I present to you an example of a society that functions well without religion:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

China, a country of over 1.6 billion atheists! The less than 5% assorted Buddhists, Christians, and others have little to no impact on the 95% majority. The closest thing to a religion we Chinese have had in our 5 thousand year history was a belief in the divine power of the Emperor, and assorted myths. Even then, we recognized that the emperor was still a person, despite his importance. The law is secular and based and designed only to keep order in society.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the largest country on earth (population) can function without a religiously based moral code, anyplace on earth can. Religion did not make morals. Morals are a purely human concept that has nothing to do with god, who may or may not exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You should try looking up China's human rights record

First of all: I am Chinese. I have lived in China. Don't give me stuff about the "human rights record". Those are opinions of people from the outside. The majority of the Chinese (who more right to say than you do, certainly, unless you are Chinese as well) don't feel that our country has a human rights crisis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plus, that post has nothing to do with the topic. At all. So, post something relevant please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second of all: China does not have a religious influence upon its society of the type that is being debated. One of the biggest belief system (which does not include a god) in China's history was Confucianism, which is based on a secular set of instructions on how to live your life the best you can. Buddhism also was quite large. It does have gods, however the gods are only representative of human issues and the Buddhism stresses spiritual self improvement. The Buddha is only the example that his followers seek to emulate, not a god. Other systems such as Taoism believe in a tangible life giving energy, not the word from on high. None of these systems were based on gods or worship, like the religions being debated in this thread. none of them had a god telling them what to do.

No human rights violations here!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you going to deny that human rights has to do with morality? That's just silly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apparently you're also denying the long history of your country's belief in the supernatural. That's also silly.

First of all: I am Chinese. I have lived in China. Don't give me stuff about the "human rights record". Those are opinions of people from the outside. The majority of the Chinese (who more right to say than you do, certainly, unless you are Chinese as well) don't feel that our country has a human rights crisis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plus, that post has nothing to do with the topic. At all. So, post something relevant please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't think China's horrible human rights is relevant? It's exactly why China is far from a country that should be looked up to. It obviously doesn't 'function well' which IS related to your post.

If the government says that sort of thing is illegal, then it is. The law is the law, after all, not justice. Certainly it's not right from a human rights perspective, but the govt was within its rights to so such a thing because they had stated that it was illegal. Like i said, secular reasoning and law over pretty notions is what drives China.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You would most likely see china in a different light if the United States did not historically slant it's education against communism (or at least promoting democracy as the absolute best), even today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Certainly the supernatural i did not deny that, but thats not a religion. the difference is that there's no "word from on high" telling us what to do, Myths and fables are all they are, every culture has those, no?

Oh, the 'just because' argument. Well done.

Oh, the 'just because' argument. Well done.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To whom are you replying? I don't understand your response.

You

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the government says that sort of thing is illegal, then it is

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The government can never go wrong huh?

Whether it's wrong or not is a different matter. (it's not in my opinion), but if you break the law, you can expect to get punished, no? The broke the law, didn't they?

You

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the government says that sort of thing is illegal, then it is

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The government can never go wrong huh?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

if only. :wall:

 

The bottom line, however, is that this "Morality without God doesn't exist" crap is just that - Crap. For the last time, I *do not* believe in some deity who is going to slap my wrist for being a bad boy, but I *STILL* know that if I killed someone, I would feel very bad for taking their life. It has NOTHING to do with being raised in a culture that says murder is wrong and everything to do with common sense. You don't take someone's life because, A-DUH, you don't want yours taken from you. Golden Rule thing. But of course, you'll just assume that I'm some stupid ape that would go around killing everyone if the Bible was never written. You're only insulting yourself aswell by saying that, but whatever. Not really my problem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bold: That's exactly in line with what we've been saying: If there is absolute morality, and God has instilled it in humans, it doesn't matter whether or not you believe in God, you will still know right and wrong. All your saying is, "I don't believe in God, but I still know right and wrong." How is that different from what we're saying?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Italics: You've already made this accusation, and we've already answered it. Stop attacking statements we never made, and even explicitely denied making.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To everyone else who responded to me, I'll respond after lunch. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because the only reason God exists is because you believe he does. There's never been any proof or anything. People only BELIEVE he exists. While I'm open to the fact that he may, I've fully accepted that, all things considering (the fact that there are dozens of religions all claiming to be right and that all the others are wrong being #1), God probably does not exist, and thus, I believe my "morality" is completely based around how I feel about things personally...NOT because something was instilled in me. You must remember - some people completely lack these qualities. You, of course, dismiss those people as being possessed by the devil and la-de-da, where as I can see they're apparently mentally ill. Nothin' to do with the devil. I can't recall one single case ever being documented of someone actually being possessed by the devil. People just ASSUME. And please, save the scripture quoting as "proof someone was possessed by demons".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm still open to the fact that the Universe was created, even. But I'm really not open to "organized religion" of any sort being "right". I'd challenge you to tell me why your religion is right when all it is is copies of other people's religious stories, other fables, la-de-da, and then other people copied yours. I'm sorry, but I can't make a decision that may very well mean my soul will either be saved or burned eternally "on a whim" because of what a book says. I'd rather have confindence that if I'm a good little boy, I can simply say to God "You would punish the good? 'Kay, some God you are." and have that be that. I refuse to believe that if there is a God, he is absolutely unable to reason at all. It's black and white with religion - you're either goin' to Heaven or you ain't, when in fact, there is a HUGE grey area which falls into neither catagory. Another reason I dislike religion is because you refer to this grey area, still, as people whom are going to Hell, no matter how good or bad they were.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like I said, I refuse to believe God is less able to reason than a human is. Put yourself in his shoes once and ask yourself...Could you condemn someone for eternity just because they didn't accept you, even if they did more good on Earth than ANY human ever did? Just as an example. Of course, you'll say you could, because "Yea, well...The Bible says right here..." Well, who cares? That's why I don't like religion. Your arrogance infuriates me.

In my opinion, all religions simply state the set of rules that their society needed to have to survive at the point in time when the religion was created. Religions are just like sets of laws, but they talk about fictional gods (omnipotent judges) and heavens (rewards) and hells (punishment) so that those who can't figure out that those laws are good will be scared into submission. If everyone follows the same laws, society thrives. I think that only people with metal problems or people who have been taught that modern society is bad need religion.

Like I said, I refuse to believe God is less able to reason than a human is. Put yourself in his shoes once and ask yourself...Could you condemn someone for eternity just because they didn't accept you, even if they did more good on Earth than ANY human ever did? Just as an example. Of course, you'll say you could, because "Yea, well...The Bible says right here..." Well, who cares? That's why I don't like religion. Your arrogance infuriates me.

 

 

 

"Is Gandhi going to Hell?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Man, I love how stupid people are.

splatmster, i'll ignore all the other contradictions in the Bible that state that if you break any one of the laws even for a fraction of a second (i.e. keeping the Sabbath holy) then you're going to burn in hell for ever, or something (it's in Revelations, I forget the exact reference).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My question is, am I going to hell? I don't break laws but I have no faith. I suppose i'll get punished for that. Or do you not believe in hell? Cherry picker then.

splatmster, i'll ignore all the other contradictions in the Bible that state that if you break any one of the laws even for a fraction of a second (i.e. keeping the Sabbath holy) then you're going to burn in hell for ever, or something (it's in Revelations, I forget the exact reference).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My question is, am I going to hell? I don't break laws but I have no faith. I suppose i'll get punished for that. Or do you not believe in hell? Cherry picker then.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You already lose. The only reference to who is going to hell in Revelation are the AntiChrist, his false profit, and those who took his mark. All others will be judged.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and even Revelation does not say that if you sin you will go the Hell. With the exception of taking the Mark, all sins are forgivable (as long as you ask).

 

splatmster, i'll ignore all the other contradictions in the Bible that state that if you break any one of the laws even for a fraction of a second (i.e. keeping the Sabbath holy) then you're going to burn in hell for ever, or something (it's in Revelations, I forget the exact reference).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My question is, am I going to hell? I don't break laws but I have no faith. I suppose i'll get punished for that. Or do you not believe in hell? Cherry picker then.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You already lose. The only reference to who is going to hell in Revelation are the AntiChrist, his false profit, and those who took his mark. All others will be judged.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and even Revelation does not say that if you sin you will go the Hell. With the exception of taking the Mark, all sins are forgivable (as long as you ask).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I refuse to believe that say, a rapist, will be rewarded just the same as the best person to ever grace the face of the Earth, so long as they both ask. Does that not sound kinda' dumb to you?

 

 

splatmster, i'll ignore all the other contradictions in the Bible that state that if you break any one of the laws even for a fraction of a second (i.e. keeping the Sabbath holy) then you're going to burn in hell for ever, or something (it's in Revelations, I forget the exact reference).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My question is, am I going to hell? I don't break laws but I have no faith. I suppose i'll get punished for that. Or do you not believe in hell? Cherry picker then.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You already lose. The only reference to who is going to hell in Revelation are the AntiChrist, his false profit, and those who took his mark. All others will be judged.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and even Revelation does not say that if you sin you will go the Hell. With the exception of taking the Mark, all sins are forgivable (as long as you ask).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I refuse to believe that say, a rapist, will be rewarded just the same as the best person to ever grace the face of the Earth, so long as they both ask. Does that not sound kinda' dumb to you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh shoot, sorry. Was distracted by a movie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Earnestly ask" for repentance. That's better? Not a "sorry for raping her today, I'll try not to do it tomorrow" type thing.

Yea...Still. Finding it hard to believe that makes it okay after the fact. According to that, I can do ANYTHING I want and just feel bad about it later with no consequences...Rather dangerous message.

I think it's not like that. I think it's like, if you do something thinking, "Okay, I can say Sorry for this later and get away with it" it won't work, but if you do something sort of without thinking and then later go, "Oh my God, I can't believe I did this, I'm so sorry!" genuinely sorry and shocked, then you could be forgiven. And it only works the first time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Note, I'm not really a Christian, or not a fundamentalist, not by most definitions, but Im saying what I think the Christian view is.

Yea...Still. Finding it hard to believe that makes it okay after the fact. According to that, I can do ANYTHING I want and just feel bad about it later with no consequences...Rather dangerous message.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, let's look at it from a Christian perspective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Jews had laws governing the forgiveness of sins. They usually involved a sacrifice (most commonly a goat, which became known as the scapegoat). By dying on the cross, Christ became the sacrificial lamb, or the scapegoat. By believing that he died on the Cross in that function, is the essentiality of the Christian faith.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And remember that God acknowledges the laws of nations. Just because you say "I'm sorry!" to God does not make you immune from punishment. Hence, the dangerous message is stifled.

I belive that God is fair, and just; evil will not go unpunished... However, i agree that if you are genuinly sorry, God will forgive you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for all you people who say there is no proof that God does not exsist, how can you find any proof that he doesn't?

Where the hell has God been for the last two thousand years?

 

 

 

As for all you people who say there is no proof that God does exsist, how can you find any proof that he doesn't?

 

 

 

Thats like saying theres a country called "Nicktopia". Is there? No, but I believe it exists.

I'm not capitalising this because i'm angry or anything, it's just a point I want to stress.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I MAY NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO JUDGE SOMEONE'S ACTIONS BY ABSOLUTISTS MORALS IN THE ABSENCE OF A RELIGION, BUT I AM WELL WITHIN MY REASON TO JUDGE THEM BASED ON THE LAWS SET DOWN BY A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY BASED ON CONSEQUENTIALISM AND UTILITARIANISM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We have to judge actions without one religion. Living in a multi-cultural society we cannot judge everyone's actions for practical purposes by absolutist religious morals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is someone also well within his reason to judge people based on laws set down at the personal whim of a despot, based on what he thinks is right and wrong? If there is no absolute morality, can you say that this is wrong, or that it is worse than your democratic/utilitarian system? You are certainly well within your reason to judge people on those democratic principles so long as they agree with those principles, but if they disagree, who are you to tell them that their system is wrong? There are no real morals to compare the two systems to, so both are equally man-made. How can you judge between the two?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another point, why do you as Christians cherry pick your morality from the Bible? You don't follow all the rules set down in the Bible, I know, because they're outdated. But if you really believe in the concept of an absolute good and evil which is set down in the Bible, why not follow it to the letter?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We don't follow every letter of the law because we are no longer require to follow every letter of it, since Christ has freed us. I've explained the paradigm shift in the Bible before, so allow me to quote myself. (Granted, this is from a different discussion, so the focus is on a different aspect.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's two covenants in the Bible - one old, one new. Under the old (Abrahamic) covenant, the focus was on the law and doing justice. Under the new (Messianic) covenant, the focus was on salvation from the law. (This covenant did not free people to break the law, but to obey it without worrying about messing up. It did not provide license to sin, but freedom to do good.) (Also, there is still mercy in the old covenant, such as sacrifices and cities of refuge, and there is still judgement under the new covenant.) Therefore, it is no contradiction for those under the old covenant to be told to kill lawbreakers, while those under the new covenant are told to forgive and instruct them. The new covenant began with Christ, which is why Christians don't stone people for adultery - the new covenant of Christ supercedes the old covenant of the law.

 

 

 

--------

 

 

 

In the beginning, man disobeyed God and became sinful. (In Christian theology, this is known as the Fall.) The Law was sent to govern God's people until he redeemed them from this sin. If someone broke the law, he took the punishment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christ came to die for the sins of mankind. Think of it as paying a debt - in sinning, man created a debt to God which he could never pay back. Christ paid that debt for us; he took the punishment for our sins. Therefore, under the new covenant in Christ, the punishment for our sin has already been done - He took it for us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Therefore, God is not contradicting himself, nor changing his will. The sins which were once punished with death are still punished with death - only now, Christ has taken the punishment upon himself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The purpose of the law had been to show man his inability to keep it, to show him his sinfulness and need for redemption. When that redemption came, we were freed from the letter of the law, and now out of love for God we follow the spirit of the law - the overriding moral principles which are affirmed throughout the Scriptures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So being ostracised from a community isn't a good enough reason for doing good? It works for the rest of the life on this Earth, why not us? Even on these forums you see it in action, people asking for advice on countless topics fearing the negative consequences if they don't make the right choice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does it usually work? Yes. But what if you can avoid the consequences of your action? What if you want to leave society, and you don't care what they think of you? What if you can hide when they try to take revenge? With this consequentialism, there is still no real good or bad, only social acceptance. If you can avoid the consequences of doing taboo things, what motivation is there to be good (which in this case only means socially acceptable)?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If morals are absolute, then there would be no reason why some actions wouldn't have morals laws associated to them. What makes the action of murder any different to the action of eating meat or logging forests? People pass judgement over these actions regardless of whether you say a moral law is associated to an action or not. If your moral laws aren't associated with every action, then there isn't any way in knowing what actions have laws and which do not; it would be completely subjective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gee you don't think that the same mechanisms for determining morality associated with lawless actions such as slaughtering animals for food couldn't be applied to law bound actions such as murder? If some morals are subjective what makes other morals magically objective and free from subjectivity; your stance is a contradiction. I guess cherry picking what you like and don't like is bound to cause such problems, Cognitive Dissonance for the win.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't see why there needs to be a specific commandment governing every action. If there are absolute moral principles for some areas, why can there not be other areas left up to personal conviction based on the principles which are absolute? I believe that we ought to use the morals that have been revealed to us to figure out the ones that have not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And where is the contradiction? If there is even one absolute moral principle, then morality is not relative. There need not be a law for every conceivable action to have absolute morals. It suffices to have some absolute morals which are applicable across the board.

Where the hell has God been for the last two thousand years?

 

 

 

Where he was for all the time before those two thousand years- watching from his high cloud in the sky, looking down at everyone and letting the human race figure out life on it's own.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honestly, just because some people in the Bible thought "God was helping them", doesn't mean things were actually any different then they were for other nations. "God's people" fought battles and made settlements, and on paper they called everything good that happened to them "God's will" and everything bad as "God was pissed". They never met God, they just acted like they did. It's not like they were really any different than any other ancient people; God's was as active before two thousand years ago as he was and is after.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And in case this didn't come up in my message, even though I'm "Catholic", I still believe Jesus was nothing more than a holy, good willed teacher and leader, who helped many a people and acted as a precedent for us all.