Where does morality come from?

[ZNP-TBA]

Is I win a sound argument?

These days just getting offended "wins" one an argument. I wouldn't be surprised

 

[geedoenfj]

Lolz. Religion has morality in it but it only touches on the morality of humans. We would have had the morality most religions try to advocate with or without their existence.

Watch the below video.

Also, I think most religions (especially certain abrahamic religions) blocks one's empathy and tries to feed you ideas such as 'succumbing to the will of god or being humble to the will of god' as good and right, whereas when you think about it those have nothing much to do with morality.
Humans are capable of morality without religions, infact humans are capable of more.

In our brains we have a part that deals with empathy. Religion (certain religions esp) tries to replace that with their understanding of a 2000 year old sense of right and wrong.

Right but this suggests that the (moral) values existed in the first place before religion. Thus, it doesn't really add up to say that religion is the source of morality. Religion is constructed to accommodate those already existing moral values. Moral atheists simply do not require a religion to facilitate or accommodate those values.

You said that human beings are capable of morality and I should strongly agree with that, the human primitiveness is capable of knowing the right and wrong, good and evil, and the main reason you should accept or refuse any religion is because of that sensing, atheists also refuse many religious rules and morals because they indicate that they're opposing to the human primitiveness and I can understand their concern and respect it, and this might seem a cliché and a bit romantic but human beings are originally good whether they're religious or not, (this what I believe to be something created by God)
But here's the most important part:
humans are also taught by experience.. Thus if you read the history of any nation, you find that the society should have gone through so much tragedy and the history have to repeat itself over and over thousands of years of human history -and still do- before they realize that "Well it was wrong and we should change it"
Our brains are also submissive to many other things like the social norms that could be extremely wrong and devastating, humans tend to do what they're told to do because they have to obey the rules and fit in the community and be accepted, and in many cases to fulfill their essential needs of security, livelihood, tranquility, self image etc. they also tend to be submissive to ignorance, to prejudice, to mental illnesses, to childhood issues, desires, fears, depression, denial, greediness, selfishness, (to the media and brain washing) etc. so if you only depend on a human brain you'll find many of issues you frowns these days might be totally acceptable like 60 years to come, just as much as many issues 100 years ago were morally unacceptable are now just normal and unfortunately harmful for the society as well as for individuals, what are the limitations? Those should be clear it's highly important..
Though I won't deny that there are morals now that are way better than they were a 100 years ago, but many of them are actually validated by the religion so long before people tried -at least- to embrace them ..
Depending only on human brain is an absolute denial of the human nature which is good as well as dark and devastating, you say human brain is capable of morals without the religion to confront and be blinded to the fact that human beings proved through out the history that they are in fact very capable of the ugliest forms of sadism and immortality, they're capable of mass destruction no matter how much education or moral teachings they receive, plus these morals set by other human beings are to be identified as just another point of view that anyone could accept or deny, as long as you're not caught doing the wrong action or as long as you're not accountable for these actions then you're good to go.
So apparently talking about depending only on human brain to build up the moral system is too idealistic and romantic and -of course - unrealistic..
Now let's talk about how it works with the example of Abrahamic religions, the followers of these religions mainly find the religion to be confirming to their good human primitiveness, it actually refines and protects the good that they already have in their hearts and put it in on the right path, and succumbing to the will of God that validates their primitiveness would save them time and energy (some time and energy at least) of going through so much misery and drama then making ton of statistics to prove that "well this was wrong it should stop" and I'm not saying that religious people do not learn from experience, we are people we are not ideal, but in fact experience enriches the religion, since you are aware of the essence of religion, some rules could be updated to some extent in order to fit the new situation, and that's what God has given us brains for..
The whole point of the religion is to make life easier and keep the humanity from adverse consequences, I'm not saying a religious person is a walking-ideal creature of how the morals should be and who do not suffer any consequences of his bad decisions, but I say whenever a religious person deviates from the essence of the religion, his actions are always to be condemned by the essence and teachings of the religion..
As for the ideologies of extremism, radicalism, dictatorship, etc. they're merely serving certain political and selfish goals, it could exist in any society, any religion, even among atheists, but they would not last for the long run and won't grow because aside from the fact that it dies with the their protagonists, again they are not acceptable for morality purposes ..
Last but not least: if you don't believe that religion is meant to make the life easier for people, then you're determined to take the high way of exploring things by yourself, and testing theories of life, not that it's wrong, but it's just that you most probably would end up with a conclusion that is compatible to the religion it self..

 

[ZNP-TBA]

You said that human beings are capable of morality and I should strongly agree with that, the human primitiveness is capable of knowing the right and wrong, good and evil, and the main reason you should accept or refuse any religion is because of that sensing, atheists also refuse many religious rules and morals because they indicate that they're opposing to the human primitiveness and I can understand their concern and respect it,

What do you mean by "human primitiveness" exactly?

and this might seem a cliché and a bit romantic but human beings are originally good whether they're religious or not, (this what I believe to be something created by God)

Doesn't Original Sin contradict the idea that humans are originally good? If one is already good then why must one atone for a sin she didn't commit ( the Original Sin in a mythical garden with a talking snake)?

But here's the most important part:
humans are also taught by experience.. Thus if you read the history of any nation, you find that the society should have gone through so much tragedy and the history have to repeat itself over and over thousands of years of human history -and still do- before they realize that "Well it was wrong and we should change it"

Not sure how this relates to the topic at hand. I don't accept the idea that history has to repeat itself in order for people to learn though this has been the case ( I agree there) but there is no reason it has to be this way. We can learn apriori through logical reasoning whether something will be morally desirable or not before counting the countless and nameless dead bodies of failed social experiments. I don't see the human experience of learning and growing as deterministic.

so if you only depend on a human brain you'll find many of issues you frowns these days might be totally acceptable like 60 years to come, just as much as many issues 100 years ago were morally unacceptable are now just normal and unfortunately harmful for the society as well as for individuals, what are the limitations? Those should be clear it's highly important..

If anything this shows that the human perception of morality is ever changing (I would say usually for the better) and this creates a conundrum for the religious who claim objective morality from divinity. Even holy and sacred religious texts changed their moral code due to time and circumstances based on the human condition in the time period in which it was covering. The Bible, for example, allowed for slavery, rape, murder, etc. but modern Christians (post enlightenment) frown on such archaic 'morality' ( indeed even when it was codified in religious law) and have fundamentally changed (and keep changing) their religion to conform to modern widely accepted human standards of morality.

Though I won't deny that there are morals now that are way better than they were a 100 years ago, but many of them are actually validated by the religion so long before people tried -at least- to embrace them ..

I would say the religion changed to conform to modern widely accepted human standards of morality. In the past religion has been the justification for moral claims we would consider clearly immoral today (slavery for example).

Depending only on human brain is an absolute denial of the human nature which is good as well as dark and devastating, you say human brain is capable of morals without the religion to confront and be blinded to the fact

The human brain is part of nature, it is the source of 'human nature.' Are you claiming religion is something separate from human minds? Indeed, did not religion(s) themselves originate as a product of the human mind? I fail to see how religion has a source outside the human mind.

as long as you're not caught doing the wrong action or as long as you're not accountable for these actions then you're good to go.

Then real honor must not exist? There must be a supernatural sky God watching you at all times and you must answer to said sky God or else you will always commit the wrong action? Is this the conclusion you're arriving at?

So apparently talking about depending only on human brain to build up the moral system is too idealistic and romantic and -of course - unrealistic..

What else would attempt to create an objective system of morality and ethics? Space aliens? Maybe. So far, we only know of humans being the only species that care about complex moral questions and the thing that distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom is our relatively large brains. It would stand to reason our sense of morality is a byproduct of our evolved brains. I don't see why some people get so offended by that.

Now let's talk about how it works with the example of Abrahamic religions, the followers of these religions mainly find the religion to be confirming to their good human primitiveness

You still need to define human primitiveness please.

, it actually refines and protects the good that they already have in their hearts

Yet the Abrahamic religions are predicated on the concept of Original Sin. It means because of Adam and Eve we are "born sinners" and not good. We can only become good and atoned of Sin by conforming to the religious precepts. In Christianity's case, it's getting baptized and following Jesus. If we were already good from the getgo we wouldn't have to be forgiven for anything. Jesus died on the cross so people can be forgiven for a Sin they didn't commit, right? (unless being born is indeed a sin).

and succumbing to the will of God

What of free will then? If one is required to submit to another's (God's) will (Islam, for example, literally means submission) then how is free will not actually a sin too?

The whole point of the religion is to make life easier and keep the humanity from adverse consequences,

I agree but that doesn't make religious claims true or the deity people in a religion worship actually real.

Last but not least: if you don't believe that religion is meant to make the life easier for people, then you're determined to take the high way of exploring things by yourself, and testing theories of life, not that it's wrong, but it's just that you most probably would end up with a conclusion that is compatible to the religion it self..

I think religion does make life easier for many people but so what? I think it makes it easier for some people to deal with death. I think it makes it easier for some people to fit into their communities. I used to be religious, I was even influential as a religious person to some degree. But that says nothing about whether religion is the source of morality or not nor does it prove the claims made by religious dogma are actually true. I care about what's true and not necessarily what makes life easier for people. I personally believe that truth is preferable to falsehood no matter how uncomfortable the truth might make us even it makes us question everything we believed to be true before.

Thank you for responding though!

 

[Mole]

We may say morality originates in charismatic individuals such as Moses, Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammed. And all charismatic individuals die and their morality is carried on by institutions, not by charismatic individuals.

For instance, the public assassination of the President did not end the Presidency, because the Presidency is an institution, and the institution continues beyond even the death of a charismatic President.

However as we become more prosperous, our child rearing practices improve, and so our psyches improve, and as we improve, we need to improve our institutions.

The institution that is crying out for improvement today is Islam.

But by continuing our narcissistic focus on us as individuals, we fail to focus on the improvement of our institutions.

 

[Lark]

Simple, the very concept of morality in religion would never make sense if the notion of morality didn't preclude it. It's sort of like a cake. Morality or system of ethical behavior is one of the ingredients required in most religions which would be the cake. The cake didn't create the constituent ingredients rather vice versa.



Pre-existing golden age? Dafaq? Kind of a non-sequitur but okay. And?



My personal view of this fairy tale is exactly that, a fairy tale. It's analogous to the 'stork theory' of child birth. Surely we can do better when trying to understand the complexities of human morality?

Nothing further to discuss then, you're satisfied with the answers you have discovered to date and see no value in any others. That wouldnt work for me but I'm sure it works for you and good luck with that.

 

[Lark]

Please don't take this as an insult but it seems to me you have a very poor capacity for debate. I just scrolled over some of your arguments in various threads and it seems rather conclusive that you're a struggling sophist at best. I'm not just saying that or trying to insult you. I would be happy to quote various arguments you've made and point out which fallacies have been committed (repeatedly) so you know I'm not just hurling a baseless accusation. Just say the word and I'll compile a list.

Physician heal thyself.

 

[21%]

There was this really good video (where they draw fast-forward cartoons over a sound clip from an actual talk) that I can't find anymore. It's about how we judge good or bad with "us" being good and "them" being bad, which is vital to the survival of our species because it makes us altruistic with in the "us" group but aggressive towards "them" groups. However, we slowly evolve from family/tribal units to bigger and bigger units. In reality it's a bit more complicated than that, but that's basically the gist of it.

 

[geedoenfj]

What do you mean by "human primitiveness" exactly?

Human nature, human birth, the core of a human being .. [emoji28]

Not sure how this relates to the topic at hand. I don't accept the idea that history has to repeat itself in order for people to learn though this has been the case ( I agree there) but there is no reason it has to be this way. We can learn apriori through logical reasoning whether something will be morally desirable or not before counting the countless and nameless dead bodies of failed social experiments. I don't see the human experience of learning and growing as deterministic.

Well that's how it is, that's how it's always been and will always be, and no peace activists are gonna stop it..
There are issues that we as human might think are morally acceptable could show later that they're harmful, but you wouldn't realize until when there are people who actually harmed, but following the laws of religion that you might not understand the significance of them would be a shortcut of avoiding what statistics would show you later on..
Besides, moral is not logical, thus it cannot be taught by reasoning..
Also your morals could be totally different than someone else's morals, and this gap would be wider when he has other selfish agendas that he doesn't see why he shouldn't follow as long as there's a possibility that he will never be caught..

If anything this shows that the human perception of morality is ever changing (I would say usually for the better) and this creates a conundrum for the religious who claim objective morality from divinity. Even holy and sacred religious texts changed their moral code due to time and circumstances based on the human condition in the time period in which it was covering. The Bible, for example, allowed for slavery, rape, murder, etc. but modern Christians (post enlightenment) frown on such archaic 'morality' ( indeed even when it was codified in religious law) and have fundamentally changed (and keep changing) their religion to conform to modern widely accepted human standards of morality.

I would say the religion changed to conform to modern widely accepted human standards of morality. In the past religion has been the justification for moral claims we would consider clearly immoral today (slavery for example).

Basically religions do not change thier morality, there are rules that updates according to the time and place.. that's all.
No religion allowed for killing or rape unless you're misinterpreted or took some textiles out of their context which most probably a war context, you don't expect that people would not fight right? we don't ever expect that some day there won't be conflicts anymore, that's delusional, It's painful but it's the reality, and to deal with this reality religion contains laws of war..
As for slavery, the religion didn't found slavery, it was there from the beginning of civilizations, and human morals were totally ok with that because the social norms created by human were allowing that kind of practice, and again most of people are submissive to the norms as well as many other factors.. religion only managed to grant the slaves their rights as a human by forbidding any inhumane practices against them, cut the sources of slavery, then called for gradually ending it..

The human brain is part of nature, it is the source of 'human nature.' Are you claiming religion is something separate from human minds? Indeed, did not religion(s) themselves originate as a product of the human mind? I fail to see how religion has a source outside the human mind.


Then real honor must not exist? There must be a supernatural sky God watching you at all times and you must answer to said sky God or else you will always commit the wrong action? Is this the conclusion you're arriving at?

What else would attempt to create an objective system of morality and ethics? Space aliens? Maybe. So far, we only know of humans being the only species that care about complex moral questions and the thing that distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom is our relatively large brains. It would stand to reason our sense of morality is a byproduct of our evolved brains. I don't see why some people get so offended by that.

Apparently if I think religion is a product of human brain and still follow it, I won't be any different than an atheist believing in a human brain..
Unless you prove to me that if you have a company with employees that you don't to have to use any mean of control or look closely at their work what so ever to make sure they're doing their job properly and faithfully, because they're well educated about the "importance of morality" and -in fact- still have a high efficiency and honesty as much as if you were actually watching them, I would go with space aliens! As long as the employees would be aware that aliens are watching them closely and would reward them during life and/or after life for doing good, and punish them during life and/or after life if they were dishonest even if no higher authority was able to rewards or punish them while they're alive..
Even if you achieved that goal with these employees, you wouldn't be able to achieve it with the people in general it's unrealistic..
There are many social experiments in that field that proved that human beings are capable of doing horrible things if they don't feel accountable for their actions, and that's what happens during wars and conflicts and prisons etc. and as I mentioned our brains are submissive to many factors that could oppose or prevent morals, and the fact that you're with a good nature doesn't mean that you aren't possibly be submissive at some point to the factors and circumstances that I mentioned before, and also doesn't mean that other people are as of a good nature as you are..
Most religious people get offended by this kind of discussion because aside from that fact that the human nature generally tend to believe in a religion or a God (most of the time without questioning, which I think is ok as long as they don't have devastating or extreme ideologies and use religion to reason them) that they're also emotionally and spiritually tied to the religion, it gives them a peaceful zone in this cruel life.. so they would feel attacked on their precious things.
As for me I'm always questioning and exploring, I don't believe in something unless I question it, so I don't get offended as long as the discussion is respectable and the person is willing to listen..

What of free will then? If one is required to submit to another's (God's) will (Islam, for example, literally means submission) then how is free will not actually a sin too?

You are living a free will, you're free to choose whatever path you want, whatever religion, whatever non-religion, but as long as you're agreed to follow the religion you should submit to the laws or morals of God, or else you don't call yourself religious anymore.
And since God made us capable of sin, he also granted forgiveness to whoever wanted to be forgiven, he could have created us angels or people without sins but he didn't..

I agree but that doesn't make religious claims true or the deity people in a religion worship actually real.

You believe whatever you want that's your right, you are granted free will [emoji6]

I think religion does make life easier for many people but so what? I think it makes it easier for some people to deal with death. I think it makes it easier for some people to fit into their communities.

So you wanna take that away from them, that's your idea of a happy world you wicked ENTP [emoji12]

I care about what's true and not necessarily what makes life easier for people. I personally believe that truth is preferable to falsehood no matter how uncomfortable the truth might make us even it makes us question everything we believed to be true before.

Well people have different priorities, and deal with facts differently that's why we have diversity which is what makes this world an interesting place, not a boring one..

Thank you for responding though!

Oh you're welcome! [emoji72]🏻

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Human nature, human birth, the core of a human being .. [emoji28]

Sounds a bit vague. Can you be more specific? Not sure what you mean by human nature, birth, and core and how that relates to 'primitiveness.' I only ask because I don't want to assume what you mean.

Well that's how it is, that's how it's always been and will always be

How do you know?

There are issues that we as human might think are morally acceptable could show later that they're harmful, but you wouldn't realize until when there are people who actually harmed,

Why do people have to be harmed to realize something is bad? Why can't reason and common sense prevent the harm in the first place? We know that if a person drank motor oil they would most likely die. We don't need to have a few people drink motor oil to realize that. We already know through reasoning and common sense what the outcome would most likely be.

but following the laws of religion that you might not understand the significance of them would be a shortcut of avoiding what statistics would show you later on..

What statistics?

Besides, moral is not logical, thus it cannot be taught by reasoning..

What? Isn't this the reason we create rules? Rules are supposed to be reasonable within the context of the matter so they are comprehensible thus there are usually justifications for any rule. Would you be able to explain to your child why murdering is wrong without evoking some supernatural reason?

Also your morals could be totally different than someone else's morals, and this gap would be wider when he has other selfish agendas that he doesn't see why he shouldn't follow as long as there's a possibility that he will never be caught..

Why would the other person be assumed to have 'selfish agendas?'(whatever that means). It's true, people may have different values but to interact positively with each other they automatically adopt some common values they may not even be fully conscious of. This is where the concepts of common law arise from. And isn't it interesting that most people still don't automatically do something considered immoral even if there is little chance they will get caught?

Basically religions do not change thier morality, there are rules that updates according to the time and place.. that's all.

Isn't that a contradiction? Religions both change their perception of morality and do not? Didn't Jesus directly contradict the old law of eye for an eye?

No religion allowed for killing or rape unless you're misinterpreted or took some textiles out of their context which most probably a war context, you don't expect that people would not fight right?

So rape and murder are okay in war? What about war crimes?

we don't ever expect that some day there won't be conflicts anymore, that's delusional, It's painful but it's the reality, and to deal with this reality religion contains laws of war..

Do not the Abrahamic religions believe that one day there will not be wars and conflicts once Satan is eternally vanquished? Doesn't the Christian tradition teach that God will remake the world into another paradise after the rapture? How can you, as a believer, not believe the world will be without conflict some day when your religion(probably) promotes a day in which evil will disappear.

As for slavery, the religion didn't found slavery, it was there from the beginning of civilizations, and human morals were totally ok with that because the social norms created by human were allowing that kind of practice, and again most of people are submissive to the norms as well as many other factors.. religion only managed to grant the slaves their rights as a human by forbidding any inhumane practices against them, cut the sources of slavery, then called for gradually ending it..

Nobody knows exactly where slavery began so I won't blame its inception on religion necessarily. However, religion was often used as a justification for slavery. The Greek polytheists believed slaves were not favored by their gods and something less than Greek. Christian slaveholders believed sub-Saharan Africans were of the flock of Cain and not completely human. Muslims believed others were inferior based on their religious teachings, etc. I'm not saying religion was the direct cause of slavery but for many centuries it was used to justify it.

Unless you prove to me that if you have a company with employees that you don't to have to use any mean of control or look closely at their work what so ever to make sure they're doing their job properly and faithfully, because they're well educated about the "importance of morality" and -in fact- still have a high efficiency and honesty as much as if you were actually watching them, I would go with space aliens!

A company's success isn't only determined by its management structure. There are tons of factors that go into a successful company and labor is just one of them. A company's success is ultimately determined by its customers and thus the managerial structure of a company is always subject to what kind of demand the company must meet, its not just the whims of the managers/owners. Yes, managers are there to optimize efficiency but that doesn't make them immune from receiving corrective action. As far as the overall company structure, managers are part of the machine just as much as the managed. There isn't some greater manager the machine operates for rather it operates to meet customer demand, OUR demand.

As long as the employees would be aware that aliens are watching them closely and would reward them during life and/or after life for doing good, and punish them during life and/or after life if they were dishonest even if no higher authority was able to rewards or punish them while they're alive..

That sounds like a concentration camp. The Nazis rewarded the Jews by maybe not killing them if they were productive in the camps. If they were not, certain death.

There are many social experiments in that field that proved that human beings are capable of doing horrible things if they don't feel accountable for their actions, and that's what happens during wars and conflicts and prisons etc.

That's not the argument here. Of course humans are capable of doing horrific things just like they're capable of doing fantastic things. The question really is this: Is belief in a supernatural invisible entity in the sky that sees everything required for people not to do horrific things? If this were the case then atheists would be pretty much committing horrific acts all the time and religious people would automatically start committing horrific acts the moment their faith lapsed.

Most religious people get offended by this kind of discussion because aside from that fact that the human nature generally tend to believe in a religion or a God (most of the time without questioning, which I think is ok as long as they don't have devastating or extreme ideologies and use religion to reason them) that they're also emotionally and spiritually tied to the religion, it gives them a peaceful zone in this cruel life.. so they would feel attacked on their precious things.

Perception, my dear. If you perceive the world as a cruel and intolerable place and the only way you can make peace with it is through religion then more power to you. If you see the world as capable of being positive and a great place and perceive real joy in life then you don't need to drug yourself with perceptions offered by supernatural explanations. I don't know if its in human nature to be religious. I wouldn't call babies and small children religious by nature (in fact, I think it can be argued that they are rather irreligious until religious values are forced upon them by their parents/communities)

As for me I'm always questioning and exploring, I don't believe in something unless I question it, so I don't get offended as long as the discussion is respectable and the person is willing to listen..

How much can you really explore if you already know the conclusion? Simply questioning something doesn't make it believable to me. I look for evidence in the answers first. I rarely get offended. Being offended is typically a way to wiggle out of a weak position if the opposing argument being made is succinct and well reasoned (even if it comes of as offensive).

You are living a free will, you're free to choose whatever path you want, whatever religion, whatever non-religion, but as long as you're agreed to follow the religion you should submit to the laws or morals of God, or else you don't call yourself religious anymore.

No, I don't really think so. How can one gain favor with god by being an atheist? lol
In other words god promises eternal punishment to all who have not submitted to his will (his rules and regulations/laws , etc.)
Sure a religious person may claim " But you have the choice to submit to God or not," but all that means is that if you choose to not submit your free will to God's path then you will be punished in damnation forever (doesn't matter how much "good" you think you are doing). This is analogous to saying a Jew in a concentration camp had the "choice" to disobey the Nazi guards but if he did then he would surely be tortured and even killed. In other words god gave no choice because he stacked the deck so heavily(eternal damnation of the soul) for anyone who did not submit their free will to follow him.

And since God made us capable of sin, he also granted forgiveness to whoever wanted to be forgiven, he could have created us angels or people without sins but he didn't..

The Abrahamic religion I grew up with teaches Original Sin. This means I was in Sin the moment I was conceived (don't see how this is really a choice). God gives me the 'choice' to follow him through following rules and regulations set forth by religions that claim to follow him so that I may be given forgiveness for a "sin" I never committed ( that "Sin" being my birth since I am allegedly the offspring of a mythical couple in a magical garden tricked by a talking snake to eat some funky fruit just 6.000 years ago).

 

[geedoenfj]

Sounds a bit vague. Can you be more specific? Not sure what you mean by human nature, birth, and core and how that relates to 'primitiveness.' I only ask because I don't want to assume what you mean.

English is not my first language, that's all that my dictionary suggested [emoji23]
I'll try one more time, like when the baby is born, he's of an innocent nature, that's how the human being originally is, I hope this makes it clearer

How do you know?

.

Told by space aliens [emoji89]

Why do people have to be harmed to realize something is bad? Why can't reason and common sense prevent the harm in the first place? We know that if a person drank motor oil they would most likely die. We don't need to have a few people drink motor oil to realize that. We already know through reasoning and common sense what the outcome would most likely be

Reason have to do with facts, what facts can you offer to support morality? Moral is good but not logical, it's not mathematics or chemistry, the only reasoning it depends on is your personal reasoning..
The motor oil example can be reasoned with medical and chemical facts about the possible damages it might cause to his own body, but if he drank it; the common sense would be that he is committing suicide because he's feeling depressed or pain, his morals wouldn't let him to kill himself when his mind isn't under effect of depression.
Again we are submissive to factors and circumstances that can sometimes change our good nature, that's why we need something that keep us strong and put us on the right direction whenever we deviate, a value system that we refer to whenever we feel like doing something stupid..

What statistics?

Statistics that shows a harm the permission of some laws prohibited by religion cause for the society..

What? Isn't this the reason we create rules? Rules are supposed to be reasonable within the context of the matter so they are comprehensible thus there are usually justifications for any rule.
.

Rules and morals are two different concepts, rules are set of laws that organizes the dealings among people in the society in a way that serves the public benefit, while morals are personal values that comes from the individual's reasoning for right and wrong and high sense of responsibility and commitment and consciousness..
Immoral people can use lawful means to achieve immoral goals..

Would you be able to explain to your child why murdering is wrong without evoking some supernatural reason?
.

Ok why murdering is wrong? Because it's illegal and you will be put in prison? that is a lesson of a law that based on morals, not a lesson of morals..

Why would the other person be assumed to have 'selfish agendas?'(whatever that means). It's true, people may have different values but to interact positively with each other they automatically adopt some common values they may not even be fully conscious of. This is where the concepts of common law arise from. And isn't it interesting that most people still don't automatically do something considered immoral even if there is little chance they will get caught?

Laws are made basically because there are bad people that we need to set limitations for, so assuming that it's wrong to think that there are people with (selfish agendas) is impractical, and interacting with them might effect your morals, not in a good way because human is affected by his environment, that's why we always need hang out with friends of good morals to make us grow morally..
It's not that majority of people are with "selfish agendas" but there are many of them and they can be very ambitious and would use any mean to get what they want which gives them even more power over other people..

Isn't that a contradiction? Religions both change their perception of morality and do not? Didn't Jesus directly contradict the old law of eye for an eye?

The perception is the same, but the rule changes according to time and place, again law is a thing, moral is another thing..

So rape and murder are okay in war? What about war crimes?

.

So you think that he told people that it is okay to kill and rape during war or without war and people still followed him??
Isn't that something we need to consider while talking about how human mind is capable of morality when in fact humans can widely accept this kind of cruelty from one person who had absolutely no power or authority over them but was -in fact- able to convince them with that crap and they actually believed in him?
Again there's a certain context that it's been taken out of it, which changes the meaning and purpose..

Do not the Abrahamic religions believe that one day there will not be wars and conflicts once Satan is eternally vanquished? Doesn't the Christian tradition teach that God will remake the world into another paradise after the rapture? How can you, as a believer, not believe the world will be without conflict some day when your religion(probably) promotes a day in which evil will disappear.

.

Well since I believe that Satan is the one who basically insinuate people into doing immoral actions, then I must believe if he vanquished the world would be a happy place, that would be paradise, until then, the conflicts unfortunately are carrying on..

Nobody knows exactly where slavery began so I won't blame its inception on religion necessarily. However, religion was often used as a justification for slavery. The Greek polytheists believed slaves were not favored by their gods and something less than Greek. Christian slaveholders believed sub-Saharan Africans were of the flock of Cain and not completely human. Muslims believed others were inferior based on their religious teachings, etc. I'm not saying religion was the direct cause of slavery but for many centuries it was used to justify it.

The inhuman treatment that these people received are to be blamed on their owners not the religion, religion prohibited catching any free man making them slaves unless it's a battle, because these were the norms and kind of reciprocity at that time, but it imposed rules of how they should be treated, and always called for granting freedom for slaves and that whoever grant freedom for a slave would be rewarded by God.
But since taking slaves in the war these days is not a norm anymore (they're only taking prisoners and torture them these days) then there should be no more slavery, it's forbidden ..
I can understand why atheists are upset about it, they prefer if the religion immediately called off slavery..

A company's success isn't only determined by its management structure. There are tons of factors that go into a successful company and labor is just one of them. A company's success is ultimately determined by its customers and thus the managerial structure of a company is always subject to what kind of demand the company must meet, its not just the whims of the managers/owners. Yes, managers are there to optimize efficiency but that doesn't make them immune from receiving corrective action. As far as the overall company structure, managers are part of the machine just as much as the managed. There isn't some greater manager the machine operates for rather it operates to meet customer demand, OUR demand.

We're still talking about moral here, their work ethics.. not economical circumstances..

That sounds like a concentration camp. The Nazis rewarded the Jews by maybe not killing them if they were productive in the camps. If they were not, certain death.

That's why law and morals are two different things.
This is an example of immoral law, and things like that is what made a huge wakeup call for the Europeans after sensing the consequences of this kind of ideology, so they were taught by experience, they were taught the lesson over millions of dead bodies and countless miseries, and I wish the world would be able to remember it for many generations to come so they won't let it anything like that ever happen again..

That's not the argument here. Of course humans are capable of doing horrific things just like they're capable of doing fantastic things. The question really is this: Is belief in a supernatural invisible entity in the sky that sees everything required for people not to do horrific things? If this were the case then atheists would be pretty much committing horrific acts all the time and religious people would automatically start committing horrific acts the moment their faith lapsed.

.

Apparently if I think that atheists are committing horrible things because they're non religious, then I would assume that religious are angels walking on the earth!
Good and bad are natural sense that comes with human nature, but again as I mentioned, there are many factors that intervene and change or deviate it, there are also many things that we -with a good intention- might think that are morally acceptable could have bad effects later on. There should be a solid value system to support that right and wrong sensing that we could refer to whenever a new situation comes up, whenever a person of a certain religion deviates from this pre-agreed value he should be reminded to keep strict and do not use any kind of justification whatsoever for his immoral actions..

Perception, my dear. If you perceive the world as a cruel and intolerable place and the only way you can make peace with it is through religion then more power to you. If you see the world as capable of being positive and a great place and perceive real joy in life then you don't need to drug yourself with perceptions offered by supernatural explanations. I don't know if its in human nature to be religious. I wouldn't call babies and small children religious by nature (in fact, I think it can be argued that they are rather irreligious until religious values are forced upon them by their parents/communities)

.

The perception my dear that there are many people with troubles in this big happy world, I can tell you about mine but just in case I want to ruin your joyful day [emoji39]
I'm not perceiving the world as a cruel place, but I'm accepting the reality that people are capable of cruelty if they find a tangible reason for it.
I perceive the world as an interesting place that I hope I would be able to make even a little difference to make it more peaceful and joyful..

I look for evidence in the answers first.
.

I also look for evidence first, but as for the evidence of existence of God, as a matter of fact you'll never believe in him even if he appeared to you and tell you "hey I'm your God" you'd then ask for evidence to prove to you that he's the God because being a super natural figure doesn't mean you're God, which is apparently humiliating because an almighty being like God doesn't need to prove to you that he exists, because simply he doesn't need you to believe in him, he can create endless creatures that believe him other than you, and even if he prove to you that he is the God, you'd not necessarily believe him, and there's -in fact- no meaning for a belief when you can sense him by sight..

Being offended is typically a way to wiggle out of a weak position if the opposing argument being made is succinct and well reasoned (even if it comes of as offensive).

As I mentioned, religious people rarely review or question their beliefs, which I don't see why it is a big deal, even if you think that religion is not real and is merely human creation, at least it's giving them hope and helping them come over many difficulties in life, I simply believe in my religion and respect the beliefs of others, unless they believe in something devastating or dangerous that involves terrorism or racism etc..
Besides, I see the point of conversation and discussion is to find mutual understanding within our differences and more ability to accept these differences, that's why I don't get offended by a respectable discussion..

No, I don't really think so. How can one gain favor with god by being an atheist? lol
In other words god promises eternal punishment to all who have not submitted to his will (his rules and regulations/laws , etc.)
Sure a religious person may claim " But you have the choice to submit to God or not," but all that means is that if you choose to not submit your free will to God's path then you will be punished in damnation forever (doesn't matter how much "good" you think you are doing). This is analogous to saying a Jew in a concentration camp had the "choice" to disobey the Nazi guards but if he did then he would surely be tortured and even killed. In other words god gave no choice because he stacked the deck so heavily(eternal damnation of the soul) for anyone who did not submit their free will to follow him.

Because we are livings in a big Nazi camp, if you don't obey the religion; the priest is gonna damn you forever, or you can choose to obey and he might keep you alive, you choose! Praise God [emoji1]
The punishment and damnation is from God, but since you know there's no God, you wouldn't be afraid of punishment..

The Abrahamic religion I grew up with teaches Original Sin. This means I was in Sin the moment I was conceived (don't see how this is really a choice). God gives me the 'choice' to follow him through following rules and regulations set forth by religions that claim to follow him so that I may be given forgiveness for a "sin" I never committed ( that "Sin" being my birth since I am allegedly the offspring of a mythical couple in a magical garden tricked by a talking snake to eat some funky fruit just 6.000 years ago).

Sin is a part of our nature, but as long as you ask God for forgiveness it will always be granted to you, and as long as you're searching and questioning and using your mind for good for good, you'll always be guided to the right path, or at least rewarded for trying to find the right path..

 

[ZNP-TBA]

English is not my first language, that's all that my dictionary suggested [emoji23]

Out of curiosity, what's your first language?

I'll try one more time, like when the baby is born, he's of an innocent nature, that's how the human being originally is, I hope this makes it clearer

Ok but this flies in the face of Original Sin which is a staple of Abrahamic religions. If you are innocent at birth then you have no need for Jesus. Wasn't the whole point of Jesus dying on a cross to give mortals a chance to absolve themselves of Original Sin?

Reason have to do with facts, what facts can you offer to support morality?

Evidence has to do with facts. Someone can reason without using facts, happens all the time. Reason only points out a rational thought process but it doesn't make something true in and of itself without evidence. Your question about morality doesn't make sense to me. Can you elaborate more?

Moral is good but not logical, it's not mathematics or chemistry, the only reasoning it depends on is your personal reasoning..

Isn't making a moral claim basically making a universal claim? In other words if you say "X is moral" then for it to have anything to do with morality doesn't it have to apply to everyone since morality itself is a interpersonal concept? We only care about morality because we deal with other people, right? If universality is a criteria for morality then we can look at it logically from a consistency standpoint.

The motor oil example can be reasoned with medical and chemical facts about the possible damages it might cause to his own body, but if he drank it; the common sense would be that he is committing suicide because he's feeling depressed or pain, his morals wouldn't let him to kill himself when his mind isn't under effect of depression.

The motor oil example was to point out that we can deduce certain things apriori without having to endure suffering first. I wouldn't necessarily call suicide immoral since it cannot be universally sustained. If my arm was infected with a deadly disease and the only way I can live and alleviate the suffering was to amputate it then I would do so in the same way if living was unbearable enough that I prefer the peace of death instead.

Again we are submissive to factors and circumstances that can sometimes change our good nature,

Again I think you would have to reject the notion that you have 'good nature' if you are a follower of Abrahamic religion which believes in Original Sin. If your nature is good why do you need Jesus?

that's why we need something that keep us strong and put us on the right direction whenever we deviate, a value system that we refer to whenever we feel like doing something stupid..

I fail to see why adopting a code of ethics necessarily requires superstitious beliefs.

Statistics that shows a harm the permission of some laws prohibited by religion cause for the society..

Post them and let's discuss. Sounds like a delicious topic

Ok why murdering is wrong?

I think this goes back to is/ought dichotomy. You cannot universalize ( and therefore, moralize) murder is moral. Because that implies that if something is moral than people ought to do that something. If you make the claim murder is moral then it means people ought to murder. This is basically impossible because everyone would have to be murdering everyone else at all times in order to live morally. Not only would it seriously risk wiping out the species but there is no option to refrain from immorality. If someone is murdering then it implies someone, the victim, is being murdered and thus the victim is being immoral since he is not the murderer. It's actually absurd to suggest murder is ever moral.




I need to get back to work but I'll reply to the rest later. Interesting convo