I first thought that morality is a device that religion sets up, and puts value to it, so the people will listen, either to be fear or love. So the common people will not bring havoc, steal, kill, or harm.
It is a device for prevention of harm, morality.
What about crime rates?
Then I say, because of the numbers of unbelievers, and ateists, they are dismantling the device, therefore, to favor unmorality, and favor bruality.
That is why many people who are old are unhappy.
An objective moral law can’t exist unless it comes from God. The anti-theist has to deny God therefore denying the moral law, is this what you are getting at? To an anti-theist, morals would be just relative, or basically what ever brings full happiness to an anti-theistic lifestyle, I still don’t know the answer to that, or what any anti-theistic common goal is other than to disprove God to all mankind.
If there is no objective moral law you can expect crime rates to rise.
That’s utterly simplistic. Crime is more complicated than that.
Wrong and Right, Good and Evil, are utterly two simplisitic things. However reaching those points are not, you’ve gotta finish the maze. I do agree in a sense that some things are worse compared to others, such as a lesser bad being done for a greater good. While that bad is still bad, it’s done for a good as opposed to another greater wrong, so actually in a sense it’s not exactly wrong, it’s a right decision. All i’m saying is two decisions can be bad, but one can be wrong and one can be right.
Even the concept of crime is perverted by the fanciful religious ideas of “objective morality.” Crime will depend upon who’s keeping the stats. Is prostitution lumped into your crime figures? If so it will be a lot higher in a Christian nation, simply because a nation governed by secularism probably won’t have such antiquated moral blinders re sex. Ditto for drugs, adultery, etc. Obviously some religions, notably Islam, deals with adulterers & drug users more harshly yet.
BTW, great use of the old “2 wrongs make a right if God says they do” theory.
[quote=“Phaedrus”]
Even the concept of crime is perverted by the fanciful religious ideas of “objective morality.” Crime will depend upon who’s keeping the stats. Is prostitution lumped into your crime figures? If so it will be a lot higher in a Christian nation, simply because a nation governed by secularism probably won’t have such antiquated moral blinders re sex. Ditto for drugs, adultery, etc. Obviously some religions, notably Islam, deals with adulterers & drug users more harshly yet.
BTW, great use of the old “2 wrongs make a right if God says they do” theory.[/quote
If God is the moral law giver, I’m not sure why he can’t say so… ? However I don’t believe I said this.
The simple fact is when you drop a moral system (like religion) you must replace it with something to fill that void. Either a personal set of values, a logical set of values, or immorality. What I see happen is that secularists reject christian values and replace them with corrupt disgusting immoral behavior.
If you want proof of that, look at the sexualization of children, vis a vie bratz dolls, pop videos, etc. Look at how they try calling all sorts of depraved behaviors normal. CSI, with the “animal suit” episode, SDM episode, etc. (and that’s just one prime time show!)
If you don’t replace the vacuum of morals you create by rejecting christian values, with something else moral, only depravity will exist within your moral vacuum.
Ridiculous.
Also, I think that most who are true sages of their faith have risen beyond the organized religion that they espouse. I find that organized religion teaches morality through guilt tactics - and only few actually take from their faith what is the underlying goodness of being a moral person.
Scy
This seems oversimplified to me. I know many atheists and agnostics who have their own sense of morality and are better off in their “vacuum” than what any priest could teach them. Instead, replace it with knowing what is right. There is right and there is wrong - it is a relative thing but most times right and wrong, my friend, is black and white.
Reference to religion here is a little simplistic- yes, religion will lead to lower rates of people doing immoral* things and keep people in order, but so will a lot of other things. What it’s really all about is some system of ethics which is percieved as being strong enough to override one’s personal desires or even their personal conclusions about ethics. Historically, religion has been the best at providing this, because it provides a metaphysical, non-ethical basis for it’s claims- which is what Club means by objectivity, though I wouldn’t call it that.
Bessy
Good enough for car mechanics and neurosurgeons, but not for philosophers, and philosophers call the shots in the end.
True, but there is a basic generalization to right and wrong, no?
Think Ten Commandment stuff… basic right - basic wrong.
It’s not that I disagree with you, Bessy. I feel as though most things are either certainly right, or certainly wrong. I feel that rightness and wrongness are objective and percievable by all.
But we all know that some of the wrong things are attractive to do at times. If they weren’t, we wouldn’t need rules. And we all know that the first thing someone who wants to do the wrong thing is going to attempt is to justify themselves. To rationalize. And when that time comes, if all we have to go on is, “It’s just wrong, man…don’t you see that?” then we lose the discussion.
You’re right that there are people who can just see right and wrong, and don’t need religion or anything else to tell them so, and you’re also right that those people are some of the best-behaved people. But…
Let’s just say that while the 10 Commandments certainly may seem like no-brainers to you and me, God still felt the need to make sure they got written down, you know?
I can see your point. I am all about free-thinking and agnosticism now but was raised in a very religious household and wonder whether it is just a deep part of me that I have no way to see myself beyond.
Do you honestly feel that a parent can give morals to their children without organized religion? My husband and I feel like we did, but to me it is the same as home-schooling for them. Kids that are home-schooled still get the math without being in the “club.” Your thoughts?
Bessy
I believe that God isn't crazy- so, most if not all of His ethical rules are going to make sense to us. When I say "God is good", I mean that the rules He laid out are rules that are good for human survival and happiness- so it only makes sense that we could figure out some of them without Him.
So, I feel that atheists can learn and teach correct moral behavior without reference to religion. Where I think they run into trouble is in pinning down [i]why exactly[/i] these behaviors are good or bad, or what 'good' and 'bad' really are. These aren't practical considerations, they are mostly academic- which is what I mean when I say it's good enough for a mechanic but not a philosopher.
A philosopher will always ask why, which is why so many of them seem to be agnostics… So much is built on the unknown (the mystery) but, (even tho’ the basic morality holds for most people) there will always be degrees in morality. Killing isn’t so bad when you are defending yourself against an axe murderer. Sex out of marriage doesn’t seem so wrong when your spouse is a cold-hearted bastard. Stealing doesn’t seem so bad when a good man takes some bread for his starving child… and coveting? Oh c’mon.
Everyone covets. 
Or they are just lying to themselves as they are taking communion in their pretty new Sunday best.
I still think that my home schooling analogy holds on raising children to be God fearing adults. I believe that Clubs (especially religious ones) can make people elitist before you can blink an eye.
Also, the sabbath is relative to your timezone.
I admit to never having coveted an ox lately. At least not this week. 
Bessy.
I’m with you I think morals are black and white… sure ours are different, but… things still smack of being completely immoral and wrong whether or not there is cultural difference. A perfect example of that was in the grocery store today. (While I was getting lunch) On the front page of the national enquirer was a picture of Steve Irwin moments before the sting ray got him. With a sell line of “PICTURES OF STEVE IRWIN’S DEATH!”.
That is the EXACT kind of moral vacuum I was talking about. People don’t know right from wrong anymore. Even though I’m not christian, I still teach my child(ren) christian morals.
Uccisore,
We’re all pawns in the kings game. (per philosophers making the rules.)
Bessy
Right. Which is why this one philosopher is skeptical of the idea of people 'just knowing' what's right and wrong. An atheist can 'just know' that stealing is wrong. An atheist can teach his child that stealing is wrong. But an atheist convincing an intelligent thief that stealing is wrong? Good luck. That's where philosophy gets involved, and I think religion still does it better.
As far as religion breeding elitism, yes it does- any sense of belonging to something runs the risk of creating elitism against those who don’t belong. The solution can’t be to keep people from belonging to things.
How positive is the elitist attitude? How does it make for good neighbors who aren’t in the club? On a larger scale, how does an elitist attitude work towards world peace? In fact, wouldn’t you say it works against it?
Bessy
First, a question fired back at you- does elitism imply falsehood? Like, if Judaism really was the One True religion, and every other faith was just a candy-coated deathtrap for the soul (just pretend), would it still be elitist to proclaim Judaism the best, or would it just be true?
Anyways, an elitist attitude in general isn't a good thing, and yes, it leads towards conflict (though I don't think world peace is a worth while goal anyhow). But I don't think it's universal, either- a person taught a religion exclusively doesn't have to become elitist. It's a mistake that can be fallen into along the way.
I’ve been reading and wondering: There is a morality that is best summed up in the Golden Rule, (just knowing) and then there are all the moral edicts proscribed by religion(s). If religious morality (external) actually functioned, then why are things the way they are?
Scyth, you make a distinction of secular -vs- religious morality, and yet in most secular countries, the majority of the population subscribe to one religion or another. A moral vacuum? No. A hollow proclamation of religious morality that is either ignored or misunderstood by those within a religion.
Golden Rule morality comes from within an individual, and is the only legitimate functioning morality. All the external moral edicts of religion are obviously ignored or the world wouldn’t be in the miserable shape it finds itself.
“Just knowing” right from wrong implies conscience and introspection. True morality is individual, and isn’t found inscribed on stone tablets.