Original Post
Is religion a moral necessity?
Let's get something straight.
This is NOT going to be about the existence of a God, Atheism vs. Creationism, etc...
-Any reply that argues the existence or non-existence of a God is going to be ignored. I don't care what your opinion is, non of it can be realistically debated.
Many people argue that a world without religion would be catastrophic. Without religion who would teach moral guidance? Right from wrong? Offer opinions, suggestions, and reasons for why or why not religion is necessary for moral guidance.
----------
It is my belief that morals should be taught from a child's parent. Religion is not necessary for kids to learn right from wrong. If a parent is unable to teach their kid good from evil then that parent is not fit to be a parent.
This is NOT going to be about the existence of a God, Atheism vs. Creationism, etc...
-Any reply that argues the existence or non-existence of a God is going to be ignored. I don't care what your opinion is, non of it can be realistically debated.
Many people argue that a world without religion would be catastrophic. Without religion who would teach moral guidance? Right from wrong? Offer opinions, suggestions, and reasons for why or why not religion is necessary for moral guidance.
----------
It is my belief that morals should be taught from a child's parent. Religion is not necessary for kids to learn right from wrong. If a parent is unable to teach their kid good from evil then that parent is not fit to be a parent.
Last edited by JayStar; May 21, 2013 at 03:53 AM.
I'm probably not going to contribute to the discussion outside of this. But the correct statement of this common argument is that without religion there would be no justification for the existence of morals. Not that there would be no morals in existence.
There's a key difference between the two. One implies a philosophical nihilism. The other, common misinterpretation, implies the "chaos and disorder" to which you refer. Modern day theists active in this debate argue the first point, and typically agree that even without religion the world would exist under relative order with subjective morals.
Also my information was obtained by conferences in real life. Hence, I have no source to link for further reading or validation. However, my claims are shared by the third paragraph of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism. Which has it's own sources.
There's a key difference between the two. One implies a philosophical nihilism. The other, common misinterpretation, implies the "chaos and disorder" to which you refer. Modern day theists active in this debate argue the first point, and typically agree that even without religion the world would exist under relative order with subjective morals.
Also my information was obtained by conferences in real life. Hence, I have no source to link for further reading or validation. However, my claims are shared by the third paragraph of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism. Which has it's own sources.
(>^_^)>
In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.
Source
We learn how we need to be in order to be accepted by society the same way a monkey learns it.
If religion takes part in that process or not is irrelevant unless you want to talk about the quality of morals tought with/without religion.
Source
We learn how we need to be in order to be accepted by society the same way a monkey learns it.
If religion takes part in that process or not is irrelevant unless you want to talk about the quality of morals tought with/without religion.
nigerian PM
Originally Posted by GoodBox
I'm probably not going to contribute to the discussion outside of this. But the correct statement of this common argument is that without religion there would be no justification for the existence of morals. Not that there would be no morals in existence.
There's a key difference between the two. One implies a philosophical nihilism. The other, common misinterpretation, implies the "chaos and disorder" to which you refer. Modern day theists active in this debate argue the first point, and typically agree that even without religion the world would exist under relative order with subjective morals.
Also my information was obtained by conferences in real life. Hence, I have no source to link for further reading or validation. However, my claims are shared by the third paragraph of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism. Which has it's own sources.
That's true, but we're assuming this is a scenario where a standard moral foundation has been established by religion. Basically, if religion today, were to disappear entirely, would people be able to understand right from wrong? If so, would they be able to carry those morals from generation to generation?
I agree, morals are technically subjective but the majority of humans would settle on a common moral base, the "10 commandments" of society if you will.
Originally Posted by Sacrafan
In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.
Source
We learn how we need to be in order to be accepted by society the same way a monkey learns it.
If religion takes part in that process or not is irrelevant unless you want to talk about the quality of morals tought with/without religion.
Those are very interesting stats. However, your conclusion seems to contradict them. If people learn morals from their environment wouldn't the people brought up around religion be less likely to commit crime, obtain STD's, etc? Considering these are all things that most religions would find immoral.
We are talking about quality not the existence. Morals already exist, the question is whether or not they will remain without religion. Or wheter or not their standard of morality will lower or change.
No my conclusion does not contradict 'em. You just misinterpreted it.
Even most fucked up places have ethics and morals. They could contradict your idea of morals or people just don't live up to them for whatever reason.
If religion increases the quality of moral standards is another question.
All I did was prove that religion and immoral behaviour are not mutually exclusive.
Even most fucked up places have ethics and morals. They could contradict your idea of morals or people just don't live up to them for whatever reason.
If religion increases the quality of moral standards is another question.
All I did was prove that religion and immoral behaviour are not mutually exclusive.
nigerian PM
