Knowing what is right and wrong

[polarmystery]

Just one simple question. Can somebody have morals and -not- be religious? I was thinking about this last night and I thought that morals are founded from religious teachings but I know people who are not religious who don't kill/steal/etc. (they abide by the laws) and know people who are religious and have killed/stole/etc. Are religions based on good morals or teachings or a combination of both? Any ideas? I'm kind of confused.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: polarmystery
Just one simple question. Can somebody have morals and -not- be religious? I was thinking about this last night and I thought that morals are founded from religious teachings but I know people who are not religious who don't kill/steal/etc. (they abide by the laws) and know people who are religious and have killed/stole/etc. Are religions based on good morals or teachings or a combination of both? Any ideas? I'm kind of confused.

I'm not religious yet feel that I'm a moral person. Granted all of my morals were beat into me as I was a kid going to a southern baptist church...

 

[LS8]

It's not that simple. Human kind has been debating this for thousands of years.

Needless to say, almost all rules/laws of man originated in some religious teaching.

 

[IronWing]

Morals minus the religious baggage are traditionally referred to as ethics. In modern useage the two terms are more or less interchangeable.

Ethics are entirely possible to develop w/o appeal to any religion. Most ethics are based on long term practicality, what works in a stable society. "Don't steal, don't murder, don't bear false witness, honor your marriage and the marriages of others" all tend to lessen strife in a community and therefore work as ethical guides.

 

[ggnl]

Yes, you have to fear eternal damnnation in order to not kill/steal/etc...

:roll:

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: LS8
It's not that simple. Human kind has been debating this for thousands of years.

Needless to say, almost all rules/laws of man originated in some religious teaching.

or, religious teachings were just formal institutionalized versions of basic human morals that existed long before

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: polarmystery
Just one simple question. Can somebody have morals and -not- be religious? I was thinking about this last night and I thought that morals are founded from religious teachings but I know people who are not religious who don't kill/steal/etc. (they abide by the laws) and know people who are religious and have killed/stole/etc. Are religions based on good morals or teachings or a combination of both? Any ideas? I'm kind of confused.

people can know right from wrong and not be religious. society teaches us. also, even though it's biblical/religious in origin, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a basic human life lesson.

 

[LS8]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: LS8
It's not that simple. Human kind has been debating this for thousands of years.

Needless to say, almost all rules/laws of man originated in some religious teaching.

or, religious teachings were just formal institutionalized versions of basic human morals that existed long before

The development of religion as a means to get people to behave would not support that theory.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: LS8
It's not that simple. Human kind has been debating this for thousands of years.

Needless to say, almost all rules/laws of man originated in some religious teaching.

Um, no. Ethics/morals made it's way into religion, not the other way around.

One needs no religion or theism to have ethics/morals.

 

[her209]

Would you kill someone if they were trying to do you harm?
Would you steal food if it meant starving to death?

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: LS8

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: LS8
It's not that simple. Human kind has been debating this for thousands of years.

Needless to say, almost all rules/laws of man originated in some religious teaching.

or, religious teachings were just formal institutionalized versions of basic human morals that existed long before

The development of religion as a means to get people to behave would not support that theory.

how so? dont just make an assertion, explain yourself.

 

[LS8]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: LS8

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: LS8
It's not that simple. Human kind has been debating this for thousands of years.

Needless to say, almost all rules/laws of man originated in some religious teaching.

or, religious teachings were just formal institutionalized versions of basic human morals that existed long before

The development of religion as a means to get people to behave would not support that theory.

how so? dont just make an assertion, explain yourself.

The burden of proof is on you since you disagreed with me.

Explain yourself.

Either way people simply don't agree on this subject, which I already stated.

 

[calvinbiss]

The major source for all morals/ethics are PARENTS.

If your parents had good morals, then likely you do to. If you practice good morals, then likely will your children.

 

[Kalmah]

Originally posted by: ggnl
Yes, you have to fear eternal damnnation in order to not kill/steal/etc...

:roll:

:thumbsup:

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: LS8

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: LS8

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: LS8
It's not that simple. Human kind has been debating this for thousands of years.

Needless to say, almost all rules/laws of man originated in some religious teaching.

or, religious teachings were just formal institutionalized versions of basic human morals that existed long before

The development of religion as a means to get people to behave would not support that theory.

how so? dont just make an assertion, explain yourself.

The burden of proof is on you since you disagreed with me.

Explain yourself.

Either way people simply don't agree on this subject, which I already stated.

lol, but YOU disagreed with me, doesn't that give YOU the burden of proof? hahah where do you come up with stuff?

do you really think religion introduced any NEW concepts to society? do you people didnt realize murder was bad until the 10 commandments? religions would have FAILED as institutions if they didnt match the current society. hell, even present day religions are changing their tunes constantly just trying to stay relevant. society doesn't function without the preservation of basic human rights, and societies existed long before organized religion.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: polarmystery
Just one simple question. Can somebody have morals and -not- be religious? I was thinking about this last night and I thought that morals are founded from religious teachings but I know people who are not religious who don't kill/steal/etc. (they abide by the laws) and know people who are religious and have killed/stole/etc. Are religions based on good morals or teachings or a combination of both? Any ideas? I'm kind of confused.

Your question points to the matter of absolute morality versus relative morality. The problem with relative morality is that it is no morality at all. When you do what is right in your eyes, and I do what is right in my eyes, we are bound to disagree.What I do and what you do will inevitably be in disagreement and there will be anarchy and destruction.

Morality is law that is above everything else, law that is supposed to guide human thought and behavior. Unless there is a law giver, and respect of the law giver and the law, a person or society cannot be moral. The question then is who is the law giver? Unless the law comes from someone/something greater than a man (assuming you accept the belief that all human beings are equal in value), no one will agree nor respect the law.

In essence, the reason for discord in this world is because mankind refuses to acknowledge the law and the lawgiver, God, and instead tries to live by his own standard ("what is right in his own eyes", to borrow biblical language). I am a Christian and hold the Bible to be absolute truth, nothing else. It's not true because I believe it, but I believe it because it is true.

Man is not inherently able to tell the difference between right and wrong. Human beings are corrupt in this regard. The conscience is an alarm of sorts within the human mind that informs a person when he does something wrong, but it is linked to the standard that the person holds to. If the standard is not right, the conscience wrongly alerts the person or doesn't alert the person at all. In the physical world, pain performs the same function: letting the person know something is wrong. In both the spiritual and physical world, the mechanisms are corrupted because of original sin. People often feel pain in the wrong place or when they shouldn't, or don't feel pain at all when they should. That is why leprosy is such a potent image in the Bible: it is a symbol for sin. Leprosy (Hansen's disease) doesn't destroy the flesh itself, but attacks the nerves. The disfigurement that comes from leprosy is the result of a person damaging himself because he is unable to feel. Sin acts in the same way.

 

[polarmystery]

Originally posted by: calvinbiss
The major source for all morals/ethics are PARENTS.

If your parents had good morals, then likely you do to. If you practice good morals, then likely will your children.

So what about your parents parents? And so on and so on?

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Crono

Your question points to the matter of absolute morality versus relative morality. The problem with relative morality is that it is no morality at all. When you do what is right in your eyes, and I do what is right in my eyes, we are bound to disagree.What I do and what you do will inevitably be in disagreement and there will be anarchy and destruction.

Morality is law that is above everything else, law that is supposed to guide human thought and behavior. Unless there is a law giver, and respect of the law giver and the law, a person or society cannot be moral. The question then is who is the law giver? Unless the law comes from someone/something greater than a man (assuming you accept the belief that all human beings are equal in value), no one will agree nor respect the law.

In essence, the reason for discord in this world is because mankind refuses to acknowledge the law and the lawgiver, God, and instead tries to live by his own standard ("what is right in his own eyes", to borrow biblical language). I am a Christian and hold the Bible to be absolute truth, nothing else. It's not true because I believe it, but I believe it because it is true.

I think you are confusing absolute morality and objective morality. Morals/ethics are always absolute or they wouldn't be morals/ethics. Relative morality or relative ethics are an oxymoron. Something is wrong or it isn't, in the eyes of the individual. However, no moral/ethical code is objective. Your morals may differ from mine, that's okay, it just means from my perspective you're wrong and immoral. From your perspective, I'm immoral. We are both 100% correct. There is no objective moral code, but all are absolute.

 

[waggy]

of course a person can have morals and not be religious. what kind of question is that?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: polarmystery
Just one simple question. Can somebody have morals and -not- be religious? I was thinking about this last night and I thought that morals are founded from religious teachings but I know people who are not religious who don't kill/steal/etc. (they abide by the laws) and know people who are religious and have killed/stole/etc. Are religions based on good morals or teachings or a combination of both? Any ideas? I'm kind of confused.

Dur...of course you can.

 

[ggnl]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: polarmystery
Just one simple question. Can somebody have morals and -not- be religious? I was thinking about this last night and I thought that morals are founded from religious teachings but I know people who are not religious who don't kill/steal/etc. (they abide by the laws) and know people who are religious and have killed/stole/etc. Are religions based on good morals or teachings or a combination of both? Any ideas? I'm kind of confused.

Your question points to the matter of absolute morality versus relative morality. The problem with relative morality is that it is no morality at all. When you do what is right in your eyes, and I do what is right in my eyes, we are bound to disagree.What I do and what you do will inevitably be in disagreement and there will be anarchy and destruction.

Morality is law that is above everything else, law that is supposed to guide human thought and behavior. Unless there is a law giver, and respect of the law giver and the law, a person or society cannot be moral. The question then is who is the law giver? Unless the law comes from someone/something greater than a man (assuming you accept the belief that all human beings are equal in value), no one will agree nor respect the law.

In essence, the reason for discord in this world is because mankind refuses to acknowledge the law and the lawgiver, God, and instead tries to live by his own standard ("what is right in his own eyes", to borrow biblical language). I am a Christian and hold the Bible to be absolute truth, nothing else. It's not true because I believe it, but I believe it because it is true.

Man is not inherently able to tell the difference between right and wrong. Human beings are corrupt in this regard. The conscience is an alarm of sorts within the human mind that informs a person when he does something wrong, but it is linked to the standard that the person holds to. If the standard is not right, the conscience wrongly alerts the person or doesn't alert the person at all. In the physical world, pain performs the same function: letting the person know something is wrong. In both the spiritual and physical world, the mechanisms are corrupted because of original sin.

That is complete and utter bullshit. Fear of divine retribution does not drive our moral compass. I can point to any number of atrocities committed in the name of your god to prove that.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: calvinbiss
The major source for all morals/ethics are PARENTS.

If your parents had good morals, then likely you do to. If you practice good morals, then likely will your children.

that brings up a good debate. is it nature or nutured? is a child going to moral just because his parents were? what if he is adopted into a into a immoral family?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: polarmystery
Just one simple question. Can somebody have morals and -not- be religious? I was thinking about this last night and I thought that morals are founded from religious teachings but I know people who are not religious who don't kill/steal/etc. (they abide by the laws) and know people who are religious and have killed/stole/etc. Are religions based on good morals or teachings or a combination of both? Any ideas? I'm kind of confused.

Your question points to the matter of absolute morality versus relative morality.

Please, please, please disabuse yourself of this unfortunately inaccurate frame for debates about morality. There is no debate between absolute or relative morals, because some morals can be constructed in each category of terms.

The real debate -- if you could even call it that -- is whether morals are objective or subjective.

The problem with relative morality is that it is no morality at all. When you do what is right in your eyes, and I do what is right in my eyes, we are bound to disagree.What I do and what you do will inevitably be in disagreement and there will be anarchy and destruction.

This is not the problem that you think it is, since morality is subjective. Moreover it is absolutely ridiculous to claim that "anarchy and destruction" must result from moral disagreement, when it is in fact plainly the case that there is a significant amount of moral agreement among people.

Morality is law that is above everything else, law that is supposed to guide human thought and behavior. Unless there is a law giver, and respect of the law giver and the law, a person or society cannot be moral. The question then is who is the law giver? Unless the law comes from someone/something greater than a man (assuming you accept the belief that all human beings are equal in value), no one will agree nor respect the law.

More patent ridiculousness, and obvious parroting.

In essence, the reason for discord in this world is because mankind refuses to acknowledge the law and the lawgiver, God, and instead tries to live by his own standard ("what is right in his own eyes", to borrow biblical language). I am a Christian and hold the Bible to be absolute truth, nothing else. It's not true because I believe it, but I believe it because it is true.

No, you don't. You don't even realize what "absolute truth" means. Ultimately the idea is nonsensical, since truth itself is a word in human language and is therefore subject to definition.

Man is not inherently able to tell the difference between right and wrong. Human beings are corrupt in this regard. The conscience is an alarm of sorts within the human mind, that informs a person when he does something wrong, but it is linked to the standard that the person holds to. If the standard is not right, the conscience wrongly alerts the person or doesn't alert the person at all. In the physical world, pain performs the same function: letting the person know something is wrong. In both the spiritual and physical world, the mechanisms are corrupted because of original sin.

Gibberish.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: ggnl
Yes, you have to fear eternal damnnation in order to not kill/steal/etc...

:roll:

Complete and utter bullshit.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: ggnl
Yes, you have to fear eternal damnnation in order to not kill/steal/etc...

:roll:

But knowing that I can do that then simply ask for repentance and be forgiven gives me a clean conscious...