them go right out the window. it's a survival thing. morals are subjective to our species and to some degree our sub cultures too. they are flexible but are mainly a byproduct of social evolution.

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
Religions would actually have more risk of corrupting our morals by overriding our natural hardwiring with a lot of it's nonsense.

This gets down to the question I asked of the OP. is it a matter of not having or not knowing?

Religious "morals" come from thousands of years of history and tradition. Basic behavioral requirements from most religions are generations of wisdom that dictate a "moral" (self denial) code so all members of society can exist.

We are NOT hard wired with morals. We are hardwired with behavioral precepts for survival.

These precepts directly conflict with morals.

If you could beat up every other guy in the tribe and have sex with every person you wanted, would you do it?

If you didn't have morals you would.

Oh yeah.....you would.

The few dictates of religion that fall outside of societal necessity are only a tiny fraction of the lessons that mankind has learned over time so that societies can exist.

Don't be sidetracked by details.

Evil - secular or religious - exists. Good exists as well.

The "it's all relative" argument is a copout.

There are good and evil in every class, creed, race, religion and political group.

We must understand the difference and deal with it to survive.

To believe otherwise would be quite naive.





[edit on 22-8-2010 by badgerprints]

Evil - secular or religious - exists. Good exists as well.

The "it's all relative" argument is a copout.

There are good and evil in every class, creed, race, religion and political group.

We must understand the difference and deal with it to survive.

To believe otherwise would be quite naive.

Prove that there is good and evil. That is all I will ask of you.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Phlynx]

reply to post by AllIsOne


YES!!! THEY ARE!!!! I mean I never seen such people with their moral compass as completely broken than these folks, they're the most philandering, murderous (In the name of their God), and down right hypocritical people on the face of the Earth!

I sort of agree with religious being ethnically challenged, and i sort of disagree.

Some people are only religious because that is the only place they are accepted. Some of you on here are against religion, and some of you support it. Some of you couldn't give a darn less about religion, but still go because you don't have anything else to look forward to

My personal feelings are that religion is another business. Someone waaay back in the day said..."hrm, i can use this to make these fools do whatever i want" They found ways beyond understanding to compel people to give their money to the churches.

Now...don't get me wrong, i do know that some of what is believed in religion could be /is true, but there is also a good portion of if that's just complete BS. There is also a lot of what was "written" that was open to interpretation.

(i despise churchgoers by the way - i find my own sanctuary, and its not a building)

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Juggernutty]

Originally posted by badgerprints


Don't be sidetracked by details.

Evil - secular or religious - exists. Good exists as well.

The "it's all relative" argument is a copout.

There are good and evil in every class, creed, race, religion and political group.

We must understand the difference and deal with it to survive.

To believe otherwise would be quite naive.

The devil is in the details ... LOL!

It is all relative. Let me give you an example:

The Mujahideen were the US' best friend when they fought the "enemy" in Afghanistan. The US poured a lot of money and support into the resistance. A few years later they're now labelled terrorists and part of the "evil" Islamic empire. Have they changed their ways in just a few years? No, the Taliban and the Mujahideen are largely the same entity. Good - evil ???

reply to post by Phlynx


How would you label Hitler?

holy crap literally. Good and evil are pretty darn subjective. the inquisition and the crusades were considered moral from one viewpoint . absolutely sick, demented and evil by others. being asked to burn your own son at the stake is pretty damned evil, but wait it's not because God told us to do it.

Good and evil are indeed relative. Btw what do you think behavioral precepts are. they're morals. we consider the act evil if it goes against our survival based behavioral precepts. evil is just another term for pathological. And what passes for pathological varies from situation to situation. morals are one side of the coin of survival. fighting over resources is another.

Also if I were the alpha male of some primitively un-evolved (from a social complexity standpoint) society than yeah I would and could get away with dominating society through brute force. but that would be because I wouldn't know any better (literally) but as social animals evolve society wise the culture becomes more complex. as the alpha male I might become fond of say some skill set another member of the clan might have, say the ability to make baskets or blankets. I want those so I will be forced by evolution to toe the line (a form of morals in it's most basic sense) with what I do to the others in the clan. I have to limit how many or at least whom I beat up for domination to insure that I can still get those other crafts. It's a delicate balance and morals are the soft wear we developed as human animals through time to maintain it. no need for religion. it's a cause and effect thing not a faith thing.

Religion is not the same by any means as morals.

Originally posted by Phlynx

Prove that there is good and evil. That is all I will ask of you.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Phlynx]

How?

Gut you like a fish and then donate your organs to cancer victims?

The choice to ignore the difference between good and evil...is evil.

No need to prove it to you. You make that choice with full knowledge.

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by badgerprints

 

We don't know - therefore agnosticism is the only honest way.

In your eyes.....speak for yourself. No one on this planet is part of your brain processes. If it works for you, and keeps you honest then what is the problem?
This thread is borderline, "my belief is better than yours and here's why"

come on badgerprints try harder than that last post to explain your stance regarding proving what is evil and what isn't we need more than that.

reply to post by badgerprints

We are NOT hard wired with morals. We are hardwired with behavioral precepts for survival.

Good point, for some reason cultures that practiced Cannibalism or human sacrifice came to mind,

Not that there is anything wrong with that, unless you are the one being eaten,




[edit on 023131p://bSunday2010 by Stormdancer777]

Originally posted by The Endtime Warrior

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by badgerprints

 

We don't know - therefore agnosticism is the only honest way.

In your eyes.....speak for yourself. No one on this planet is part of your brain processes. If it works for you, and keeps you honest then what is the problem?
This thread is borderline, "my belief is better than yours and here's why"

Did I hit a nerve there? I'm not talking about brain processes!

I'm talking about proof for the existence of a deity. I'm talking about verifiable facts, data. Do you get my drift?

As long as you rely on faith, or a belief system you are assuming things. You can believe all you want, but that doesn't make it real!

Therefore agnosticism is the only honest way unless you can present proof for the existence of a deity. And I don't ask you to present proof for a negative.


edit: for clarity (I think).

[edit on 22-8-2010 by AllIsOne]

What a ridiculous post.

People are racist, or they are not.

Some racists use religion as a the platform to promote their hatred, i.e. saying blacks don't have souls, etc.

Some racists use science as a platform. For example, saying some races are genetically inferior.

You, sir, are exhibiting prejudice by attempting to categorize all people of religion into a box labeled "racist"