I find it absolutely fascinating how a majority of the world is indoctrinated with religious beliefs. What is very telling about this situation, is how those religious beliefs differ by geographic location, as well as by time. If you were born in Greece 3,000 years ago, you may very well have been raised to believe Zeus was God. Saudi Arabia today, viola, you’re going to likely become a Muslim. Each of the faithful, of all the religions, believe that they have received direction from the true God, or gods, and that “God” or gods, have provided a list of rules and guidance that must be obeyed and this is indeed an absolute, objective morality.
What follows from believing in their god, often comes the illusion that they have knowledge of some of this morality provided through their “sacred” writings and this is taught and passed on to others, spreading the same way that their faith has spread, word of mouth or through writings. Through having children and indoctrinating them accordingly, generation after generation carries on this faith and “objective” morality. Yet, the funny thing is, somewhere along the line, that objective morality of God, changes, bends and ultimately caves in to societal pressure. It seems the rate of this change occurs faster today, in a smaller, connected world, through the internet, however the full effects will still remain to be seem.
In the United States, Christianity is seen as the guider of the prevalent, moral consensus through the simple fact that Christians are the majority and hold their morality from Christian teachings, indoctrination, and reading the Bible themselves, at times. Christians argue against other morality that threatens their assumed “moral authority” by stating that if you do not believe in “God”, anything goes. Which, to some extent they do have a point. However a disciplined, learned mind, with reason and logic on their side, can quickly conquer not only this statement, but also offer a morality that Christianity cannot obtain, a more righteous ethical system, that is based on logic and reason, aside from belief that “god says so”. What we can gather, that if you are not a believer, the Bible was written by archaic people with inferior morality by today’s standards. These people try to pawn of their morality as coming from the “one true God”, for the sake of assimilation to their ways, their culture, their desires.
Considering much of the old testament morality is seen in the Western Hemisphere as morally bankrupt now, we can see how obvious it is today that this “objective morality” has changed over years, centuries, to adapt to a less religious, but more of a reason backed morality and value system, which does have a tendency to shine through, even in believers. However, there is still cherry picking of morality from the old testament. Currently the gay agenda is something that is “objectively” wrong, because “God” says so. Never mind the commands to stone adulterers, or to judge not lest ye be judged, or to love one another as you love yourself.
The believers fail to recognize that this morality was not of their “God’s”, but of reason. They do have their reason, which isn’t very noble, but it seems that a culture of hatred and discrimination against gay people is their reason. They use the Bible to back up their preconceived notions of homosexuality, or the Bible has produced their preconceived notions of homosexuality. The same people claim their morality is objective and of “God”. What they fail to see, is that their morality is indeed not objective, it is merely believed to be. Some of their morality is backed by their own reason, some is caused by a herd mentality, and some is due to their indoctrination. Due to the ever evolving morality of Christianity that is evidenced throughout it’s history, it is obvious we have nothing close to an objective morality in Christianity and due to its judgment based on believing a god exists and believing that this god told them these rules, we have a morality founded upon belief and an archaic backwards culture of thousands of years ago. It is not necessarily founded on reason and logic conducive to values that people hold dear, thus making this morality not only subjective, open to interpretation, but also at times unreasonable and irrational.
The origin of reasonable morality is through the values one holds. Christians, holding the bible and their belief in “God” which somewhere along the lines gets misconstrued with a knowledge of their “God”, fail to understand this. They only understand that morality comes from their god, that they believe in, which essentially has been formed through the same way as any other religious god who tells people what to do, through the writings of men, spread through a local culture, until the entire world has become indoctrinated.
Reasonable judgments based on our modern values often shine through. Many Christians are against the discrimination of homosexuals, despite what the Bible states on the matter. It is the job of those moral, good believers and non believers to provide a reasonable sound morality based on knowledge and logic, not belief, not the writings of an immoral archaic people by today’s standards. An archaic people who promote misogyny and stoning of adulterers, or killing those who are homosexual. For reasons outlined above, religious morality will always be inferior to that which can be derived from logic and reason and that is how religious morality bends to pressure of logic and reason. This is why Christianity evolves and why, one day, they will likely accept homosexuality. After all, it is only spoken of negatively in the Old Testament, just like all the other nonsense that is ignored, from commands to not eat pork or wear multi-fabric clothes, to condoning slavery.
Righteous non biblical morality will not be justified by something the bible says, it will be justified by reasonable and logical deductions based on secular values. The religious through time will bend their morality, perhaps because Jesus loves us all. They will cherry pick the passages and ignore the rest of the archaic nonsense gradually more and more over time, until one day hopefully there is nothing left to ignore but the entire whole goddamn thing itself.
You can pick any old testament law alongside homosexuality and find the ones that Christians don’t believe anymore, but believe homosexuality is a sin still. One being that shrimp are not kosher because they live in water but do not have scales or fins
the problem with this is that the bible inherits a stringent code of conduct concerning the propagation and survival of still yet new human race, I have no issue really with gay people, however when consider the social issues of any early groups of people you need to consider there needs and techniques of proliferation, we act this way we get this we act that way we get that, survival and conduct and are very strict and play is limited, you can’t just do whatever you want when your goal is survival… it’s about as scientific as it gets, back then it was considered wanton and a habitual form of lust, it destroys a community, men had to be men and leave the feminine where it was containable, people are only primates, play isn’t always first on the list. Lust was social corruption.
But a number of the religions in a world with over 8 billion people have not managed to let go of these beliefs, nor can they seem to tolerate precisely the argument you are making which is time and context dependent rather than fundamental, timeless moral judgments.
But then there’s a factual problem with your justification: both tribal and pagan societies were much more tolerant, in general, of homosexuality, that the later Abrahamic ones. And those societies certainly required organization for survival.
And, then, well, you can be manly and gay. And you can be very religious and not manly as a man. In fact Christianity at least precisely tried to make men less manly in many ways, and the priest life was also not traditionally manly.
Compared to Spartan males, Christian males would have been less manly. And yet homosexuality was generally accepted in Sparta. It was even part of the considered good bonding between soldiers.
I don’t think your justification holds and it certainly doesn’t hold anymore. The threat to the species has to do more with survival all too well but in dangerous ways.
it made me distemperent and triffled back then, it disseminated truth in allegorys between men and construed dynamics between the communities, they thought they were either too tuff or weak adjourn certain forces of nature like life and illness I want to say, self obsession, while the the teachers in Greece were adamant that this was thing to be left behind after your early twenties because of it’s unhealthy effects on men, it messed with too many family’s.
big difference though in the to.e of Abraham and Moses where this was not well known but as a new group of people with no home land is seemed dangerous and maybe a bit barbaric to them, they were oriented around taking care of the women as they, as far as a community, were weaker and vulnerable, look at corona and the conditions just a few years ago, instead of buttoning down and accepting responsibility all anyone could ask is when can we go back to the bars
The problem with this is that you view all religions from the perspective of the one you know. You don’t consider the mindset of people back then and assume that they were just stupid. The attraction of beliefs has more to do with a consensus than you have considered and having a common narrative that gives a people moral direction. They say that your ethics tells others where you’re from. It doesn’t really matter what you call your God, because even God or god is a placeholder, and you could say “what-ever-is” as a friend of mine tends to say.
Recognizing a first principle’s transcendence of language predates Taoism. The fact that sentient life has emerged on a planet where many species of life are just looking for the next meal is something to be held in awe. This awe at sentient life—thriving among the countless species engaged in a struggle for survival—invites a sense of wonder. It suggests that consciousness and moral awareness are remarkable anomalies in the universe, encouraging a deep reverence for existence itself.
In both ancient Greece and Rome, philosophers like Plato understood the importance of cultural narratives and traditions in shaping societal values and cohesion. Plato, for example, believed that myths and religious stories, even if metaphorical, played a crucial role in educating and guiding the moral compass of a society. He recognized the power of shared narratives in fostering a sense of unity and identity.
The respect for these cultural narratives also emphasizes how civilizations build upon each other’s wisdom. The preservation of Greek philosophy by Arab scholars during the Islamic Golden Age was pivotal in ensuring that these ideas survived and were eventually reintroduced to Europe, influencing the Renaissance and our modern understanding of philosophy. The fact that we still teach and learn from these philosophical foundations today shows the enduring impact of these shared narratives, as well as the profound respect for cultural heritage across generations and civilizations.
‘Divine Law’ has various names, whether Dharma, Tao, Logos, Maat (Ancient Egyptian), Rta (Vedic Tradition), Orlog (Norse Tradition), Nomos (Greek Tradition), Halakha (Jewish Tradition), Karma (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism). These terms reflect the rich diversity in how cultures and traditions understand the idea of a higher law governing the moral and natural order. Of course, we can’t forget the Laws of Physics or Nature, which present a different perspective. The fact that our ancestors found an order by which to live best is hardly surprising.
The fact that the United States and its tendency toward a fundamentalist outlook is poignant, as the country’s religious landscape exhibits a strong evangelical and conservative Christian presence, which shapes both social norms and political policies. In contrast, much of Europe has experienced a shift toward secularism or a more culturally integrated approach to religion, where Christian traditions may still be respected but not necessarily adhered to rigidly.
Clashes between civilizations often stem from the most extremist views of different cultures. There are many examples—such as the Inquisitions, the Crusades, and the forced Christianization of indigenous populations—these are sobering reminders of how religious zeal, when coupled with political power, has led to immense suffering and systemic violence. Of course, throughout history, certain periods saw the expansion of Islamic empires through military conquest, also found non-Muslims (but normally not Christians or Jews) subjected to forced conversions, heavy taxes, or harsh treatment under strict interpretations of Islamic law.
The Indian subcontinent has also witnessed violent clashes between Hindu and Muslim communities over centuries, with incidents like the Mughal destruction of Hindu temples or more recent communal riots. Though Buddhism is often associated with peace, some Buddhist-majority nations have had violent conflicts, such as in Myanmar, where Buddhist nationalists have been involved in the persecution of the Rohingya Muslim minority.
While not a religion, the ideological zeal of 20th-century communist regimes, which often sought to replace religious belief with state atheism, have also led to persecution of religious groups and widespread atrocities, as seen in Stalin’s purges and Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Modern ideologies sometimes fill the societal role that religion once occupied, particularly in providing people with a moral framework, community, and sense of purpose. Many observers have noted that movements such as “wokeism” or even broader identity-based or ideological movements can take on the characteristics of a belief system or “pseudo-religion.” They may offer guiding principles, rituals, and a sense of moral clarity that some people find appealing in a world that has become increasingly secular or fragmented.
Like religions, these modern ideologies can create strong in-group and out-group dynamics, moral imperatives, and calls to action that can be both unifying and divisive. The term “wokeism” often refers to a heightened awareness of social justice issues, but critics argue that it sometimes manifests as rigid dogmatism, cancel culture, or an unwillingness to engage in genuine dialogue with those holding different views. This mirrors the way some religious groups have historically enforced orthodoxy and punished dissent.
At the same time, it’s worth acknowledging that movements promoting social justice or equality arise from real concerns about inequality, discrimination, and historical wrongs. The challenge lies in balancing passionate advocacy with openness to discussion and avoiding the pitfalls of ideological extremism.
The comparison to communism also highlights how ideologies, whether political or social, can become systems of belief that seek to order society. These movements often provide a sense of belonging and moral certainty, but they can become dogmatic if they suppress nuance, dissent, or complexity. History has shown that both religious and secular ideologies can be prone to this, especially when wielded as instruments of power.
I think you are completely out of date and out of touch. You may have the Evangelical and Muslim Fundamentalists, and to a certain degree the Zionist Jews in your face but just because they seem to have influence and are the loudest doesn’t mean they are the only influences. The intersection of religion and nationalism is a powerful and often volatile force. When religious beliefs are tightly intertwined with national identity, the resulting combination can amplify both ideological fervour and a sense of us-versus-them division. This fusion often transforms religion from a personal or community-based spiritual practice into a tool of political and cultural identity, which can lead to a heightened sense of loyalty and exclusivity.
As I mentioned above, this dynamic is not new. History shows numerous examples where religion and nationalism have combined to justify wars, colonialism, and systemic oppression. The novelty today is that globalization and interconnected societies make these conflicts even more complex and impactful, as they resonate far beyond national borders. Balancing religious freedom and national identity with inclusivity and pluralism remains a significant challenge for many societies.
The current situation in the USA suggests a systemic oppression of anything that doesn’t support Christian and Zionist Nationalism. There is a strong and visible current in American politics that intertwines these two ideological strands, leading to policies and rhetoric that some argue suppress alternative perspectives and voices. The intertwining of Christianity with American identity has driven political platforms that prioritize conservative Christian values. This influence can be seen in debates over reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights, education policies (such as the teaching of creationism or restrictions on discussions of race and gender), and public expressions of faith, like prayer in schools. Critics argue that this conflation of religious belief with national identity marginalizes those who do not share these values, including atheists, agnostics, and adherents of other faiths.
The strong political and financial support for Israel, often framed in religious or ideological terms, has shaped U.S. foreign policy. For some Christian Zionists, the support for Israel is tied to apocalyptic beliefs, which adds a religious dimension to political decisions. Domestically, questioning U.S. support for Israel or advocating for Palestinian rights can lead to accusations of anti-Semitism or be met with significant political pushback, complicating open dialogue on the topic.
The influence of Christian and Zionist nationalism is perceived as oppressive by those who feel that their beliefs and values are systematically sidelined. Policies that restrict access to reproductive healthcare, limit protections for marginalized communities, or dictate educational content based on religious views can be seen as enforcing a specific worldview at the expense of diversity and pluralism. Additionally, legislation targeting protests or labelling criticism of Israel as hate speech is sometimes viewed as attempts to silence dissent.
The only hope is that while these forces are undeniably influential, the landscape in the U.S. is far from uniform. There are also strong movements advocating for secular governance, social justice, and religious pluralism, and the political system itself remains divided. But the loud and well-organized presence of Christian and Zionist nationalists shapes the discourse, and their influence on legislation and public policy is undeniable. The ongoing culture wars reflect this struggle between competing visions of America’s identity and values, which unfortunately have the habit of spreading to other countries in the West.
Religion is good for societies and for individuals, generally speaking and all things being equal; humans also possess a religious instinct, which correlates with other markers of genetic health and fitness including height, being rated as more attractive compared to atheists, having less physical problems and less mental illness, being right-handed, and having higher biological and realized fertility.
Like it or not, we evolved or were put here to be religious. And equally or more important than all that stuff above, having a religious attitude or belief-set allows one to orient toward the transcendent, to achieve and maintain some sort of higher philosophical climb in one’s own inner mind and subjectivity. To basically not just be a dumb reactive animal that only believes in whatever it happens to be smelling or seeing from moment to moment.
It also helps to hold up a higher value as a virtue and moral standard, an image to aspire to. Take Christianity: God represents goodness, love, truth, compassion, justice, forgiveness, creation, etc. All very good values and it enshrines these as moral virtues for the populace. Including having families and caring for them, which is essential if your society is going to continue to survive.
Atheists are (often, or at least sometimes) angry people who hate themselves and what they are, or are just pathologically disconnected from what it means to be human in the senses I just mentioned above. Atheism correlates with markers of genetic instability i.e. higher mutational load in one’s genome, such markers as includes autism, advanced parental (especially paternal) age, lower height, left-handedness, and being rated by others as objectively less physically attractive.
I dunno tho man. None of this is meant as an insult, just some facts for ya. You keep doing you
And since morality does actually have an objective basis, religions make sense as ways of relating and orienting humans to morality in more serious and culturally-binding ways. For those humans (most of them) who don’t bother trying to understand or derive morality from a philosophical perspective.
But I’m not referring to politics in this, I’m referring to only morality of religion, their religions. If you’re saying the Taoism has stayed morally consistent for its 2,500 year history, I’d be extremely impressed. You’re right I don’t argue against every religion here, there are too many. My hunch is those who claim objective morality do not maintain the objectivity over time, that is all.
Although religions differ as to the time and place they developed, most were interspersed by various channels , and can be said to have a primal and necessary resemblance , rather then differences on levels far from the origin.
The Tree of knowledge would, by way of an analogy, have counterpart symbolism in their branched or resources to the roots of that knowledge.
Thanks Ischthus, at this time there isn’t a shadow of doubt remaining that was almost certainly fated (to be)
…but scary, though for cats like me, and it only works by a conventional approach by unconventionable means, what?
This is why some one here said previously having a big imagination is not always a good thing, as that has to be deflated in (in)certain ,
uncharted territory, where power to will priories a will to power.
.
We should only always do what works best for us… so tailoring others’ suggestions to our own personal needs. Especially in health and situational-dependent individual circumstances.
.
No, not at all… where health-issues usurp moral endeavours, rendering a person void in an activity where their health doesn’t permit participation, like community activities that are deemed morally-necessary for the good of the group but that not all can do.
.
…so different from moral relativism, as in willing but not able…
