Something that has been bugging me...

[Sirjackofwilshere]

Common sense means what people commonly see as sense. A mad man's idea of sense would not represent the common man.

You miss the point. To oneself common sense is a self-evident abstract. Therefore a person or group can believe they are inherently right whilst another group maybe as self-assured whilst holding a diamterically opposing set of ideas that are right in accordance with their "common sense".

People are unequal physically, socio-economically etc etc...therefore the idea that the powerful can subject the weak and take advantage of them seems to be a sensible idea..it makes perfect sense..in fact most of the great, ancient philosophers agreed with this. The manifestations of this has changed over the years from the ancient Egyptians through to the Nazis.. .the fact that a "self evident abstract" (common sense) is subject to change dependent on time, location, culture, etc etc has resulted in these eras of great injustice.

This is where religion comes in..it mandates a set divine morals and rights that are unchanging and passed on from generation to generation. In fact the moral underpinings of secular societies, put forward as ideals of governance by athiests, are all derived from religion.

[The Wengerbabies]

You miss the point. To oneself common sense is a self-evident abstract. Therefore a person or group can believe they are inherently right whilst another group maybe as self-assured whilst holding a diamterically opposing set of ideas that are right in accordance with their "common sense".

People are unequal physically, socio-economically etc etc...therefore the idea that the powerful can subject the weak and take advantage of them seems to be a sensible idea..it makes perfect sense..in fact most of the great, ancient philosophers agreed with this. The manifestations of this has changed over the years from the ancient Egyptians through to the Nazis.. .the fact that a "self evident abstract" (common sense) is subject to change dependent on time, location, culture, etc etc has resulted in these eras of great injustice.

This is where religion comes in..it mandates a set divine morals and rights that are unchanging and passed on from generation to generation. In fact the moral underpinings of secular societies, put forward as ideals of governance by athiests, are all derived from religion.

tl;dr

One persons idea of sense cannot be classed as common sense.

/discussion.

[WMUG]

What alternative system do you propose that can give man his moral fundamentals?

So you're saying that if you weren't a Christian, you'd have no idea what morality is? The only thing keeping you from committing obviously wrong things is your religion? You're so mentally weak you can't think for yourself?

Didn't think so. Religion isn't necessary to have a moral compass. I'm an atheist. I've never murdered anyone, raped anyone, committed robbery or been in trouble with the law. Neither have any atheists I know. I do, however, know a few Christians who've been arrested for assault. And you agree that paedophilia is morally reprehensible, yes? Please point me to the passage in the Bible that prohibits it.
I'm not saying Christianity is prohibitive of a moral code, I'm saying it doesn't give one. You cannot say that Christianity or religion in general is the necessary moral code for humanity. Humans provide their own moral code. Religion doesn't help.

[MissHandbag]

So you're saying that if you weren't a Christian, you'd have no idea what morality is? The only thing keeping you from committing obviously wrong things is your religion? You're so mentally weak you can't think for yourself?

Didn't think so. Religion isn't necessary to have a moral compass. I'm an atheist. I've never murdered anyone, raped anyone, committed robbery or been in trouble with the law. Neither have any atheists I know. I do, however, know a few Christians who've been arrested for assault. And you agree that paedophilia is morally reprehensible, yes? Please point me to the passage in the Bible that prohibits it.
I'm not saying Christianity is prohibitive of a moral code, I'm saying it doesn't give one. You cannot say that Christianity or religion in general is the necessary moral code for humanity. Humans provide their own moral code. Religion doesn't help.

I like this post though have to say I know as many criminal atheists as not. Absolutely agree with humanity and moral code coming innately rather than proscribed.

[Sirjackofwilshere]

tl;dr

One persons idea of sense cannot be classed as common sense.

/discussion.

Yes - you can't rule a society by this abstract.

So you're saying that if you weren't a Christian, you'd have no idea what morality is? The only thing keeping you from committing obviously wrong things is your religion? You're so mentally weak you can't think for yourself?

Didn't think so. Religion isn't necessary to have a moral compass. I'm an atheist.

The fact that you have morals doesn't negate the need for religion. You live in a society whose moral underpinings are derived from religion, no matter how secular, non-religious it is...your athiesm is dependent on religion for its foundations...ironic.

And this idea that anyone should be able to form and hold a set of moral belief is rubbish. You are insinuating that the morals that have been subject to debate for thousands of years, by the greatest minds history has known are essentially self-evident. What about the unintelligent? The new generations of peoples? What about the changes that humanity and civilizations are subject to?? What determines that morals will be the same ones as they are now, forever?

That is why religion is important...besides the other spiritual, intellectual, economic benefits.

[Toronto Gooner]

Is that not how all religions develop?

Religions develop to allow a small group of (almost exclusively) men control of the rest of the people.

[The Wengerbabies]

You live in a society whose moral underpinings are derived from religion, no matter how secular, non-religious it is...your athiesm is dependent on religion for its foundations...ironic.

Many years ago the dude who made up the crap in the bible had moral beliefs, which the majority agree with, he just wrote it down.

[Toronto Gooner]

What alternative system do you propose that can give man his moral fundamentals?

I believe that you are getting the cart before the horse. I would posit that religions incorporate the moral fundamentals of the society of the day to further reinforce them, rather than religions providing the morals.

[The Wengerbabies]

That is why religion is important...besides the other spiritual, intellectual, economic benefits.

Good one.

[Toronto Gooner]

Yes - you can't rule a society by this abstract.




The fact that you have morals doesn't negate the need for religion. You live in a society whose moral underpinings are derived from religion, no matter how secular, non-religious it is...your athiesm is dependent on religion for its foundations...ironic.

And this idea that anyone should be able to form and hold a set of moral belief is rubbish. You are insinuating that the morals that have been subject to debate for thousands of years, by the greatest minds history has known are essentially self-evident. What about the unintelligent? The new generations of peoples? What about the changes that humanity and civilizations are subject to?? What determines that morals will be the same ones as they are now, forever?

That is why religion is important...besides the other spiritual, intellectual, economic benefits.

My atheism is not dependent on religion, nor are my morals. In fact I believe that the opposite is true, which is why religion is becoming so irrelevant in many western societies.

Are the morals of Islam better or worse than those of Christianity or Judaism or Buddism? Or are they different because Islam developed in 6th and 6th century Arabian peninsula society where having multiple wives was acceptable and where women were hidden away from sight to prevent other men trying to steal them?