Why Does Religion=Morality?

[Skavau]

Broadbrushing with your statement that I quoted and replied to.
That's what you were doing


Again, broadbrushing is (male) bovine feces

Does that clear it up?
If not, we can chat

You know my points are about theism in general, and why I think it fails as a standard for morality and not specific theists, most of which I don't believe truly follow 'theistic morality'.

 

[corvus_corax]

You know my points are about theism in general, and why I think it fails as a standard for morality and not specific theists, most of which I don't believe truly follow 'theistic morality'.

I knew nothing of the sort.
But since you are omitting specific theists, you are still broadbrushing.

By your statement, you are including Christians, Muslims, Jews, Wiccans, Asatru, and every other theistic paradigm in the world (~ahem~ not including specific theists).

In short, you are broadbrushing theism (n.b. I'm not a theist, just so you know). And that is just as incorrect as a Creationist saying that all those who accept the Toe are atheists.

 

[Skavau]

I knew nothing of the sort.
But since you are omitting specific theists, you are still broadbrushing.

By your statement, you are including Christians, Muslims, Jews, Wiccans, Asatru, and every other theistic paradigm in the world (~ahem~ not including specific theists).

In short, you are broadbrushing theism (n.b. I'm not a theist, just so you know). And that is just as incorrect as a Creationist saying that all those who accept the Toe are atheists.

Again, I was talking about theistic morality. The claim that morality is from God, or by God. I don't believe that most theists actually truly believe this claim (thanks to the enlightenment and secularism). Some theists don't even accept the idea that morality is from God.

I am not saying anything comparable to creationist contending that evolution can only be accepted by atheists. That is deciding on other people's behalf what they believe.

 

[corvus_corax]

Again, I was talking about theistic morality. The claim that morality is from God, or by God. I don't believe that most theists actually truly believe this claim (thanks to the enlightenment and secularism). Some theists don't even accept the idea that morality is from God.

I am not saying anything comparable to creationist contending that evolution can only be accepted by atheists. That is deciding on other people's behalf what they believe.

Ah, sorry then
I was confused by your statement

Absolutely. Theism exists in spite of morality. It is the manipulator and abuser of people's altruism and empathy. It distorts the concept of compassion to that only of the deity, the great arbiter. It manipulates the concept of altruism to mean self-serving, and self-interest and stretches the meaning of life to focus primarily on the afterlife.

(emphasis mine)

Although the last statement that I bolded is easily applied to every self aware human on this planet (including you and me)


ETA: 4 am arrives early,. so I gotta get to bed (9:30pm here right now)
Hope to chat with you tomorrow (and hoping the thread doesn't get so long as to unreadable)

 

[Zebra1552]

What rules are these? Rules that God imposes on himself (so, behavioural constraint) or a set of absolutes he is bound by?

You said that humanity limits Gods options, I ask how, and then you say that he limits himself.

Huh?

God created humanity knowing the cost of doing so. I'd say that's limiting Himself. It's not like he doesn't know the cost. Must have been a choice, then.

Please, allow me to quote the OP.

"I'm curious why people seem to feel that religion is necessary for a basic sense of morality. That somehow, if there's no religion, there's no morality."

This has everything to do with the effects of theistic morality on society. So I am bringing that into the equation. I contend that theistic morality is a farce, rooted in subservience and obedience to authority which gives credence to atrocity. I contend that all supposed 'principles' and 'lawful' creeds that many theists espouse are in contradiction to the blatant arbitrary nature of morality by God, or from God.

Your opinion on that, may I ask?

That you, being a atheist, are biased in your contention and cannot possibly support your contention and that I have already shown your contention of contradiction to be false.

You've been spending a lot of time defending the actions of God. I would consider that apologetics.

Talking about whether or not the morality of the Bible is consistent with the one GIVING the morality is hardly defending the actions of God. It's defending consistency.

Well....because you *don't,* need to be a Christian to value some type of morality found in the Bible. There are atheists who follow the moral teachings of Jesus, and Muslims cultures that punish rape victims--both totally in accordance with systems of morality found in the Bible.

*Ahem* "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." You cannot take the morality of the Bible outside the context of following God. It's an integral and inseparable part of it.

 

[Zebra1552]

Godschild, your entire argument hinges on whether or not God exists. If he does then maybe - maybe what is described in numbers is justifiable, if not it is absolutely heinous.

Oh? What am I arguing?

 

[Skavau]

God created humanity knowing the cost of doing so. I'd say that's limiting Himself. It's not like he doesn't know the cost. Must have been a choice, then.

God chooses to limit himself by "knowing the cost" of creating humanity?

Huh?

That you, being a atheist, are biased in your contention and cannot possibly support your contention and that I have already shown your contention of contradiction to be false.

Of course I'm biased.

Onto more useful points, what contention have you shown to be false? And how does it contradiction? I have only just began comparing theistic morality to obedience to you.

You're not very specific.

Talking about whether or not the morality of the Bible is consistent with the one GIVING the morality is hardly defending the actions of God. It's defending consistency.

Well, it wouldn't matter what the Bible says. God is typically, in the context of Christianity set up to have the right to do anything, the power to do so, and the knowledge to do so. The mantra "With God, all things are possible" really do mean something here, and something quite unsettling when you look at it morally.

You told me you would have a problem if God lied (when I bought up the example or possibility of God killing off large swabs of the population based on being nonredeemable and those who would grow into the wretched (an action you have spent a large time defending). My question now is why?

The rather worrying thing for me here is not that you've told me you would disagree with it, but that you disagree with it because of dishonesty not reasons of destruction. So I continue now, in-spite of this asking you why would it concern you if God lied?

 

[CoderHead]

No, it doesn't, given the reason behind it. Do you know what that was?

Yes. God promised a land to His chosen people that was already inhabited. In order for His chosen people to live in that land, He needed to remove the inhabitants. He chose to do that by ordering His chosen people to mercilessly slaughter all of the inhabitants - including non-militant women and children. Still sounds completely wrong to me.

They all follow the way of the ancestors in sinning. They all go to hell. Or God kills them and they don't. Kill a few, save a bunch more. That's why religion is moral.

So you get punished for eternity simply because you're born. That doesn't sound moral, just, fair, or even reasonable.

Do I need to know that the knife I stick in the outlet has electricity that's frying my hand to know that it hurts?

No, but you need to know that sticking the knife in the outlet will hurt you so that you won't do it. Until you have that knowledge, you're more likely to stick the knife in the outlet than not, because you don't know any better...and the outlet just seems like the perfect shape for the knife, so why not?

I'm talking about the limited options God has.

What a tiny, impotent god you must have. If you're actually talking about the Christian God of the Bible, then you're talking about an omnipotent being who knew exactly how things would pan out prior to creating the first human. God already had a plan in the beginning to account for man's sinful nature ("In the beginning was the Word."). So...how is God limited? If, by creating humans (with foreknowledge), He limited Himself then He appears to be suffering from incompetence.