Organized Religion is the Bane of Mankind

Welcome to Fire Emblem Fusion. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
2
3
4

Organized Religion is the Bane of Mankind
Topic Started: Jan 8 2008, 02:49 AM (1,575 Views)
Yzarc	Mar 9 2008, 10:52 PM Post #31
Coxian Posts: 3,432 Group: Veteran Member #308 Joined: July 8, 2005	Soja I wonder just how much about "morality" you know. First of all, all morality is derived from religion. All of it. Regardless of the alleged punishments attached to each violation, which may vary from religion to religion, religion is the baseline for standardized law outside "you cross my line, I crush your skull!" Once upon a time. Once upon a time, religion and society coexisted entirely. There was no gap between them. And since most religions all have similar basic aspects of morality, isn't it possible that those basic aspects - Don't kill, don't steal, etc - are aspects of a functional society, and not just religion? Soja Then you obviously don't know a lot about Christian morality and the reasons behind it. I don't know about you, but I find promiscuity, which is often cited as the most "harmless and human" feeling, to be far from beneficial. It is one of the most stressed tenets of Christian morality, to "remain pure." That besides, how much wrong and suffering has this harmless feeling, left unrestrained, caused? Bastard children? Unwanted children? Aborted children? Broken families? Sexual crimes? Sexual crimes against children? Very harmless indeed. Cons of promiscuity: 1. Bastard children - Birth control? Or are you against that as well? 2. Unwanted children - If a bastard child isn't unwanted, then there isn't really a problem. If it is unwanted, then there need not be two categories. 3. Aborted children - An entirely different debate, but you know where I stand. 4. Broken families - Are you talking about infidelity? That's also an entirely different story. When you get married, you're not really allowed to be promiscuous anymore. This isn't really a point against casual sex as much as it is a point against infidelity. 5. Sexual crimes - I don't believe raping someone qualifies as promiscuous behavior. Same dealio with sexual crimes against children. Pros of promiscuity: 1. Good times - I don't really see much argument against this. 2. Great times - I know, it's sorta the same as "Good times" but you listed your points multiple times, so why the hell not? 3. Uhh, even better times? - Alright, so there aren't that many pros to it, but that doesn't make that single pro any less significant. People wanna do what they wanna do, and you think they shouldn't only because of your religion. Sex isn't a bad thing, if you use protection/birth control. And even if you don't, that doesn't make it morally wrong, it just kinda fucks you up. Soja It is not the feeling that is forbidden, mate. It is the acting on the feeling without proper forethought. Every man and every woman will feel the urge to have sexual relations at one point or another. How well he or she is disciplined, and whether they are willing to take a very large risk for a very small reward, determines if they do or do not. Small reward? Haha. Soja I never said religion was free from problems. Did I say that? No. Do explain the bonuses that religion offers that can be obtained in other ways. Please. First, I'd like to know what bonuses religion offers, period. Soja Not quite. If there were no higher authority holding the scientists responsible, I don't doubt that a few, or many of them, in the absence of either religion or government holding them accountable, would truly go that far, much in the same way that clergymen, in their ardent fervor and belief that they are absolute in their moral authority, went too far in the past, with some still going too far even in the present. You didn't explain at all why scientists need religion. At all. You kind of almost started to, but then you said "or government" and then you equated them to clergymen, who have religion. But here's the worst part. You didn't even consider the idea that a scientist could be nonreligious and still a decent person. If you need religion to be good, you're not good. I'm not at all saying that all religious people are bad. Far from it. However, if someone refrains from killing a guy because they don't wanna go to hell, that doesn't make them a good person. That makes them scared of God. But if someone refrains from killing a person strictly because they feel it's wrong, that makes them a good person.



Soja	Mar 10 2008, 12:10 AM Post #32
Gentle Water, Crashing Waves Posts: 5,171 Group: Global Moderator Member #451 Joined: October 15, 2005	Yzarc Drowsnam Mar 9 2008, 10:52 PM Once upon a time. Once upon a time, religion and society coexisted entirely. There was no gap between them. And since most religions all have similar basic aspects of morality, isn't it possible that those basic aspects - Don't kill, don't steal, etc - are aspects of a functional society, and not just religion? Yet there wasn't a functional society until people sought to do something more meaningful than react to instinctual urges. Because if everyone was doing it, without exception, then there wouldn't be any order. And how would that be a functional society? It's a question analogous to "the chicken or the egg?" Sorry to tell you, but there still is little to no gap between religion and society. What makes religion is the people. The people are the church. They will set the standards and the norms. Ergo, they are the society. Even to those who claim to be irreligious, many if not most are still influenced by the teachings or tenets of the various world religions. That's not such an enormous gap. Quote: Cons of promiscuity: 1. Bastard children - Birth control? Or are you against that as well? Not acting on that promiscuity would be a far surer choice of birth control than using condoms or contraceptives, but if you're going to go ahead and do the deed, might as well at least try to avoid screwing it up completely. By this entry, I meant 'fatherless children.' Less esoterically, single parents, because the child is an "accident." I do not necessarily exclude single fathers from this, either, though they are rarer. Quote: 2. Unwanted children - If a bastard child isn't unwanted, then there isn't really a problem. If it is unwanted, then there need not be two categories. Not really. These are the ones that end up in orphanages, foster homes, and state custody. There need to be two categories because in the first, the child is in a single-parent household that probably has a difficult time propping itself up. In this one, the child has no parents. Because it's unwanted. Quote: 3. Aborted children - An entirely different debate, but you know where I stand. Not really. If you want to find a downside that directly affects the "real" people, it's easily the expense of getting an abortion. Quote: 4. Broken families - Are you talking about infidelity? Yes. Quote: That's also an entirely different story. No, it isn't. Quote: When you get married, you're not really allowed to be promiscuous anymore. This isn't really a point against casual sex as much as it is a point against infidelity. Infidelity often arises when one isn't being "satisfied" by his or her spouse. It can arise from a variety of other reasons, but promiscuity is certainly not the least of them. Marriage has never stopped one from being promiscuous. Quote: 5. Sexual crimes - I don't believe raping someone qualifies as promiscuous behavior. Same dealio with sexual crimes against children. Quite wrong. Why do you think there is pornography of rape? How about child pornography? Because some people get off on it. If they wanted to, if they faced no punishment for it, they would certainly be in on it. Quote: pro�mis�cu�ous /prəˈmɪskyuəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pruh-mis-kyoo-uhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation �adjective 1. characterized by or involving indiscriminate mingling or association, esp. having sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis. 2. consisting of parts, elements, or individuals of different kinds brought together without order. 3. indiscriminate; without discrimination. 4. casual; irregular; haphazard. Promiscuity generally refers to all sorts of loose sexual behavior, not just casual sex. Quote: Pros of promiscuity: 1. Good times - I don't really see much argument against this. 2. Great times - I know, it's sorta the same as "Good times" but you listed your points multiple times, so why the hell not? 3. Uhh, even better times? - Alright, so there aren't that many pros to it, but that doesn't make that single pro any less significant. People wanna do what they wanna do, and you think they shouldn't only because of your religion. Sex isn't a bad thing, if you use protection/birth control. And even if you don't, that doesn't make it morally wrong, it just kinda fucks you up. Scientifically, not worth all the life-wrecking griefs one unlucky night can bring. No, sex isn't a bad thing. Indiscriminate sex is. Quote: Small reward? Haha. Momentary euphoria does not and should not equate to a lifetime of laboring and unnecessary strife because of a mistake that is so easily avoidable. If it's that freaking important to you, jack off. Yeesh. Quote: First, I'd like to know what bonuses religion offers, period. A focus, a center, a way of life, a methodology? Besides that, prayer and meditation do wonders for stress relief and calming. It also affords structure and, for church goers, an enormous community that often will lend support to one of its own. That's my experience in my church, so I must admit that I am slightly biased. Soja Not quite. If there were no higher authority holding the scientists responsible, I don't doubt that a few, or many of them, in the absence of either religion or government holding them accountable, would truly go that far, much in the same way that clergymen, in their ardent fervor and belief that they are absolute in their moral authority, went too far in the past, with some still going too far even in the present. Quote: You didn't explain at all why scientists need religion. At all. You kind of almost started to, but then you said "or government" and then you equated them to clergymen, who have religion. But here's the worst part. You didn't even consider the idea that a scientist could be nonreligious and still a decent person. They don't. Not personally. Some are religious, others aren't. But the establishments providing oversight -- government, and as I should have previously added, society -- base when to say "enough is enough" on the moral lessons learned from religion, or from someone who was influenced by a religion. I did not mean to imply that people without a religion couldn't be moral. But morality comes from religion. Whether they learned it from practicing a religion, growing up in a home that practiced that religion, or simply growing up with parents that grew up in a religious home, it can still be derived from only one place. As I said, morality is derived from religion. Law was plain morality, in its infancy, until it was actively enforced. Law comes from morality, which is why every society has moral norms like being against killing, and against thievery. Some are more liberal with the concepts than the others, though, and some are just outright hypocritical. I didn't contrast scientists to clergymen. I compared them, showing that just how clergymen went to one extreme in the past and some still in the present, scientists could also go in another extreme, all the time proclaiming that they were doing it for a "greater cause." Quote: If you need religion to be good, you're not good. I'm not at all saying that all religious people are bad. Far from it. However, if someone refrains from killing a guy because they don't wanna go to hell, that doesn't make them a good person. That makes them scared of God. But if someone refrains from killing a person strictly because they feel it's wrong, that makes them a good person. Lolol. And this punctuates my argument nicely. See, the majority of humanity isn't good. Nietzchean philosophy postulates that there is no such thing as real altruism since the benefactor stands to gain in one way or another. That said, one needs to know your standard of "good" before we can determine if a person is "good" or "bad." That said, and without getting too far off-topic, I see this world backpedaling very, very quickly if religion were to suddenly not exist tomorrow. Obviously not a realistic scenario, but if you can visualize causality, you can see what I mean.
	Mirar on Sep 8 2007 06:08 PM nigga please Fusion Universe - FEF Fanfic Slayers Forth - Slayers Fanfic Smartest Member '06 & '07 & '08 & 'o9, Favored Debater '07 & '08 & '09, Most Popular '08, Manliest '08 & '09, Author of Nightmares, Scourge of the Luxon, Rules Lawyer, Nick's Former Hero, Crysta's Lover


Yzarc	Mar 10 2008, 01:37 PM Post #33
Coxian Posts: 3,432 Group: Veteran Member #308 Joined: July 8, 2005	Soja Sorry to tell you, but there still is little to no gap between religion and society. Yzarc Drowsnam Once upon a time, religion and society coexisted entirely. There was no gap between them. Apology accepted? Religion grew with functional society out of peoples' need to know about the world around them. Why does it rain? Why does it get dark and light? Someone must be controlling everything. As people get more advanced, they begin to have more and more questions, and when they lack the necessary tools or knowledge to find the answers to those questions, they make something up. Enter religion. Hell, science does it too, all the time. Dark Matter, "The Aether," String Theory. People want to know things. Regardless, here's my point: If "Don't kill" and such are fundamental aspects of most religions, then we can't grant individual religions credit for that. Because religion coexisted with society, and society is broader than religion, we should dedicate those basic morals to ancient societies, to humanity in general, rather than to just religion. I would argue that today's society, at least in the western world, does have a distinct gap from religion. A lot of the basic principles are the same - Don't kill, don't steal - but they're not religious morals, they're sociological morals. Soja Scientifically, not worth all the life-wrecking griefs one unlucky night can bring. No, sex isn't a bad thing. Indiscriminate sex is. Someone's a pessimist. One UNlucky night? At first when I read that, I thought you said "one lucky night" and thought it was kinda cute/clever of you. But now it's just plain sad. Soja Momentary euphoria does not and should not equate to a lifetime of laboring and unnecessary strife because of a mistake that is so easily avoidable. You're right. But not everyone who has lots of sex has a horrible life. I'd be willing to venture a guess that people get get a lot of tang are actually much more happy with their lives. Not everyone who has sex gets/someone pregnant. It's a risk, but there are ways to avoid it. Soja If it's that freaking important to you, jack off. Yeesh. Oh, I do. Trust me. I do. But it's not the same, and if you truly believe that a hand is just as good as a vagina, then I have no reason to argue with you, because you clearly are not seeing reason. Soja A focus, a center, a way of life, a methodology? Religion is not the only thing that offers those. Society offers a way of life, and today, as I've said, society and religion are not one in the same. Soja Besides that, prayer and meditation do wonders for stress relief and calming. Very well. But you don't need to be religious to meditate. Soja It also affords structure and, for church goers, an enormous community that often will lend support to one of its own. Again, there are a lot of ways to meet people and become involved in a community. Church is only one of those ways. Soja Lolol. And this punctuates my argument nicely. See, the majority of humanity isn't good. Nietzchean philosophy postulates that there is no such thing as real altruism since the benefactor stands to gain in one way or another. That said, one needs to know your standard of "good" before we can determine if a person is "good" or "bad." So we have government to keep people from going over the line. But I think one of the most important aspects of morality is that everyone holds a different opinion. If everyone had the same morals, and everyone was extremely zealous, then the world would be perfect, because everyone would be afraid to do something wrong. However, the world would also be extremely boring. That world would suck a scrotum and a half. Soja They don't. Not personally. Some are religious, others aren't. But the establishments providing oversight -- government, and as I should have previously added, society -- base when to say "enough is enough" on the moral lessons learned from religion, or from someone who was influenced by a religion. But religion doesn't know when enough is enough. It thinks it does, and religious people constantly try to stop scientists from doing things that, to them, is amoral. But since the Medieval Age, religious people have been saying "enough is enough." Well? When is enough enough? Because you guys thought it was enough hundreds of years ago when the crazy retarded scientists were saying the world was older than 6,000 years old, and you thought it was enough when that douchebag Copernicus said that the earth revolved around the Sun, and you're saying "enough is enough" now when the scientific community is convinced that humans evolved from a more primitive species. My point is that religious people can stand on their high horse all they want and talk down about science, but they will always be biased against science, because it continuously disproves parts of religion.



Break	Mar 10 2008, 07:41 PM Post #34
Posts: 5 Group: FEFFer Member #1,726 Joined: February 29, 2008	Yzarc's covered most of it, but I'd still like to add a few things. Soja Yet there wasn't a functional society until people sought to do something more meaningful than react to instinctual urges. Because if everyone was doing it, without exception, then there wouldn't be any order. And how would that be a functional society? It's a question analogous to "the chicken or the egg?" If it's a question analogous to "the chicken or the egg" - and I'm assuming by that you mean "did morality stem from religion, or did religion build up around morality", so correct me if I've gotten the wrong idea - then why are you still pressing that religion is the source of all morality? Nobody is questioning the fact that morality and religion have become entwined over the years, but that's no reason to say that morality exists because of religion. The ruling class would still have created a set rules to live by, regardless of whether or not they decided that the Earth was made in a week. As you say, morality stabilises society, and an unstable society is hard to control. Anyway, there's no denying that religion has greatly helped to create our current morality. There's also no denying that religion is not necessary to promote a moral code. It's been pretty much the most popular way to do it in the past, sure, but it's not required. A mother can teach a boy not to steal, without threatening him with eternal damnation in the process. And personally, I find the government's reasons to not kill a hell of a lot more persuasive than the Church's. Don't murder anyone, or you'll be tortured for eternity in an afterlife you don't believe exists? Please. Soja Then you obviously don't know a lot about Christian morality and the reasons behind it. I don't know about you, but I find promiscuity, which is often cited as the most "harmless and human" feeling, to be far from beneficial. It is one of the most stressed tenets of Christian morality, to "remain pure." That besides, how much wrong and suffering has this harmless feeling, left unrestrained, caused? Bastard children? Unwanted children? Aborted children? Broken families? Sexual crimes? Sexual crimes against children? Very harmless indeed. I never knew that promiscuity has ever been cited as "harmless". Human, sure. Humans really are terrible like that. But "harmless"? I mean, I could understand it if "lust" was the thing that was cited as "human and harmless", but not promiscuity. Lust only denotes sexual attraction. Lust can be controlled. Promiscuity denotes all that bad crap you listed. But hey, if "promiscuity" is people are thinking of as harmless these days, then you win that point. Now lets do it again for everything else that religion forbids. Quote: It is not the feeling that is forbidden, mate. It is the acting on the feeling without proper forethought. Every man and every woman will feel the urge to have sexual relations at one point or another. How well he or she is disciplined, and whether they are willing to take a very large risk for a very small reward, determines if they do or do not. Oh, well then. If it's only the act of doing something the church forbids that causes shame, then sure. You're righ- Quote: I, myself, have had feelings for which I am ashamed for. But I have thought on them, and since I did not act on them, I have committed no wrongdoing. I am human, but that does not mean I have to make mistakes when I know better. Wait, so it is just thinking about doing something bad causes shame? What exactly was your point, here? I say that the church makes people ashamed of feelings that they can't control, and have no intention of acting upon, and then you provide evidence in support? Alright, then. Works for me. Quote: Oh boo-hoo. If it caused such terrible emotional strife, I highly doubt we would have religion today, after 2000 years, if its benefits weren't greater still. You know who the happiest people are in this world? According to one study, Buddhist monks. And they live the most strict, prudent lifestyles one can think of. 2000 years? Well, we have been talking about Christianity, I guess. Many other religions have been shaming people for thinking for much longer than that, but now I'm nitpicking. Anyway, I'd imagine that the reason that people stay with a faith that makes them hate themselves is because the religion is usually a much greater part of their lives than the feeling, or the emotional conflict. I'd also say that fear is a big chunk of it. People would be afraid of appearing to endorse sin, so whenever that sin happens within the community, they lash out. A nice little vicious circle. Plus, the good points of religion play a big part. Believing that somebody will love you no matter what, believing that you'll have a wonderful afterlife, believing that you've got a meaning to your life... There's a lot of good emotions that faith can bring to a person. But really, all of these things can be invoked in other ways. Doing work for charity, having someone you trust, being part of an organisation that you believe in... These can make you feel worthwhile, without requiring you to believe in a unmoving and outdated moral code. O'course, I'm not denying that, at this moment in time, religion is one of the easiest ways to bring these benefits. But I don't think it's anything more than a band-aid on the greater problems with society. Sure, a world where religion is not needed for someone to feel self-worth isn't something that'll happen in any reasonable timeframe, but shouldn't it be something to aim for? Cephas Note that this was primarily written by Leonardo Marino, Archbishop of Lanciano; Muzio Calini, Archbishop of Zara; Egidio Foscarini, Bishop of Modena; and Francisco Fureiro, a Portuguese Dominican and edited by St. Charles Borromeo, Archbishop of Milan of the Catholic Church. So, how can a fully corrupt hierarchy produce such a document empahsizing having the right intentions in joining the priesthood? I actually thought this was quite funny. Truly, how could several high-ranking members of a corrupt organisation say nice things in order to look virtuous in the eyes of the public? Why, the very notion that a corrupt leader who requires the constant appearance of complete moral truth to remain in his post would lie in order to bolster his image of saintliness, is preposterous! Sorry, I'm not saying that the church really is corrupt, or anything. It's just that, well, that defence was terrible.



Soja	Mar 11 2008, 12:00 AM Post #35
Gentle Water, Crashing Waves Posts: 5,171 Group: Global Moderator Member #451 Joined: October 15, 2005	<!--QuoteBegin-+----></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ( @ --)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Soja Sorry to tell you, but there still is little to no gap between religion and society. Yzarc Drowsnam Once upon a time, religion and society coexisted entirely. There was no gap between them. Apology accepted? Religion grew with functional society out of peoples' need to know about the world around them. Why does it rain? Why does it get dark and light? Someone must be controlling everything. As people get more advanced, they begin to have more and more questions, and when they lack the necessary tools or knowledge to find the answers to those questions, they make something up. Enter religion. Hell, science does it too, all the time. Dark Matter, "The Aether," String Theory. People want to know things. Regardless, here's my point: If "Don't kill" and such are fundamental aspects of most religions, then we can't grant individual religions credit for that. Because religion coexisted with society, and society is broader than religion, we should dedicate those basic morals to ancient societies, to humanity in general, rather than to just religion. I would argue that today's society, at least in the western world, does have a distinct gap from religion. A lot of the basic principles are the same - Don't kill, don't steal - but they're not religious morals, they're sociological morals. Soja Scientifically, not worth all the life-wrecking griefs one unlucky night can bring. No, sex isn't a bad thing. Indiscriminate sex is. Someone's a pessimist. One UNlucky night? At first when I read that, I thought you said "one lucky night" and thought it was kinda cute/clever of you. But now it's just plain sad. Soja Momentary euphoria does not and should not equate to a lifetime of laboring and unnecessary strife because of a mistake that is so easily avoidable. You're right. But not everyone who has lots of sex has a horrible life. I'd be willing to venture a guess that people get get a lot of tang are actually much more happy with their lives. Not everyone who has sex gets/someone pregnant. It's a risk, but there are ways to avoid it. Soja If it's that freaking important to you, jack off. Yeesh. Oh, I do. Trust me. I do. But it's not the same, and if you truly believe that a hand is just as good as a vagina, then I have no reason to argue with you, because you clearly are not seeing reason. Soja A focus, a center, a way of life, a methodology? Religion is not the only thing that offers those. Society offers a way of life, and today, as I've said, society and religion are not one in the same. Soja Besides that, prayer and meditation do wonders for stress relief and calming. Very well. But you don't need to be religious to meditate. Soja It also affords structure and, for church goers, an enormous community that often will lend support to one of its own. Again, there are a lot of ways to meet people and become involved in a community. Church is only one of those ways. Soja Lolol. And this punctuates my argument nicely. See, the majority of humanity isn't good. Nietzchean philosophy postulates that there is no such thing as real altruism since the benefactor stands to gain in one way or another. That said, one needs to know your standard of "good" before we can determine if a person is "good" or "bad." So we have government to keep people from going over the line. But I think one of the most important aspects of morality is that everyone holds a different opinion. If everyone had the same morals, and everyone was extremely zealous, then the world would be perfect, because everyone would be afraid to do something wrong. However, the world would also be extremely boring. That world would suck a scrotum and a half. Soja They don't. Not personally. Some are religious, others aren't. But the establishments providing oversight -- government, and as I should have previously added, society -- base when to say % What the bloody fuck. Wonder why this post looks like shit? Internetlol. I'll fix it with what I intended to fill it with come tomorrow.
	Mirar on Sep 8 2007 06:08 PM nigga please Fusion Universe - FEF Fanfic Slayers Forth - Slayers Fanfic Smartest Member '06 & '07 & '08 & 'o9, Favored Debater '07 & '08 & '09, Most Popular '08, Manliest '08 & '09, Author of Nightmares, Scourge of the Luxon, Rules Lawyer, Nick's Former Hero, Crysta's Lover


Merk	Mar 13 2008, 05:26 PM Post #36
ザワザワ Posts: 1,943 Group: Veteran Member #508 Joined: November 29, 2005	My opinions on this are all over the place. Quote: Then you obviously don't know a lot about Christian morality and the reasons behind it. I don't know about you, but I find promiscuity, which is often cited as the most "harmless and human" feeling, to be far from beneficial. It is one of the most stressed tenets of Christian morality, to "remain pure." That besides, how much wrong and suffering has this harmless feeling, left unrestrained, caused? Bastard children? Unwanted children? Aborted children? Broken families? Sexual crimes? Sexual crimes against children? Very harmless indeed. The metaphysical state of "purity" is very different from the things you list after it. Those are physical -- secular -- consequences of irresponsible sex. It's not like nonreligious people want any of that more than religious people. I don't mind moral codes like "do not kill" that have a secular context. What troubles me is when a moral code centers around something nonsecular, such as "don't eat shellfish/beef/pork because it's impure" (yes, I'm aware this is outdated). Quote: Science is a human creation. Therefore it is flawed. Therefore, that mission statement has no absolutism to it. That is all. I don't see why absolutism is necessary for it being valid. Science isn't about being absolutely true, it's about being accurate within the best of our capabilities. Quote: Not quite. If there were no higher authority holding the scientists responsible, I don't doubt that a few, or many of them, in the absence of either religion or government holding them accountable, would truly go that far, much in the same way that clergymen, in their ardent fervor and belief that they are absolute in their moral authority, went too far in the past, with some still going too far even in the present. Why is there suddenly an absence of government; human authority? I thought we were only discussing the absence of religion. As long as human authority exists and can be enforced, it can compensate for a lack of religion. However, penalties for infractions of laws would have to be inflated to offset the negation of religion. Quote: I did not mean to imply that people without a religion couldn't be moral. But morality comes from religion. Whether they learned it from practicing a religion, growing up in a home that practiced that religion, or simply growing up with parents that grew up in a religious home, it can still be derived from only one place. As I said, morality is derived from religion. Law was plain morality, in its infancy, until it was actively enforced. Law comes from morality, which is why every society has moral norms like being against killing, and against thievery. Some are more liberal with the concepts than the others, though, and some are just outright hypocritical. "But morality comes from religion [because ...] it can still be derived from only one place [religion]. As I said, morality is derived from religion." I agree that historically, morality was born from religion. But I disagree that morality has to come from religion. The most relevant aspects of morality -- "do not kill, do not steal, etc." -- have very secular contexts and can be derived from a simple application of the Golden Rule, and can be enforced with human authority. Quote: You're right. But not everyone who has lots of sex has a horrible life. I'd be willing to venture a guess that people get get a lot of tang are actually much more happy with their lives. Not everyone who has sex gets/someone pregnant. It's a risk, but there are ways to avoid it. It's great when people who are prepared -- in every aspect of the word -- can have sex and enjoy it. If you're responsible and careful and use very safe protection, then enjoy it. What I see as immoral is irresponsible and unprepared sex, and I see it as immoral because it can cause a lot of harm to others.
	~AKA SkyFireZero. a r p s


Askio	Mar 13 2008, 05:39 PM Post #37
Crit McGee on Speed Posts: 2,838 Group: Veteran Member #436 Joined: October 1, 2005	Cephas Mar 10 2008, 03:18 AM Quote: PS: One perfect example of the above post. The reason why preists were eventually forbade to have children most likely was in order for all assets to eventually go to the church instead of the children. That was both a loophole/flaw in the religion and mans greed. Basing morals purely off religion instead of experience as well is not the wisest thing to do. Proof of claim? Or are you trying to pass off your opinion as fact? You are ignorant. Simony has been a crime, is a crime, and always will be a crime, nor have you read the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Nor is being both a priest and father a pleasant task, since you have to take care of parishoners and kids. Quote: THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY ORDERS Importance Of Instruction On This Sacrament If one attentively considers the nature and essence of the other Sacraments, it will readily be seen that they all depend on the Sacrament of Orders to such an extent that without it some of them could not be constituted or administered at all; while others would be deprived of all their solemn ceremonies, as well as of a certain part of the religious respect and exterior honour accorded to them. Wherefore in continuing the exposition of the doctrine of the Sacraments, it will be necessary for pastors to bear in mind that it is their duty to explain with even special care the Sacrament of Orders. This explanation will be highly advantageous. First of all to the pastor himself, then to all those who have entered on the ecclesiastical state, and finally to the people in general. To the pastor himself, because by treating of this subject he himself will be more deeply moved to stir up within him the grace he has received in this Sacrament; to those who have been called to the portion of the Lord, partly by animating them with a like spirit of piety, and partly by affording them an opportunity of acquiring a knowledge of such things as will enable them all the more easily to advance to higher orders; to the rest of the faithful, first, because it enables them to understand the respect due to the Church's ministers, and secondly, because as it often happens that many may be present who have destined their children, while yet young, for the Church's service, or who desire to embrace that life themselves, it is far from right that such persons should be unacquainted with the principal truths regarding this particular state. Dignity of this Sacrament In the first place, then, the faithful should be shown how great is the dignity and excellence of this Sacrament considered in its highest degree, the priesthood. Bishops and priests being, as they are, God's interpreters and ambassadors, empowered in His name to teach mankind the divine law and the rules of conduct, and holding, as they do, His place on earth, it is evident that no nobler function than theirs can be imagined. Justly, therefore, are they called not only Angels, but even gods, because of the fact that they exercise in our midst the power and prerogatives of the immortal God. In all ages, priests have been held in the highest honour; yet the priests of the New Testament far exceed all others. For the power of consecrating and offering the body and blood of our Lord and of forgiving sins, which has been conferred on them, not only has nothing equal or like to it on earth, but even surpasses human reason and understanding. And as our Saviour was sent by His Father, and as the Apostles and disciples were sent into the whole world by Christ our Lord, so priests are daily sent with the same powers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, and the edifying of the body of Christ. Requirements in Candidates for Orders Holiness, Knowledge, Prudence The burden of this great office, therefore, should not be rashly imposed on anyone, but is to be conferred on those only who by their holiness of life, their knowledge, faith and prudence, are able to bear it. Divine Call Let no one take the honour to himself, but he that is called by God as Aaron was; and they are called by God who are called by the lawful ministers of His Church. It is to those who arrogantly intrude themselves into this ministry that the Lord must be understood to refer when He says: I did not send prophets, yet they ran. Nothing can be more unhappy and wretched than such a class of men as this, and nothing more calamitous to the Church of God. Right Intention In every action we undertake it is of the highest importance to have a good motive in view, for if the motive is good, the rest proceeds harmoniously. The candidate for Holy Orders, therefore, should first of all be admonished to entertain no purpose unworthy of so exalted an office. This subject demands all the greater attention, since in these days the faithful often sin gravely in this respect. Some there are who embrace this state to secure the necessaries of life, and who, consequently, seek in the priesthood, just as other men do in the lowest walks of life, nothing more or less than gain. Though both the natural and divine law lay down, as the Apostle remarks, that he who serves the altar should live by the altar; yet to approach the altar for the sake of gain and money is one of the very gravest of sacrileges. Some are attracted to the priesthood by ambition and love of honours; while there are others who desire to be ordained simply in order that they may abound in riches, as is proved by the fact that unless some wealthy benefice were conferred on them, they would not dream of receiving Holy Orders. It is such as these that our Saviour describes as hirelings, who, in the words of Ezechiel, feed themselves and not the sheep, and whose baseness and dishonesty have not only brought great disgrace on the ecclesiastical state, so much so that hardly anything is now more vile and contemptible in the eyes of the faithful, but also end in this, that they derive no other fruit from their priesthood than was derived by Judas from the Apostleship, which only brought him everlasting destruction. But they, on the other hand, who are lawfully called by God, and who undertake the ecclesiastical state with the single motive of promoting the honour of God, are truly said to enter the Church by the door. This, however, must not be understood as if the same law did not bind all men equally. Men have been created to honour God, and this the faithful in particular, who have obtained the grace of Baptism, should do with their whole heart, their whole soul, and with all their strength. But those who desire to receive the Sacrament of Orders, should aim not only at seeking the glory of God in all things ,�an obligation admittedly common to all men, and particularly to the faithful �� but also to serve Him in holiness and justice in whatever sphere of His ministry they may be placed. Just as in the army all the soldiers obey the general's orders, though they all have not the same functions to discharge, one being a centurion, another a prefect, so in like manner, though all the faithful should diligently practice piety and innocence, which are the chief means of honouring God, yet they who are in Holy Otters have certain special duties and functions to discharge in the Church. Thus they offer Sacrifice for themselves and for all the people; they explain God's law and exhort and form the faithful to observe it promptly and cheerfully; they administer the Sacraments of Christ our Lord by means of which all grace is conferred and increased; and, in a word, they are separated from the rest of the people to fill by far the greatest and noblest of all ministries. Note that this was primarily written by Leonardo Marino, Archbishop of Lanciano; Muzio Calini, Archbishop of Zara; Egidio Foscarini, Bishop of Modena; and Francisco Fureiro, a Portuguese Dominican and edited by St. Charles Borromeo, Archbishop of Milan of the Catholic Church. So, how can a fully corrupt hierarchy produce such a document empahsizing having the right intentions in joining the priesthood? Im not saying that all religious people are bad. Far from it. But I am not ignorant of this document. Buying items that were 'holy' occured, is that right? Apparently not, because it was eventually declared a sin in of itself. Trying to buy your way into heaven. And if you don't believe what I say, then I pose a question. Why were priests originally allowed to have children and families, only to have that right taken away around the times of the close centuries of the inquisition. Wouldn't it make more sense for a religios priest to raise his children and hold his wife within the religion of the man? Apparently this was the thought of many, which is why many branches of christianity were formed and allowed this. This is because the head of religion made changes depending on persoanl preference, just like the leaders of countries. Some for better, some not. Like the allowing of inquisitions being organized, the worst probably being the spanish. But as my dad says, the negatives outweigh the positives. And some of the worst of people have claimed to be 'devout' religios people. Slave owners, soldiers, even some of the crusades were purely out of monetary or selfish gain. Especially the fourth crusade in which venice led the armies onto constantinople and sacked it. common sense not blinded by...well, stubborn blindness often reveals the true answers. Take it as you will. In the US imo, Im sick of how the religion zealots think they should decide everything. Things like abortions and other things shouldn't be made an indivdual persons decision. No states, no federal government, just the person. Maybe a third neutral party, but leave it at that. And really, science and religion will always have point of conflict. Religions now refusal to change, and science saying they are right most times.
	Fire Emblem Online Askio: 9-1-1


YokaiKnight	Mar 15 2008, 11:48 AM Post #38
Somethin' real, real, real, real, real... Posts: 116 Group: FEFFer Member #1,077 Joined: January 19, 2007	Soja Mar 9 2008, 04:53 PM I wonder just how much about "morality" you know. First of all, all morality is derived from religion. All of it. Regardless of the alleged punishments attached to each violation, which may vary from religion to religion, religion is the baseline for standardized law outside "you cross my line, I crush your skull!" Merk countered this best, with the "historically, but not necessarily" part. It's not religion that tells me not to be an ass to people; it's empathy. I wouldn't want people to be an ass to me.
	Check out the new FESS, featuring...stuff! Quote: Inui: McCain's age makes him wtfpwn everyone in experience, too. Level 20/20/20 Senator >>> Personally, I'd rather hurt my Experience rank and just S rank the rest by picking McCain. Yzarc: Way to make politics gayer, Marcus.


Psiwri	Mar 15 2008, 01:03 PM Post #39
Too Many Words Posts: 11,133 Group: Veteran Member #77 Joined: June 9, 2005	YokaiKnight Mar 15 2008, 11:48 AM Soja Mar 9 2008, 04:53 PM I wonder just how much about "morality" you know. First of all, all morality is derived from religion. All of it. Regardless of the alleged punishments attached to each violation, which may vary from religion to religion, religion is the baseline for standardized law outside "you cross my line, I crush your skull!" Merk countered this best, with the "historically, but not necessarily" part. It's not religion that tells me not to be an ass to people; it's empathy. I wouldn't want people to be an ass to me. Clearly. From personal observations I'm a more moral person than most of my peers, while they're Christians and I'm Atheist. It's not really relevant to how "good" a person is to me.
	Please support my efforts in creating writing~


Deadpool	Oct 28 2008, 10:51 PM Post #40
Posts: 211 Group: FEFFer Member #1,187 Joined: March 27, 2007	Tear Grants Jan 11 2008, 03:06 PM I don't agree that it's always the people who are the rotten variables in religion. I think scientology, satanism, and mormonism suck in essence. Sorry. I know that makes me a politically insensitive jerk, but I'm not down with what those religions preach. Sorry Tom Cruise and Mitt Romney. Of course, I'm sure I'm bound to find some scientogolists, satanists, and mormons I might actually like, but it's not likely to have anything to do with their religious beliefs. I think stupidity is a bigger bane anyway. That branches into all aspects in life and there's no cure for it. Okay, I am going to bother debating this stuff, since it's always a waste of time. I am Catholic, btw. I will correct some stuff here and there though. Crysta: Scientology and Satanism are not religions, they are sects. http://s11.zetaboards.com/Fire_Emblem_Fusion/single/?p=343120&t=395101 Yzarc: No serious Catholic school teaches Creationism over Evolution. That's just dumb. I go to a Catholic school and we studied all of this stuff, without skipping any details or making essays about why Creationism is wrong in many aspects. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but the father of Genetics was an Augustine Monk called Gregor Mendel. Darwin was not against Religion either. And either were a LOT of scientists such as Louis Pasteur, so don't give me stuff about Religion goings against Scientific Advance. You are just looking for someone to blame. What you said about Galileo bugged me as well. Even after being condemned by the Church, Galileo did not become an Atheist. He remained a believer. Religion was not wrong there, it was the Church. Namely, a group of people. You need to keep the concept of Church separated from the concept of Religion. Edited by Deadpool, Oct 28 2008, 11:12 PM.
	GENNARO. Levin Sep 17 2008, 09:20 PM i'm a real nigga, bitch Quote: GlehGleh dice (22:14): gennaro >>> pron


A2ZOMG	May 19 2009, 12:42 PM Post #41
Posts: 41 Group: FEFFer Member #2,262 Joined: May 18, 2009	Dude...that was an amazing research paper. By the way, there is actual evidence that religion is the result of human weakness (I saw a video about this in my Comparative Religion class). There is no other organism on this planet as far as I recall that has a section of the brain devoted to fantasy. You were spot on with how religion brings comfort in the face of inevitable death. Apparently, it would have been counterproductive to early human beings if they developed too much anxiety over inevitable death. Edited by A2ZOMG, May 19 2009, 12:43 PM.



Soja	May 19 2009, 02:57 PM Post #42
Gentle Water, Crashing Waves Posts: 5,171 Group: Global Moderator Member #451 Joined: October 15, 2005	That's not evidence so much as psychological deduction. Anyone with some small insight into human nature has pondered that conclusion at one time or another. Just the same, those who do believe in a higher power would also point to the psychology that humans have a need to believe in something greater, such that the idea of faith is hardwired into humanity itself. All but the most remote, primal and disconnected cultures have some theistic or spiritual concept. Even if there were another creature on this planet with a capacity for fantasy, could we prove it? No. We can't even prove that other people can dream. We have to take their word on good faith and believe that they're not bullshitting us or making something up on the spot. It can't be experienced by a third person. I bring this up because it is said that some animals such as dogs and cats are capable of dream sequences, yet that can't really be proven because it can't be experienced by an observer. It could be random twitches, or it could be a lucid reality in the animal's mind, which takes some capacity for fantasy.
	Mirar on Sep 8 2007 06:08 PM nigga please Fusion Universe - FEF Fanfic Slayers Forth - Slayers Fanfic Smartest Member '06 & '07 & '08 & 'o9, Favored Debater '07 & '08 & '09, Most Popular '08, Manliest '08 & '09, Author of Nightmares, Scourge of the Luxon, Rules Lawyer, Nick's Former Hero, Crysta's Lover


A2ZOMG	May 19 2009, 04:04 PM Post #43
Posts: 41 Group: FEFFer Member #2,262 Joined: May 18, 2009	Well, we do have proof that this fantasy section of the brain can be stimulated by external sources and have very dramatic results. There's been experiments done where human subjects were subjected to varying magnetic pulses which were designed to stimulate that particular location in the brain. Both religious and non-religious people were used in the experiment. In both groups, there were reports that the people had felt the presence of something otherworldly. In the practical world, we can see examples of this through faith healers causing long-suffering individuals being temporarily relieved of pain and other symptoms of what may be crippling them (aka invalids suddenly standing up from their wheelchairs and stuff). And then shortly afterwards they die of their illness anyway. Edited by A2ZOMG, May 19 2009, 04:07 PM.



+Ema Skye	May 19 2009, 07:59 PM Post #44
Snackoos = <3. It's science! Posts: 20,952 Group: Advisor Member #40 Joined: June 9, 2005	Man, this shit is old. Needless to say, some of my opinions have changed, but overall I do still agree that organized religion has a lot of problems.
	MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH


kirsche	May 29 2009, 11:20 AM Post #45
Posts: 21 Group: FEFFer Member #2,261 Joined: May 15, 2009	I don't think religion is the bane of humanity, but rather the differences between the religions. If everyone were christian, a lot of the stuff that's in the main post wouldn't exist. Quote: First, I'd like to know what bonuses religion offers, period. Well, it CAN unify people and bring people together. It also can give people hope and let them be happier on their death beds. It also can teach respect and praise of a superier being, not just god, but someone in general who is superier. Edited by kirsche, May 29 2009, 11:23 AM.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Debate Forum · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3
4