Is Religion or God The Basis of Morals 2nd Edition?

[JoeyKnothead]

My other thread got jacked, so let's try it again.

I've seen it claimed by several theists that God or maybe religion is the basis of morals. When confronted on these claims, the subject never gets addressed, and like my other thread, theists at least seem to want to go off topic, and not address their claims.

So I present to y'all:
Is God or religion the basis of morals?

I say morals are the result of tribes coming in closer and closer contact with one another. Over the course of time, morals such as not stealing became important because of the potential of social disruption. Of course I will expand on this, but let's see what those who have made the original claim have to say.

[C-Nub]

Sorry C-Nub, you are wrong.

I really wish someone had mentioned this before I ordered 200 "Is Never, Ever, Ever Wrong about anything, Ever." T-Shirts.

The #1 reason for immorality is an unrestrained ego. Our morality is taught more by training the ego than trying to inject the knowledge of right and wrong into our brains. Morals exist inside of us from birth, I won't argue whether this is evolutionary in origin or from God, they are just there. The problem is teaching the ego to step aside and allowing the inner mind to work.

Ignoring for a moment that you contradict yourself by asserting that morality is taught by training the ego and then follow it up in the very next sentence by asserting that basic morality is innate, I think it's safe to say that you, sir, are the one who is wrong. Which is good. I'd hate to think I'd wasted my money on t-shirts. Look at the differing morals found the world over. In Brazil, it is acceptable and common for the first sexual experiences of a young boy to be with Donkeys. In ancient Greece and(/or?) Rome, it was in no way wrong (or uncommon) for mature males to engage in sexual acts with young boys. (The Roman Catholic church doesn't look too harshly on this today, either.) In war torn countries the world over, children are armed with guns. In some places, capital punishment is a-ok, in others, it's very, very, wrong. In Texas, you can execute the mentally handicapped or deranged for capital crimes. In not-so-ancient Salem, you could hang witches. (They never actually burned any.) Charles Manson was certainly not innately moral. Neither are house cats, many of whom (which?) torture their food before killing and consuming it. American soldiers with a variety of backgrounds tortured prisoners of war less than five years ago, and God reportedly killed a bunch of first born sons in a fit of pique. Executions used to be done partly as entertainment for the masses. People in Hollywood keep making Air Bud movies, and I'd be pretty happy if I never saw another movie where the co-star was a monkey. Casinos the world over ruin lives by praying on addiction, and tobacco is still legal and no one blames the farmers for any of it, just the big corporations that buy their product. Australians.

I could continue listing examples, but I think it's pretty obvious that there is no innate, fundamental moral foundation built-in to the species, nor is there any scientific evidence to support any assertion otherwise. Society determines what is moral and what isn't, and has throughout all human ages. The only time an action is 'immoral' is when it goes against what you are taught, not when it contradicts something you are born believing.

Maybe you didn't intend to say it that way, but you seemed to imply that relgion was more of a source of immorality than anything else. This is not true. We seem to be struggling with moral relativism in our society and this is ubiquitous as no single group can claim the high ground.

Less 'source' and more 'justification.' People being, for lack of a better term, "dicks" is just part of the human experience. The problem with religion is that these 'dicks' can use it to sway 'non-dicks' (women???) to their cause(s). I think lots of people can claim the high ground, just that very few can justify it. That said, those who seek to better the health, safety and happyness of the species, without mention of God, can claim it and give evidence to that effect. I do not make that claim, but only because there's a dead hooker in my car. (I'm just kidding, it's not my car.)

I will support one idea I think you have brought up. Being religious doesn't make one moral necessarily and all kinds of actions can be rationalized behind religion. I would argue however, that spiritualism does bring out moral behavior and is readily observable even though it is sometimes a little overly moral.

"Spiritualism" doesn't lead to moral behavior any more than "synergy" or "zanthar!" because the words don't mean anything concrete. Spiritualism describes, or at least is often taken to describe a relationship or connection with that which cannot be proven to exist at all. It's much like my membership in the International Federation of Unicorn Preservation. The fact that I pay my dues and read the newsletter (twice!) whenever it comes out does nothing to suggest that there are actually unicorns out there, CNorman's weird goat-things notwithstanding.

Instead of using worms, why don't you anchor your pole to the dock and take a big hook and jam it up your rear end real deep, and then jump in. You'll probably catch something then.

Is it just me, or is that massively inappropriate? Far be it for me to call someone out on something like that, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you're kidding here, and that you're not an Australian, but still. You probably shouldn't suggest to other members that they aggressively keister anything, let alone a fishing hook. For all you know, Joey might be too trusting and, possibly, eager for delicious fish (the whole penguin thing) and I'd hate to see him injured because of an ill conceived joke.

Well, honestly, I'd like to SEE that, because it would be funny, but I'd still rather it didn't happen to some that I, in a rather roundabout way, know and respect.