Holidays 
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Ask to an AI Persona
Travel Buddy
I'm your go-to travel companion, passionate about exploring new destinations and experiencing...
James The Foodie
From savoring Italian classics to discovering the bold flavors of Japanese cuisine, I explore...
Fashionista Amy
I'm here to inspire and guide you with a touch of latest trends or advice on personal style.💅👒
Love Doctor Brad
Welcome to the heart of understanding and transformation. I am your guide on this journey to...
Athletic Chloe
Whether you need tips on improving your game, insights on fitness and nutrition, or just want to...
Cinematic Lily
With my rich background and passion for the arts, I share insights on films, TV shows, and...
Advisor Smith
With years of experience guiding individuals in their education and career paths, I'm here to...
Gamer Bella
With my passion and experience in hobbies and leisure activities, I'm here to offer personalized...
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
57Opinion
"If god were to come out with a new revelation tomorrow and say, "whoops, I was wrong I didn't mean though shall not murder, I meant though shall murder!" "
But the fact is He has never said that.
Different gods throughout history have, and that completely misses the point. The point is that if X is moral because god said so, then Y would also be moral if god said so.
Close enough. In the Bible, he's told plenty of people to murder others. Or is it not murder because God said it's cool?
The fact is that, for somebody who believes in a God that tells him not to kill, your point makes no sense.
The commandment you speak of reads "thou shalt not kill". This was too confusing for people because obviously you kill animals to eat them, or you may kill in self-defense or to protect the life of an innocent. So the new King James version changed it to thou shalt not murder, but there's a lot more to the original meaning. It's just that humans are too lazy to dig deeper and figure out what it is.
@loveslongnails I don't get you well my English level is limited. Can you explain please?
I didn’t read this largely because I never thought of morals as religious teachings.
Hmm, weird. Where I'm from people think it isn't possible to have morality unless you have some religion.
And yet you somehow state that it’s a myth?
Yes.
a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
synonyms: folk tale, folk story, legend, tale, story, fable, saga, mythos, lore, folklore, mythology
"ancient Greek myths"
2.
a widely held but false belief or idea.
"he wants to dispel the myth that sea kayaking is too risky or too strenuous"
Did you read my comment?
Which comment? Are you actually debating with someone who agrees with your initial premise?
I'm saying that the concept "morality comes from religions" is a myth. That is literally what my title says.
Morality comes from religion is a Myth.
Myth: A widely held but false belief
and I “literally” said “I never thought of morals as religious...” ie agreement with you. Why are you debating me? Are you bored? Lonely?
No, I said that where I live the opposite is the normative belief, then you responded by saying, "And yet you somehow state that it’s a myth?" then I pointed out the definition of myth. Are you pulling my leg here? Just messing with me?
You must be slow. I’m sorry. Let me be clearer. If as I said, I don’t believe in this particular myth, I agree it’s a false assertion that morality comes from religion. .
We both agree, that it is a myth. Maybe it's too early in the morning or something where you live. This is tiresome, and you trying to insult me is just annoying.
Have a good one.
Furthermore, it's kind of creepy when people say: "How can you be moral without God?"
In your head, you'd ask, What if you found out there was no God? Are you going to murder people?
Lack of religion will weaken your morality, and society as a whole. You will start being more egotistic, selfish, cynical, a fan of relativism in every sphere of life. Some people can maintain high moral standards even as atheists, but on the whole, a society that does away with religion is doomed. It may be a slow death, but as I watch the moral and spiritual decline of the West, and the utter horror of what its people, culture, and moral systems have degenerated into, I hope the next generation will tell the ignorant, arrogant crowd of depraved idiots who declare they 'fucking love science' and dot need a 'sky daddy' to go f*** themselves. And they can take their Cultural Marxism with them.
Everytime I write something people get triggered 😤😤
Haha I think yours was the straw that broke the camels back. I had been thinking about writing about this for a while, but I just never had the interest, but in the face of more and more people stating the opposite I felt I needed to get my two-cents out. Apparently most people didn't even bother to read it, which is frustrating.
Lmao. That's normal. Don't bother answering each and everyone's comment. Many people just comment to get 7 xper.
Lmao. A drunken myTake about the evolutionary/ natural basis for morality. ↗
I guess you're sober now lol
Haha yup. That was my first response after reading their article while I was drinking with some friends 😂
I've been sober for a whole month. I'm not happy about it
I have always supported people's religious beliefs. That being said, I've also always believed that if you really need an afterlife burning in hell to convince you to not act like a twat; you probably are one.
Read the bible it tells you what we should do. I know you say oh not another nut but it can educate ,, not what some guy in a dog collar ideas of what he thinks. It has been around for a couple of thousand years , old isn't useless. It tells us what earth looks like . Hygene rules quarantine people when they are sick. And a lot more...
Should I own slaves?
You are missing the point. People want to know how to live their lives and the bible does that.
Their lives where different back in bible times we dont offer animal sacrifices but the way they lived is the same as now. Their problems desires and needs are the same as ours. Families had problems with their kids men still fancied someone ellses wife. if they had followed the bible teachings they could have sorted things out...
Like owning slaves. That law was followed pretty well until just a hundred or so years ago 😂
Where does the Bible tells you that you should own a slave?
@Jenima Exodus 21:20-21 is one such verse that particularly tells you you can beat them until the brink of death. God often tells the israelites to take slaves though.
Then in the NT Jesus says, "slaves obey your masters" and Colossians 3:22 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."
@ladsin Exodus 21:20-21 "20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."
Were is it written that you SHOULD own a slave?
@ladsin Colossians 3:22 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."
Isn't that a good advice for someone who is a slave? Won't it prevent him to go through unnecessary trouble?
@Jenima I don't believe that you're intentionally being deceptive, but the version you use is very weird. "20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." Noone should have another human as their property.
That said, it really isn't hard to find more. You have to try pretty hard to miss them. "44As for your male and female slaves whom you may have-- you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession" “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do."
Let's say I am a Christian mother who thinks that one should have sex only after marriage. I have a stubborn child who doesn't want to follow that rule and I'm concerned about their health. If I tell them "Use condoms" am I agreeing that he should have sex? No. I'm thinking that since he can't obey me at least it won't be too bad that way. That's wisdom.
"But the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves. And you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you." "“When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her." etc
@Jenima IF god could tell people to not eat shellfish he could fucking tell them to not own humans as property.
God is against slavery.
Jeremiah 22:13 ESV
“Woe to him who builds his house by unrighteousness, and his upper rooms by injustice, who makes his neighbor serve him for nothing and does not give him his wages,
Ephesians 6:9 ESV
Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.
Ecclesiastes 8:9 ►
New International Version
All this I saw, as I applied my mind to everything done under the sun. There is a time when a man lords it over others to his own hurt.
I can give you many more.
This is a verse that I love:
Matthew 19:8
New International Version
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.''
God knows how proud and wicked men are. He tells us how we should be but tells us also what we should do since we are so flawful for us to live a better life on Earth.
@Jenima None of that says that slavery is bad, and none of that addresses the fact that god commanded it.
@ladsin I've answered to all that. Those laws does not reflect the wish of God, but the weakedness of human. And considering that, God gives rules to help people get along as much as possible with our wichedness.
Leviticus 19:34King James Version (KJV)
34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.
@Jenima And I say if that's the god you believe in, it's weak. If it can tell you to put children to death because they're from a different tribe he can tell you not to keep people as property.
You said "None of that says that slavery is bad, and none of that addresses the fact that god commanded it."
I quote
"What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. (...) In Bible times, slavery was based more on economics; it was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. (...) Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters. (...) The Bible condemns race-based slavery in that it teaches that all men are created by God and made in His image (Genesis 1:27). (...)
In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing,” which is what happened in Africa in the 16th to 19th centuries." www.google.cm/.../Bible-slavery.html
"And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt lov
@Jenima That's referencing hebrew slaves. Not slaves taken in war. I'm done talking to you. Good day.
"Thou shall love thy neighboor as thyself"
In the Bible God recommends precisely to the Israelites that they should not take nobody as slave (man-stealing) because they were slaves themselves in Egypt.
Religion can have an input on what people’s morals are but there are lots of other things involved such as culture, sexuality, era and many other things
Did you read what I wrote?
I don't treat people well because I'm afraid of fire and brimstone.
I treat people well because I'm a decent person.
But there are certain cases where more than one opinion/solution sounds right. Morals can be very subjective in those cases. Of course you can have basic morals without religion, but religion can make people think twice before doing something wrong.
"No, I don't think it is relative, because we set up an objective standard "well-being" and we can compare our actions in regards to that standard. Some people may respond that well-being isn't well defined, and I agree that it can be difficult to parse out where to draw this line, but just because it's difficult doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it. Physical health is also a pretty vacuous, or ill-defined term, yet we can still say pretty assuredly that the person walking around is in better physical health than the person laying down dead. Secular Moral systems admit that we will fail, we will not always have the right notion of well-being, or have the right methodology to fix it, but the good think about secular moral systems is that they have built into them the ability to get better. As we learn more about the world, about the human body, about how others feel pain, etc we can adjust what we believe to be moral as a result."
It is not always possible to do that. I do believe that in such cases where drawing a line becomes tough, religion can actually help us with it.
You believe that there's a situation in which we can't possibly learn about what causes harm and what doesn't?
Sometimes it really does happen. Sometimes we really can't tell what's best for us.
Name one
Hmm, let's talk about pro-life vs pro-choice. Tbh both sides are talking about morals and neither sound wrong if you try not to be biased. When is abortion okay and when is it not?
That gets into the concept of rights and bodily autonomy. No person has the right to utilize your organs without your consent.
Would you consider the fetus in the womb as just a part of the mother's body or a different soul on itself?
I don't believe in souls, but I'll take your question seriously all the same, but change the wording. We'll grant the fetus rights to personhood (I don't agree, because technically a fetus is just a parasite, at least until age of viability), but for the sake of argument, and because I understand I will grant you that the fetus has the rights associated with personhood. I'm a person with full rights as a person, do I have the right to utilize your organs to sustain my life?
You don't. Because things are not meant to be like that. The case of a fetus is different. And yes by soul I actually meant that it's now a someone instead of something.
What about a young child. Say a 5 year old needs a kidney or liver transplant. Does it have a right to the mother's?
If the mother is capable and willing then yes a kidney transplant would be fine. Liver, doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
A five year old child is out of the mother's womb, by the way.
Stop asking questions to drag this topic. Whatever you are willing to say just state it. Or else we are getting too slow with this.
Of course if the mother is willing to give up her kidney that'd be fine. I would also say if she was willing to give up her kidney that would be fine. I'm pointing out that there's a flaw in your current thought process. You are not treating a fetus like a person. You are granting them extra special rights that you don't accept for anyone else.
What
Which part did you not understand? I'd be happy to try and restate it.
I should ask this to you instead. I was saying that one example of 'drawing the line' is abortion. To what extent is abortion okay and why? This topic has several opinions however a line has to be drawn.
Then I don't know how we got in here.
You asked what I thought on abortion, I responded, you responded and here we are? It seems like a pretty easy progression to me.
You were asking more questions instead of answering your opinion directly.
I did answer your question. I said it's part of the mother's right to self autonomy. We live in society and our rights often come into conflicts with others. This is a case in which the fetus' supposed right to live comes into conflict with the mother's right to self autonomy. If we wouldn't force a mother to give her organs to a born baby we can't ask her to give them up for a fetus.
How about I say that, even when the child is outside of the mother's body it's not like he is no more dependent on his parents. Parents still have to put a lot of effort on children until they grow up. A fetus still has life of it's own so we can't abort it, just how we can't murder babies or toddlers.
Ugh yeah. We agree that you can't murder toddlers. But not giving a toddler your organs when it needs a kidney transplant would not be considered murder, would it?
No. Because by then the body of the toddler doesn't depend on the mother's body directly to carry out it's function and development.
So let's see if I understand. It is ok for a fetus to use someone else's organs without their consent, but it is not ok for that same child to do the same after it's born?
Why the hell would it even be about consent as a fetus? It is supposed to be dependent on the mother's organs that's why it is in the womb throughout its development. A kid is out if the mother's womb and has organs that are working and developing by themselves. No way can these two be compared.
The fetus has the right to live. First of all, it wasn't the fault of the fetus that it's formed. Secondly, while having sex, even if using more than one forms of birth control they should be aware of the fact that accidents happen and they can happen to anyone. Most people here argue about rape, incest etc stuff but that's only 1% of abortions talking place. 99% is consensual sex.
It's about consent of the mother, not of the fetus, because it's the mother's body. What about the incidences of rape? Should they be allowed to abort?
It is not about consent. Is the fetus an adult that it has to be about consent? The hell no. And like I said, I am not going to talk about rape until the major case is talked about first.
Wow. There you have a GCE 😂
That's supposed to be my dialogue, lol. You are insane enough to believe that a fetus and a baby have the same rights over their mother's organs.
Right, neither has a right to her organs. How is this hard to get? I said you have a gross conceptual error because not once have I talked about the consent of a fetus or a baby.
The fetus has full rights to her organs as long as it is not delivered yet. And consent? I never talked about the consent of the fetus. I said that the fetus using its mother's organs has nothing to do with consent. Fetuses are formed by sex. 99% of the fetuses that get aborted were formed by consensual sex. Afterwards, birth control is not 100% effective and accidents can happen and anyone having sex should be prepared. Not only the woman but also the man.
Do we need nature's consent to get oxygen?
"Is the fetus an adult that it has to be about consent? The hell no."
Nature's consent doesn't even make sense. So either you're just not interested in the topic and thus coming up with ridiculous strawmen of what I'm saying, or you just can't understand the topic of consent... Which would be troubling. Either way, this is tiresome. I don't know how else to say this, and maybe one day we'll talk again, but for now there appears to be no ability for common dialogue between us on this issue. Good day.
Firstly, I asked if the fetus is an adult. I never talked about its consent. Secondly, a no one has the right to take a fetus out only because the mother doesn't want it at all. The problem is that, you are purposely trying to twist my words in a way that we are getting away from the actual topic. So I decided that I won't waste my time on you either. Actually, never ever again. Byeee 👋
People give religion morals. And religion then teaches those morals. I don't know what myth you are going on about. They use "Divine Commandment" or fear of God to get the less educated to listen and obey. They didn't want anybody coming along and rewriting those teachings to suit their interests. Politics is the embodiment of such a system where democracy determines what is allowed and what isn't.
Religion gives morals to those who are incapable of reasoning out their own.
Awwwwwwww, you're so CUTE. You think a 100-year-old concept is something new. This is old news, kid, and your exposition will convince nobody. This isn't to say that I disagree with the basic statement, but you have brought absolutely nothing new to the table.
Aww thanks love bug! You added so much dialogue here it's almost impossible for me to imagine how long it took you to think of this!
Okay, little boy, what NEW statements have you brought? Where is the new argument?
I didn't say I brought anything new. Sweety, this was simply expanding other's thoughts. It was a description of my thoughts on the issue. I didn't say or presume that I was bringing any new thoughts to the table.
Jewish intellectuals and bald, cynical narcissists are hardly going to convince me I don't need faith. I am done with atheism and all that talk how atheists can be moral, too. They can be, but atheist societies tend to fall apart and descend into nihilism and moral relativism.
Religion is a guideline on how to live life. Morals are your own actions and may be influenced by religion or not. At the end of the day men protected women from dinosaurs saber tooths etc without even a thank you. And those men never raped the women even though with no legal system during that time they could have. Morals existed long before religion.
Of course we don't need religion to be moral. However, if you don't believe in God or hell and believe that both good and evil people ceases to exist when they die, then that can give you freedom to live a selfish life without fear of any punishment. That's why throughout history atheist regimes have committed mass murder. They had nothing to fear. In my experience I see more morality coming from religious people than atheists. And by the way, Matt Dillahunty is a ignorant, arrogant buffoon.
The religious are incarcerated at far higher rates than atheists. You have to be accountable to other people.
Hitler was a Christian, and I presume you're thinking of people like Mao, Stalin, and Kim Jong which set themselves up as gods.
I don't think that's an accurate summation of matts charachtee, and I don't think you have any justification for saying so.
Hitler was not a Christian, and atheist regimes have murdered the most people throughout history.
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. ... Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross" -Adolf
Ah, you're right this is the typical atheist manifesto. I forgot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8VFFW0sbF4
best way to be said.
You are aware that the majority of the Nazis were atheists, right? And who cares if Hitler called himself a Christian. Calling yourself doesn't make you a Christian anymore than being in a garage makes you a car.
No. The vast majority were lutheran. On the belt of every soldier was "god is with us" all soldiers had to swear in the name of an almighty god. I hope you're not being serious.
Surely you can't be this stupid? That's like saying every American is a Christian because they have "In God we Trust" printed on their dollar notes.
germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/.../...ABELLE_GER.pdf
Holy fucking shit! Would you look at that, 94% professing Christians!
Fuck yourself sideways.
Did you pull that out of your ass? It proves nothing.
It is a study about religiosity in Germany from 1910-1940. Haha you can't even take two seconds to look at a link? Wow, you must really be an erudite man!
Nothing you have given me proves that Hitler was a Christian.
He wrote consistently about his beliefs in god, and specifically Jesus. You can be a stubborn ass if you want, but at least I'm intellectually honest. Show me a belief that I have that's false and I'll change it. That's because I care about truth. Apparently you just care about your own ego. Best of luck with that.
So what? I can call myself a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, or even a green alien. Calling myself something doesn't make it true. You have no idea what a Christian is. Most atheists don't lol.
I was a christian for 15 years. I was a children's pastor, and directly training underneath one of our senior pastors whilst I prepared for seminary.
I can't prove the inner thoughts of a person who died decades ago. You're making an ass of yourself. Good day
You've already made an ass of yourself. You provided zero evidence and now you're running away. HA!
How can I provide evidence for a person's internal beliefs? You're ridiculous, and I'm sure you're aware of that.
Exactly, you have no evidence. If you make a claim you have to be able to back it up.
"That's why throughout history atheist regimes have committed mass murder." You made the claim.
His personal works, and the works of his comrades are evidence.
Yes I did make that claim. I can't prove it bur if you loo at how many millions of people atheist regimes have killed then I am confident that they have committed the most genocide.
"His personal works, and the works of his comrades are evidence."
And now you are trolling. Jesus said "love your enemies." Hitler and the Nazis did the complete opposite. They killed and tortured their enemies. The exact opposite of what a Christian is commanded to do.
"atheist regimes" Prove they were atheist regimes.
Sure, just do a quick history lesson.
Without relying on what anyone says, because that isn't evidence to you, remember?
The big difference is that Hitler proved he was a lying hypocrite by doing the exact opposite of what Jesus taught. Atheist regimes gave us no evidence that they were lying, so I take them at their word.
Ah, special pleading all over the place. How interesting.
Then let's agree to disagree because it's pointless wasting each others time.
A person who has faith will most certainly have different morals from an atheist. Also, a person that has genuine faith will be more inclined to live up to their moral standards. Atheism is extremely corrosive to moral virtue. Atheist societies are notorious for abolishing or reducing standards.
Could you name a few of these abolished or reduced standards? Did any of them stop people from doing things that don't harm anyone else?
@goaded The West has lost all standards. They have been reduced so that life would be easy and painless for the materialistic, hedonistic, nihilist population. In the guise of 'tolerance' and 'humanism' one has been given license to be as degenerate as they please. Also, the idea that you are moral as long as you don't harm others is ridiculous. Morality is about being a good person and about creating a good society. That requires sacrifice, determination, and high standards. The degenerate youth today is only interested in having fun, and nothing else.
So, not really then. Do you think you can be moral when you are harming people? Surely, "do no harm" is the bare minimum for morality.
@goaded Obviously a morally upright person will be ready to harm others. Since when is unwillingness to engage in violence the beginning and end of morality? If someone attacks your people, you must harm these invaders. Also, I would argue that extreme crimes should be punishable with death. You see, maximizing pleasure can never be a basis for morality. I am not going to abolish the death sentence, just so criminals can be made to endure less suffering. I will not give morbidly obese people a pass and pretend they are doing perfectly well. They call it 'fat shaming', I call it living up to certain standards. What you do in your private life invariably affects society as a whole, especially if certain trends of behaviour become established. A moral society will never declare one can do as one pleases in his private life. As a member of society you are accountable to the rest. But my point is that a moral society will invariably put ideals other than maximizing personal pleasure on top
And regarding diminishing standards, it's hard to find an area of life where they haven't been diminished.
Opposing people who are actively harming you is reducing harm (to you). Killing people for breaking laws is increasing harm, especially when they turn out to be innocent.
Nobody's telling you not to stay in shape, nor even that you don't try to help other people get fit, just not to be an ass to complete strangers.
@goaded But you miss the point: I do not take into account calculations about suffering when deciding whether to punish a criminal or fight an invader. There are higher concerns at play.
So, say, cutting off the hands of a theif would be a moral thing to do?
@goaded Depends on society. No one is likely to propose that in the west, though.
But killing someone who probably killed someone is OK? It's not easy to reverse either decision, if it turns out the person was innocent.
@goaded The will to act vs. obsession with doubt.
Doubt is not a bad thing, conviction usually is.
@goaded Doubt is ok, but in an atheist, nihilist, materialist society it becomes a problem, as t is used as an excuse to endlessly pursue the easy life, free of judgment, obligations, duties, and so on. If everything is in doubt, how can anyone demand that we live up to any standard? You have to take a stand, you have to have standards, you have to have confidence. Otherwise, your society will decay and be destroyed by a society that is stronger.
Is your society obliged to take over weaker societies?
@goaded Perhaps. I am glad my white ancestors colonized the world.
And yet their ancestors all came out of Africa, and neither Serbia nor Germany are countries that spring to mind as World Empires.
I believe that morals come from your surroundings, but religions help us determine which are the *right* morals as the *right morals* can be subjective. For example if you were born and raised Viking your "morals" would have been that you raided to feed your family. We taught the Vikings Christian morals and that by far aided their society and they stopped raiding others like they used to.
Of course it doesn't.
You'd be surprised at how many people disagree! XD
I know, and most of them are religious.
Naturally they would defend what they believe in. Who would put their hand up and say that their religion serves them no purpose if not their morals. Of course a non-religious person is not going to own up to being completely free of morality.
@Tomblebee There are many non-religious people who think that that religions imbued man with reality. I disagree with them, for the reasons stated.
A person could believe in the religion, but also say it is not the source of morality, just as many people also say, "ok, well there obviously wasn't a flood, ok the patriarchs are obviously amalgams of various characters over time" etc. I'm fine with people having religion I think it's integral to the lives of many people, but the claim that "religion is the source of morality" I find to be fractally wrong.
I completely agree with this Take, religion did some of the worst crimes in history (The Inquisition, The Crusades, Conquistadors destroying civilizations in Central and South America etc).