Trouble with religion

JonyJC said:
I only felt like discussing this now.

The morality system from any developed nation is based of religious values, remove it from the equation and what do you have left? A legal system isn't eternal and unchangeable what else will people believe in? The Government.

JonyJC said:


If there is no one true God then there is no single truth and anyone can make up their own set of moral values, social structures erode over time, Roman society wasn't eternal and neither are we.

JonyJC said:


Atheists are the most dogmatic people I know as proven by this and numerous other threads on this forums, with their smug and love for their so called lack of faith shoving it in my face comparable to Jehovah's Witnesses coming to my front door.

Rebas said:


None of this says anything about why religion is necessary for morality.

JonyJC said:

If there is no one true God then there is no single truth

Rebas said:



Religion won't solve this. Everyone has their own interpretations regarding their religion. I don't know any religion that has all adherents following one single set of moral values.

You also don't clearly show how different set of moral values would lead to erosion of "social structures".

Rebas said:


Or comparable to religious people who insist on marrying religion and morality.

JonyJC said:

It's in the next quote. An argument follows a logical train of thoughts.

Meaning that you don't have any way to measure if what you are doing is right or wrong, sure the law sends you to prison if you kill, but the law isn't eternal, God is.

JonyJC said:


I didn't say it solves anything I merely stated what is, that was a justification for why I think like I do. Your statement is wrong from a theological point of view even Christian branches all have the same base which dictates their morals.

If anyone can say "I'll do anything to get what I want because I deserve so and it is right" then your social structure falls apart.
Civilization is based on a social contract I would tell you at least part of what what it is but it would lead to even more discussion and subsequently derailing, what's the main difference between Ancient Rome, and the Northern Barbarians?

JonyJC said:


I don't insist on anything I'm merely holding a discussion to either improve or disprove what I think don't sneak in ad hominems that's irrational.

Rebas said:

The law is usually enough to make people behave as they should in a civilization. If it isn't enough, you haven't shown how God will be,

And nothing is eternal in the world. In fact, the changing nature of civil law makes it better because it could improve with time.

Rebas said:

No, it would not. Whatever they believe, they would still have to obey the laws of the land they believe in. I and many other I know don't agree with every law in my country and the country doesn't fall apart because of it.

You also haven't shown why the differences in morality within one religious group does not matter but the differences between groups does matter.

JonyJC said:

I don't need to show you anything, history does that for me, religion has proven that it can hold people together; uniting all of Europe to expel Muslims.
Atheism on the other hand has yet to prove itself as being anything other than an expression nihilism
God is eternal, and change and evolution does not equal improvement.

JonyJC said:


What I'm arguing here is that the pillars of our current civilization are based of religious values and if the religion part of those value goes away eventually it will all crumble it doesn't mean it will all fall apart because you don't agree with a bunch of laws.

One is doing whatever it wants, the others are not. One is anarchic and uncivilized the other is not

Here is my premise: Lack of religion will eventually lead to the degradation of the current moral values because those themselves exist solely because of religion and without it they are meaningless.

Also "...laws of the land they believe in..." this is the kind of thought Atheism creates unfortunately.

Rebas said:

and how it can do it eternally.

Rebas said:

Once again you have nothing but a slew of unsubstantiated claims.

JonyJC said:

I never claimed that.



I don't really know what you want, I've backed my claims throughout this discussion with thoughts of mine acquired by looking at history, however you have done naught to make an argument against any of them.
Since we don't seem to understand each other, write a premise of yours if you want to try and continue to have this discussion.

JonyJC said:
I only felt like discussing this now.

The morality system from any developed nation is based of religious values, remove it from the equation and what do you have left? A legal system isn't eternal and unchangeable what else will people believe in? The Government.

JonyJC said:

If there is no one true God then there is no single truth and anyone can make up their own set of moral values, social structures erode over time, Roman society wasn't eternal and neither are we.

JonyJC said:

Atheists are the most dogmatic people I know as proven by this and numerous other threads on this forums, with their smug and love for their so called lack of faith shoving it in my face comparable to Jehovah's Witnesses coming to my front door.

Rebas said:

No, you haven't backed up anything. Looking at history only shows what happened in the past and is not proof of anything. There's still not a single argument from you that proves that only religion can make people behave morally or that lack of religion would have the consequences you claim it would.

All you have is nothing but unsubstantiated claims.

JonyJC said:

History has repeated itself more than once.
I don't get you and you don't get me, I've justified what I said with the existence of supreme moral authority, I don't know what else to tell you.
Do you believe in human rights? They can't be proven.

JonyJC said:

History has repeated itself more than once.
I don't get you and you don't get me, I've justified what I said with the existence of supreme moral authority, I don't know what else to tell you.
Do you believe in human rights? They can't be proven.

jal90 said:

No, no it isn't. That's actually a very absurd statement. Where did the morality that religion preaches come from? It sprouted randomly? It was decided that committing murder was bad? I don't think so. Its moral aspect comes as a way to respond to preexisting human concerns on that respect. If the decision of making murder immoral depended solely on religion, people wouldn't have followed it to start with. You can't change one's morals that easily. It is the fact one perceives that killing other people is bad what might tie them to religion, not the contrary.

JonyJC said:

If there is no one true God then there is no single truth and anyone can make up their own set of moral values, social structures erode over time, Roman society wasn't eternal and neither are we.

jal90 said:
So? What relation does it have with the quoted phrase?

JonyJC said:

Atheists are the most dogmatic people I know as proven by this and numerous other threads on this forums, with their smug and love for their so called lack of faith shoving it in my face comparable to Jehovah's Witnesses coming to my front door.

jal90 said:
Lol at your sociological studies based on MAL users.

Rebas said:

So, you admit you have nothing concrete to substantiate your claims.

jal90 said:

Christianism doesn't allow murder, but witch hunt existed. At the same time, other people condemn these events based on the same precepts. How can morality come from religion when it elicits such blatantly different responses from its followers?

And no, human rights can't be proven. Your point is that I have my dogmas despite being an atheist? Yes, I have them. So?

JonyJC said:

Supreme moral authority isn't enough for you?
I ask again, do you believe in human rights?

JonyJC said:
In a natural state killing a fellow man for a piece of meat is irrelevant, it only comes to be a worry when you're trying to maintain a certain level of organization or civilization, you can argue that the need for God came before God himself yes, the question if God existed before that or not is a theological one which I don't care about.

JonyJC said:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/30/atheists-unveil-monument-by-ten-commandments/

‘‘Some people think it’s an attack simply by us exerting our existence. They put a monument on a public lawn that, if you put it in context, says atheists should be killed,’’ Silverman said. ‘‘It is an attack, but it’s an attack on Christian privilege, not an attack on Christians themselves, and not so much an attack on Christianity.’’

JonyJC said:

Geez let me catch my breath here, witch hunts had little do with religion really, they were a way to see who's in the group and who's not.

Rebas said:


Your beliefs cannot act as proofs of your claims that only religion can make people behave morally or that lack of it would have the consequences you say it would.

And, I am not answering your side questions because they have nothing to do with the issue at hand. My beliefs and your beliefs cannot be used as proof of anything. That's why they're called beliefs. Even if I did answer, it cannot back your claim that religion can make people behave morally or that lack of it would have the consequences you say it would. I can believe in a new planet between Earth and Mars and claim that as evidence in support of my own pet theory of the universe but I haven't proven anything.

jal90 said:

They had a lot to do with religion because they were justified and put in the context of religion. Christianism implies a belief in the existence of devil and the need to fight against it.

jal90 said:

You should if you want to keep this debate.

Rebas said:
So, you admit you have nothing concrete to substantiate your claims.

jal90 said:
As far as I know, atheism means lack of belief.

katsucats said:
There is an institution of religion that most atheists believe -- it's called morality. It's an inconsistent dogma and atheists and theists alike run the church -- a loosely defined shadowy grassroots organization based on the terrorist cell that self-identify as "society". Even without a God, the mythology still runs rampant. It's much harder to point the finger at ourselves than at other people.

jal90 said:
Oh sorry. Lack of belief in a religious system/motif. But I thought that last part of the definition was easy to assume given the context. As I said, I do believe in things. For instance, I follow a moral system and consider some things to be good and others to be bad.

I know it's a very plain definition but I think this is what atheism is supposed to be: "theism" as in "belief in a god or gods" and "a" as "without"; it isn't tied to my morals and doesn't define me, regardless of the fact I am not religious. Implying the existence a certain set of rules, an attitude or even an active positioning derived from this is absurd.

JonyJC said:
You either believe something to be true or false you cannot lack belief, reason is belief with evidence faith is belief without evidence, you cannot unbelieve either something is or isn't and how you reach that conclusion doesn't matter you cannot believe something if your mind doesn't accept it.

JonyJC said:
You either believe something to be true or false you cannot lack belief, reason is belief with evidence faith is belief without evidence, you cannot unbelieve either something is or isn't and how you reach that conclusion doesn't matter you cannot believe something if your mind doesn't accept it.

JonyJC said:
You either believe something to be true or false you cannot lack belief, reason is belief with evidence faith is belief without evidence, you cannot unbelieve either something is or isn't and how you reach that conclusion doesn't matter you cannot believe something if your mind doesn't accept it.

Araby said:
*tangential remarks incoming*

My problem with atheism (if we assume that is a fair definition of atheism; I don't know), is that in order to lack a belief in something, you must believe that a coherent conceptualization of that something exists. To say that you lack a belief in God is to engage in a discussion over the existence of God and thereby reaffirm that such a discussion is reasonable. This makes me wonder if many atheists are not actually ignostic.

JonyJC said:
You either believe something to be true or false you cannot lack belief, reason is belief with evidence faith is belief without evidence, you cannot unbelieve either something is or isn't and how you reach that conclusion doesn't matter you cannot believe something if your mind doesn't accept it.

katsucats said:
People need to stop being dogmatic atheists or theists, and start being dogmatic logicists. Morality doesn't exist, whether with God or without.

Red_Keys said:
Can you explain?

Because "morality" is defined as: The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.

Surely you, on a daily basis, take actions that you see as the "right" decision. Like brushing your teeth instead of not brushing your teeth. Or eating a meal instead of not eating one.

A definite "right" or "wrong" doesn't really exist. But on an individual level, morality is pretty much a necessity.

katsucats said:
Why do you need moral standards of "right" or "good" conduct in order to do something? Why can't you brush your teeth because it's "healthy", not because it's "good"?

Xirecta said:
tl;dr stop being so closed-minded and rude. Some people have been raised in religious environments, and I don't believe there's anything wrong with that. They are obviously going to defend their religious views and preach them. Other people simply reject theologies because of their personal experiences. That's perfectly fine too, however, it's not necessary for you to denounce the belief of others.

Red_Keys said:
Because being healthy is "good".

JonyJC said:
Lack of religion eventually leads to the same problems morality is incompatible with atheism because anyone can have their own set of values people with similar values will group together and you'll have opposing groups again.

xTenshiAi said:
Exactly what I was thinking. We need religion in this world for morals because otherwise the crime rate probably would be much worse.

katsucats said:
Healthy is desirable, not "good".

Red_Keys said:
Good - To be desired or approved of.

Loculus said:
But no opinion is right or wrong. It is always subjective.

Loculus said:
But also in Muuuurica it's wrong, when they start talking about the "God they trust". There is no such thing as god,

JonyJC said:
what's the main difference between Ancient Rome, and the Northern Barbarians?

dankickyou said:
Rome won their wars, destroyed all trace of the "barbarians" cultural, technological, military, etc progress and then proceeded to call them barbarians.

dankickyou said:


Rome won their wars, destroyed all trace of the "barbarians" cultural, technological, military, etc progress and then proceeded to call them barbarians.