277 replies to this topic

[Grandmaster]

So what you're saying is, that people who have no religious influence, will have no moral influence? That all moralistic and socialistic ideals, values and morals comes directly from religion? 

 

I'm not sure if this statement is made with reference to people in modern age or at the very beginning.

 

If it is made with reference to people in modern age, then the discussion is irrelevant. All the laws and ethics have already been developed and in place so any people in modern age, with or without religious influence, will hold certain standard of morality.

 

However, if it is made with reference to people at the very beginning when there are no laws or ethics being developed, then during the formation and development of the laws or ethics, religious and philosophical influence play a major role in shaping these laws and ethics.

[Frizzle]

No shit, now answer the question properly. Are you stating that people who have no religious influences on their life, will have no moralistic or socially acceptable views?

[luvsmyncis]

No shit, now answer the question properly. Are you stating that people who have no religious influences on their life, will have no moralistic or socially acceptable views?

 

I think the point is that all atheists are serial killers.

[Grandmaster]

No shit, now answer the question properly. Are you stating that people who have no religious influences on their life, will have no moralistic or socially acceptable views?

 

I have answered clearly that it really depends on the time and space that the person is at. It's not just a simple yes or no answer.

 

If you looked at the ancient civilisations (be it Ancient Egypt, Ancient Indian Civilisation or Ancient Chinese Civilisation), it all started out with belief of afterlife or higher being.

 

 

In the Paleolithic Age (Paleolithic means "old stone") 2 million to 10,000 years ago, Homo sapiens evolved, originating in Africa. Humans spread from Africa roughly 750,000 years ago and developed speech and fire before the Neolithic. There is substantial evidence that humans of this period had already developed a belief in the afterlife. Also, some societies in the late Paleolithic appear to have developed social structures and hierarchies. Cave paintings, burials, and tools are leftover relics from this period.

Source: http://en.wikibooks....t_Civilizations

 

Then with such belief system in place, laws were gradually developed and over the centuries of continual refinement, we have the laws that most countries are agreeable with differences based on the country's culture.

 

Without the religious belief of afterlife or higher being in the early days of human history, we won't have the laws that we take for granted now and adopt them with or without religious belief.

 

If we take one more step to further imagine, if one day all religious people are gone and the world is left with only atheist, then most likely the laws will lose its functionality.No one is going to be repentent about their criminal actions if it is at most the death that awaits them. It has been proven in many of the capital punishment debates that capital punishment does not correlates to the crime rate. There could be many people who faced capital punishment but the crime rate can still be high.

[Frizzle]

Ha, it's like watching one of those fundamentalists you see on TV. Fascinating. 

[tom12]

All I have to say :

 

[Romy]

If we take one more step to further imagine, if one day all religious people are gone and the world is left with only atheist, then most likely the laws will lose its functionality.No one is going to be repentent about their criminal actions if it is at most the death that awaits them. It has been proven in many of the capital punishment debates that capital punishment does not correlates to the crime rate. There could be many people who faced capital punishment but the crime rate can still be high.

Nope. What will happen then is that laws will continue to exist simply because of the mutual security they provide. Just because religious people disappear doesn't mean that atheists will burn the world down lol.

And I don't understand...is death NOT a powerful enough motivator in your opinion? If knew that repeatedly breaking the law would lead to my eventual execution, I'd sure as hell stop. 
To your last statement: that doesn't mean anything else other then that capital punishment is ineffective as a crime deterrent. It doesn't mean anything other then that so stop adding your own religious spin on it and be objective.
 

[Pilot]

If we take one more step to further imagine, if one day all religious people are gone and the world is left with only atheist, then most likely the laws will lose its functionality.No one is going to be repentent about their criminal actions if it is at most the death that awaits them. It has been proven in many of the capital punishment debates that capital punishment does not correlates to the crime rate. There could be many people who faced capital punishment but the crime rate can still be high.

 

This is sad because there are actually people out there who think this

[mintpro]

http://thenewcivilri...013/07/02/70328

 

"In fact, a review of worldwide studies found that criminality and religion go hand in hand. The countries with the most religious people have the highest crime rates, highest sexually transmitted diseases and the highest teen pregnancy rates."

[Grandmaster]

Nope. What will happen then is that laws will continue to exist simply because of the mutual security they provide. Just because religious people disappear doesn't mean that atheists will burn the world down lol.

And I don't understand...is death NOT a powerful enough motivator in your opinion? If knew that repeatedly breaking the law would lead to my eventual execution, I'd sure as hell stop. 
To your last statement: that doesn't mean anything else other then that capital punishment is ineffective as a crime deterrent. It doesn't mean anything other then that so stop adding your own religious spin on it and be objective.

 

If capital punishment is ineffective, then death is not a powerful motivator. Capital punishment means death penalty.

 

 

http://thenewcivilri...013/07/02/70328

 

"In fact, a review of worldwide studies found that criminality and religion go hand in hand. The countries with the most religious people have the highest crime rates, highest sexually transmitted diseases and the highest teen pregnancy rates."

 

There are flaws in the research findings, we have to examine the methodology first:
http://wiki.answers....s_in_particular

Edited by Grandmaster, 07 July 2013 - 04:54 PM.

[Romy]

If capital punishment is ineffective, then death is not a powerful motivator. Capital punishment means death penalty.

 

 

When commenting on Capital Punishment, I was speaking of the system as a whole. I was certain you would catch that.

 

Edit: The US capital punishment system that is.

Edited by Ivysaur, 07 July 2013 - 05:14 PM.

[mintpro]

There are flaws in the research findings, we have to examine the methodology first:
http://wiki.answers....s_in_particular

*nod* But you haven't backed up your arguments with any research or facts.

 

Without the religious belief of afterlife or higher being in the early days of human history, we won't have the laws that we take for granted now and adopt them with or without religious belief.

Any evidence to back this up? And how can you take it even one step further, when the foundation itself is nothing more but your own speculation?

 

If we take one more step to further imagine --

Edited by mintpro, 08 July 2013 - 01:15 AM.

[Grandmaster]

When commenting on Capital Punishment, I was speaking of the system as a whole. I was certain you would catch that.

 

Edit: The US capital punishment system that is.

 

Actually, whenever we debate on capital punishment, we usually refer to all types of death penalty. USA itself has softened on that area and used more life-imprisonment instead. Right now, the capital punishment for USA is just restricted to lethal injection. But for China, in the old days when guns are not invented, they executed the prisoners and often there are a lot of people crowding at the execution area. It is supposed to instil the sense of fear but somehow in the end, it becomes something interesting to look at. So generally, no matter what kind of death penalty, it has its limitations especially when people become numb to those scenes.

 

*nod* But you haven't backed up your arguments with any research or facts.

 

Any evidence to back this up? And how can you take it even one step further, when the foundation itself is nothing more but your own speculation?

 

For this topic, it's hard to get any research because all along, religious people and athiest have lived side by side and influenced one another. One way to make this debate a meaningful one would be to analyse the mentality of the atheist and how would they shape the world if they are the only ones left in this world.
 

Just to take note, religious people or religions are not restricted to Christians or Christianity.

 

If you looked at the ancient civilisations (be it Ancient Egypt, Ancient Indian Civilisation or Ancient Chinese Civilisation), it all started out with belief of afterlife or higher being.

 

In the Paleolithic Age (Paleolithic means "old stone") 2 million to 10,000 years ago, Homo sapiens evolved, originating in Africa. Humans spread from Africa roughly 750,000 years ago and developed speech and fire before the Neolithic. There is substantial evidence that humans of this period had already developed a belief in the afterlife. Also, some societies in the late Paleolithic appear to have developed social structures and hierarchies. Cave paintings, burials, and tools are leftover relics from this period.

Source: http://en.wikibooks....t_Civilizations

 

Then with such belief system in place, laws were gradually developed and over the centuries of continual refinement, we have the laws that most countries are agreeable with differences based on the country's culture.

[Romy]

Blah

Do you believe that atheists are inherently evil and moral-less?

Do you believe that there are "absolutes" when talking about good and evil?
Can a moral system exist outside of religion(s)?

I'll humor you.

[mintpro]

Yeah, especially earlier human had a tendency to believe in supernatural things and used them to laws and rules, some silly and some actually pretty useful.

 

Still, you seemed to agree that statistically atheist / agnostic people have higher IQ and they don't commit as many crimes (at least some types of crimes) as much as religious people. Then on what grounds can you draw the argument that laws will lose its functionality if fewer and fewer people are religious in the future?

 

Basically I would like you to answer Ivysaur's questions.

Edited by mintpro, 09 July 2013 - 12:56 AM.

[luvsmyncis]

Basically I would like you to answer Ivysaur's questions.

Jesus is the answer.

[newbieb0y]

I voted with. I don't know how to explain it. But it's better with religion.

[Drakonid]

Do you believe that atheists are inherently evil and moral-less?

Do you believe that there are "absolutes" when talking about good and evil?
Can a moral system exist outside of religion(s)?

I'll humor you.

fal·la·cy [fal-uh-see]

noun, plural fal·la·cies.

1.

a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.: That the world is flat was at one time a popular fallacy.

2.

a misleading or unsound argument.

3.

deceptive, misleading, or false nature; erroneousness.

4.

Logic. any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.

 

[DonValentino]

The problem is that many of the negative things you hear about religion and religious people are because of those people that twist religious teachings and guidelines around to better suit their views. The original lesson about Jesus and all of that was to love one another no matter our differences. Obviously that is very skewed at this point. Some people USE religion as a reason to hate others and think that they are better than them, which is so far off from what Christianity (I don't know anything about any other religions so I won't talk about them) should really be. 

You can find multiple passages in the Bible that according to one person mean one thing and according to another person, mean the opposite. And that's okay, part of the beauty of it is that it can mean what you want it to mean. But when what you're taking away from it is hateful, and prejudiced, then there's a problem.

In conclusion, I don't think religion is the problem. If everyone followed religious principles as they were meant, the world almost certainly would be a happier, more peaceful place. People are the problem, and most likely always will be. And if we got rid of religion, I'm sure people would find another way to hate each other and fight about.

(I'm not religious, if anyone was wondering)

[Romy]

 

fal·la·cy [fal-uh-see]

noun, plural fal·la·cies.

1.

a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.: That the world is flat was at one time a popular fallacy.

2.

a misleading or unsound argument.

3.

deceptive, misleading, or false nature; erroneousness.

4.

Logic. any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.

 

 

 

Is that directed towards me or towards Grandmaster's "logic"?

[Drakonid]

Is that directed towards me or towards Grandmaster's "logic"?

You.

[Romy]

You.

 

How so?

[Grandmaster]

Well, to start the debate properly, we need to consider what kinds of atheists are there. Is there just one type of atheist?

 

Below are some of the types that I have been exposed to or read about.

 

First type is those who usually adopts the seeing is believing attitude so they would reject anything that cannot be seen. So if you want them to believe that there is a higher being, then he/she needs to see that higher being before they believe.

 

Second type is those who engage in scientific studies or who have quite a good understanding of science. They don't believe in anything unproven. So if you want them to believe anything, you should demonstrate it with scientific methods.

 

Third type is those leading lives that is considered immoral by the religions. They reject a higher being or afterlife because they are afraid of punishment or they don't want these to interfere with their lives and wants to continue to live the way they are.

 

Fourth type is religious hypocrites. They may hold high positions or high regards in religions but they tend to use these priviledges to their own desires. They may seem to be most religious yet is actually exhibiting the worst form of athiest. If they have really believed in higher being or afterlife and everything that they do will be held accountable even if no one sees, then they would not perform those actions that is not in line with the teachings of religions. They will continue to exist in atheist's world with a different identity but may continue to be in high positions to use these priviledges to their own desires.

The separation of Church and State was one way to eliminate this problem and it was not initiated by atheist initially but by religious groups: http://en.wikipedia....hurch_and_state

[thefish]

I am an agnostic and i personally see religion as a very effective form of governance

 

It is a necessary evil to allow the masses to be herded and controlled

[starshine]

I am an agnostic and i personally see religion as a very effective form of governance

 

It is a necessary evil to allow the masses to be herded and controlled

I totally agree, religion is a necessary evil. Without religion our society would be very diffrent. And not in a good way.

 

I also feel like religion has given us morals. It teaches us the difference between good and bad. I'm not sure were else our morals would have come from? Religions is also responsible for a lot of missionary work that helps less fortunate people, which is a very good thing.