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
Advisor Smith
With years of experience guiding individuals in their education and career paths, I'm here to...
James The Foodie
From savoring Italian classics to discovering the bold flavors of Japanese cuisine, I explore...
Athletic Chloe
Whether you need tips on improving your game, insights on fitness and nutrition, or just want to...
Love Doctor Brad
Welcome to the heart of understanding and transformation. I am your guide on this journey to...
Fashionista Amy
I'm here to inspire and guide you with a touch of latest trends or advice on personal style.💅👒
Cinematic Lily
With my rich background and passion for the arts, I share insights on films, TV shows, and...
Gamer Bella
With my passion and experience in hobbies and leisure activities, I'm here to offer personalized...
Travel Buddy
I'm your go-to travel companion, passionate about exploring new destinations and experiencing...
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
I think that religion is something that can aid you living your life but shouldn't define how you live your life all the time.
Unless you choose for a religious lifestyle.
One thing I dislike about religion is how bad apples in a religion can give some religion an extremely bad reputation.
All morality and laws stem from the bible. All of it. Sorry toots. :)
You take that away and there is no morality.
So convincing sweetie. You must be quite the erudite.
sad but true. get over it sweetie!
@Mr_Knowitall I thought it was a joyous thing?
Religious is a documentation of pre-existing morals that religion is not required for. Maybe, I'm no expert :p
It can be considered what people thought to be moral at the time, but obviously we don't agree. We don't agree that women are property, that the gays should be murdered, that we should take slaves, that we should kill babes in times of war etc.
The benefit of secular moral systems is that we can point out, "these people got it wrong. Objectively wrong." If you stick with the divine command theory you have to come up with all of these incredible and incredulous loopholes by which the texts don't say what it clearly says, or try to defend the atrocious things we did in the past.
Wow. Yes. Well done expert.
I prefer Guru XD
You are a genius
@Jayson101 Grassy ass
Lol, for some reason that reminded me of a donkey.
Hitler was religious and did he have morals? But oh wait. Everybody hates him. But when a god does something infinitely worse he's praised!
Richard Dawkins: "we should solve world hunger with cannibalism!! human children are less human than an adult pig! pedophilia is a-ok the kids don't even mind being molested!"
Jeffrey Epstein and Lawrence Krauss: *take frequent trips to Epstein's pedo island*
neckbeard atheists: "omg guys atheists are so morally superior!"
Did I state or imply anywhere here that atheists are morally superior? No. I said that our morality doesn’t come from religion. Especially if you think pedophilia is immoral. That’s rampant throughout the Bible. The Greek and Hebrew for virgin in the Bible frequently just means young woman. This is why the sex slaves taken throughout the OT were all young.
Pedophilia being immoral (which I agree with) is an incredibly recent western invention that doesn’t/ didn’t exist in most any culture/ religion/ etc until incredibly recently.
I've just watched Matt Dillahunty get absolutely destroyed in a debate about morality against Vegan Gains. I don't think he has any clue what he's talking.
Maybe, I haven't seen that one. Would you like to post a link?
Oh, funny. You were pushing my leg.
What are you on about?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1DLg-DAsmU
It was humorous. The guy was a troll and kept straw-manning matt after matt clearly told him the exact opposite.
Give an example. It appeared to me that Matt was trying to make it appear like VG was using straw man by constantly moving the goal posts and changing what he was saying every time VG countered it.
VG is a troll? How was he trolling in this instance. Quote how he was trolling. Because it sounds to me like you're relying on ad hominem to attack him personally rather than acknowledge his points.
Matt, "society doesn't matter, morality is objective." VG, "so what you're saying is that society dictates morality?"
This happened multiple times
Yeah, multiple times in the video? State those times.. I don't recall. Also in addition to that, Matt kept flipping between rights and morality in an attempt to make things confusing, it's not a straw man fallacy to simply ask someone to clarify what they're actually saying.
Oy Vey, just because of my displeasure at the rest of the people on here I'll do it. Give me time though.
Ok starting at 3:17 VG "Species-ist, did you mean you can needlessly kill an animal for food just because it's a different species?" Matt: "When you say needlessly you are injecting all sorts of context into this. My position is this, I AM NOT CONVINCED THAT EATING MEAT IS IMMORAL"
. Matt “When I talk about species-ist we're talking about what rights we are going to extend. Rights are the products of thinking beings, rights don't exist independent of us, they're not out there in the ether. When talking to people about ethical veganism one thing that they often get wrong is that I have plenty of objections to the way we may get it, factory farming scenarios etc. But I do not think eating meat is in and of itself immoral."
5:20 VG “I Agree, same with eating a dead human, maybe weird but not immoral.” Matt, “no, there is something immoral about that.” VG “how? you’re not causing harm to that person.” Matt “see this is the problem with you and a lot of others, that morality is a simplisti
simplistic notion of causing harm. You are wrong because that is not the only basis, and it does cause harm. It harms the people who care about that human being, and affects the quality of that person’s life leading up to that. There’s a reason we respect the wishes of what people want to happen to their dead bodies.”
7:10 VG “You have a contradiction. You’re going back to well-being” Matt “that is what I am saying morality IS, how is that a contradiction?” VG “you seem to be saying that the basis for morality is social contract?” Matt. “No, I just said morality is about well-being.”
VG “OK so if I shot someone in the back of the head who had no friends and family, it wouldn’t effect anyone else then that would be moral because it doesn’t effect their well-being?” Matt “No, this is the same as Matt Slick and raping coma pt’s. I told you, it detracts from the quality of life while you are alive.” VG “You’re going back to social contract.”
VG “Ok, well you’re basically saying it’s ok to kill animals because they’re not a part of our social contract, and it does not effect us.” Matt “No” VG “Yes” Matt “You are so repeatedly dishonest. I have not said anything like that.” VG “I’m trying to get to the bottom of your argument.” Matt “I at no point said it was OK to needlessly kill animals. You cannot take my position and poison it. I have not said that, so stop saying I said it.” 9:20 VG “Ok, we’re not understanding what I mean by needless.” Matt “the problem is not that I don’t understand what you’re saying. The problem is that you think I’m making a case for something being morally permissible, when I am merely saying I have not seen a compelling case that it should be impermissible. There are moral obligations and virtues and I am happy to say that anyone who never kills an animal may be more morally virtuous than I. That is not a demonstration that it is a moral obligation” VG “Oh, you’re talking about a social contract!
Well, if it’s ok for you to use social contract to go into a store and pay for an animal to be killed then I can use it to kill gay people in Saudi Arabia, or slavery, or Hitler!”
Not Matt “Are gays people?” VG “are animals thinking and sentient?” Matt “It depends. Are they able to comprehend rights, obligations and duties. The fact that something doesn’t want to die is irrelevant here. I’ve already said multiple times it is not social contract, it is about well-being. Where I draw lines and why is because of rights, and how we understand them. Because people didn’t care about them at the time, is a problem, but we demonstrated that it was wrong. When you make the demonstration for your case I will change.”
VG “I’m trying to get to the bottom of this. Are you saying reciprocation of rights is necessary?” Matt “understanding rights is included in being part of the category.”
VG “animals have rights.” Matt “I Agree! The fact that you extend some rights does not mean that you grant all r
ights does not mean that you grant all rights.” VG “you’re making an arbitrary distinction.”
Matt “it is not an arbitrary distinction, it is a recognition of a difference in cognitive function and ability to understand grant and guarantee rights, because that is necessarily between thinking creatures. I don’t have a moral obligation to a rock” VG “you’re talking about reciprocation. What if we thought it was ok to kill retarded people?” Matt “it is not about individual reciprocation, it is about categorical reciprocation.” VG “You’re basing your morality on social contract and reciprocation of rights.” Matt “NO, NO, Morality is about well-being! I said about rights that categorical reciprocation is what we’re talking about.” VG “If it’s about well-being then you should be in favor of veganism!” Matt “Well-being is the foundation, of us as thinking creatures. Those animals are not thinking creatures in this sense.” VG “you’re moving the goalposts.”
Matt “No, I’m saying the goal post is here, and you’re extending that to anything that can think and feel. I’m not convinced it should be moved that far. We don’t grant the right to live to humans just because they want it.” VG “You keep going back between two positions. Social contract… So why do you think it’s ok to kill animals that are just like you.” Matt “no one on your side has made the case that it is morally impermissible. We start with freedoms and restrict them when there is sufficient reason.” VG “so it’s your right to kill animals just like you.” Matt “Bye”
That's my synopsis of what happened.
Kudos for writing all that, I was expecting just a few time stamps. I still don't understand how it's straw man though, Matt was constantly switching between morality so he could talk about well-being and rights so he could talk about social contract, and it was clear VG didn't understand what he was getting at so was opting to ask extreme questions to get to the limit of Matt was saying.
He said half a dozen times, "morality has to do with well-being, not simplistic well-being." Matt then said that when it comes to which animals we are going to extend rights to, like a right to life, it depends on what we as thinking agents in a group decide. He has not yet been convinced that cows etc deserve all rights.
Then VG kept responding, so rights are based on what society dictates? So Hitler did nothing wrong? Etc.
I originally wrote more, it was about two full pages on my Word document, but I deleted a lot when copying onto here 😂
It comes from our fear of what other people in our society will do if they find out we were acting "bad". If you had a cloak in which you could do things without being seen, and with no consequences, I doubt you would keep your morals.
Generally it does if you follow the teachings bit few Christians do.
Did you read what I wrote?
education gives us morals, even the religiously educated.
but, a lot of people like to take "fake news" as their education
Problem is, there's no society you can name that has morals we would call "morality" that doesn't have a Christian history.
i wouldn't consider most Christian countries "moral" either.
Relatively speaking. The USA and Europe abandoned it, but remnants live on.
The USA was moral? When? When we were locking up gay men in insane asylums? When we were making prisoners impotent? When we were giving women frontal lobe lobotomies for being unruly? When we owned slaves? I'm sure that Christian moral systems may permit that, but I don't find that moral 😂
Hmmkay simple question. Give me any date in the last 400 years (1850, 1900, etc) and then tell me a country that at that time was overall was safer, more peaceful, more advanced, more "moral" than the USA, Canada, or a European country.
That wasn't the topic of discussion, was it?
No, it wasn't. Discussion evolved. You asked "The USA was moral? When?"
So I'm asking, can you point to any time in history where you'd be better off NOT living in a country that was build on a Christian foundation? (Europe, Canada, USA.) Like, any date in history where the overall best nation to live in was not of of those countries.
Right,, you completely changed the subject. I wasn't saying that USA was worse than any country, it's possible that no country has been very moral.
Hmm discussion evolved. I say religion per se doesn't give us morals, only Christianity gives us what we Americans accept as good morals. While we're here, can you answer the question? Can you think of any point in time where a non-christian country was overall a better place to live than the Christian based nations?
example "It would have been better to live in Kenya in 1700 than live in Europe or the Colonies or Canda..."
What about the fact that a lot of moral codes predates Christianity? I mean one has to ask, did religion create morals, or did morals create religion?
I don't know enough of history. I do know I would not have liked to live in Americas past for the immoral things I pointed out. Additionally, Christian morality is not that good. It's pretty poor actually if you ask me. The whole thing revolves around human sacrifice. That's pretty abhorrent to me.
@Deathraider Hmm I'd say that the Bible might disagree about how many moral codes predate it. According to the Bible, God's morals go back to Adam and Eve, and then when Abraham was called to father Israel.
They think the mass genocide of innocent people is justified because they follow an "good" leader with good intention for his people.
That's just messed up. I'm trying to think about when in history this happened before.
i0.kym-cdn.com/.../634.jpg
Can't quite think of it.
Yeah, you could make that claim, but so does every other religion moral. Every other religion moral began at their creation story. I mean you need to consider that.
Hmm Atheistic communism killed over 100 million people in the last 130 years... a lot of sacrifices.
And human sacrifice in Christianity? Hmm. In Christianity, it is sacrifice, but just one. Jesus allowed himself to be falsely accused, convicted for crimes he didn't commit, and willingly died. Claiming that a story of God's innocent son willingly being executed as a criminal is a religion revolving around human sacrifice is pretty dishonest, wouldn't you say?
Not really. Most of the Christian's claim the Ten Commandments are there moral code, not realizing that they actually just listed the first ten of 613 and not the actual Ten Commandments which were given later.
You're saying Christians don't know about The Law? Interesting. How many churches have you gone to? Or maybe you went to a Christian college?
No. God's whole plan was for human sacrifice, do you think that people can thwart god's plan?
"atheistic communism" Atheism had nothing to do with it. Atheism has no creeds, no tenets, no moral preachments, etc. Stalin, Mao, and Kim all set up their own religions, Kim in fact made himself into a god.
@Deathraider Hmm interesting you compare Hitler to Christianity. Most sources indicate he rather despised Christianity. See for yourself, go follow the links. en.wikipedia.org/.../Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
I was a teaching pastor for youth, and training underneath a senior pastor while I prepared for seminary.
Atheism is a pretty broad term, just as theism is. Technically, most atheist want secularism, religion doesn't have control over politics and government don't restrict religious belief and organizing.
Interesting, what denomination?
Non-denominational although I went to a southern baptist school. I frequently argued my Arminianism against my teachers and school's pastors Calvin ideals.
Most of the German population is Christian before, during, and after WW2. The thing is that even the most Christian state aren't moral. In fact, the most peaceful countries are secular ones.
Also Hitler was at the very least a theist. Most likely he was a positivist christian which was a form of christianity frequently practiced by the nazis.
@Deathraider Societal health is quite evidently negatively correlated with religiosity.
@Deathraider Pray tell, give a few examples of the most peaceful countries that are the most secular?
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.pdf
There you go, that's the research I was citing.
Looking at "religion vs no religion" isn't very precise, given you're grouping christianity with islam and hinduism and buddhism.
The more religious a society, the lower it scales on societal health. That's just what the research shows. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Jainism etc doesn't appear to matter.
Do they differentiate in the study? Because if you're including islam/hindusim/buddhism then it will no doubt dramatically show religion worsens society. If you're comparing christianity to islam or atheism, etc, results would be quite interesting. If it's religious vs non religious I wonder if they included the 9-50 million who died in joseph stalin's non religious societies.
It's about today.
I linked the study, you can read it if you'd like.
It depends on what religion it is.
In Scientology it says for example: "Do not murder". That's good, right?
I don't think you understood the point of what I said. I was saying that it is not good or bad because "scientology says so" I said that the methodology that religions state they use for morality, ie divine command theory is not moral. It's amoral
If for example scientology said it's wrong to murder innocent people because it harms their well-being and they're thinking agents, then I would say that is exactly what I am talking about and religion would be merely superfluous in this aspect.
I see. But I don't think that it's superfluous,
because when for example violent people, that don't really care about laws,
believe in a religion which tells you not to harm people,
it may actually make them not to harm innocent people.
If that was the case then you'd expect our prisons to not be filled with religious persons. Besides that though, I also think it's beside the point. I've talked to people before who said if it wasn't for their god belief they'd go out and rape and murder people without any qualms. I don't believe them, but presuming they're telling the truth I definitely want them to stay in their religion if that is the case. My point is that when we're talking about morality, normal people, we're talking necessarily talking about well-being, not "god doesn't want this" "well I think he does want this" etc.
I didn't say it'd affect all of them. More like 10%. I mean that the prisons could be even more filled up
I feel like you ignored the point...
Why do people care if someone is religious? I don’t care if people aren’t religious so they shouldn’t care if I am... just stay outta people’s business and don’t judge!
What is judgmental in this?
1- religion is not a word that magically unites all religions and makse the same, if you are even remotely smart and educated you should know that each religion has its own morals .
1.) You should read what I said.
Morals existed long before humans invented religion lol
Jesus Christ is above the waters there is no excuse anymore
either Jesus Christ or hell
do not talk about religion if you have never studied it out and trust me it takes years, so please shut up
I was a teaching pastor for 6th grade boys, I was in a mentee relationship with one of my churches more senior pastors, and I was preparing for seminary for quite some time. I know quite a bit about christianity. Additionally, I mentioned nothing about christianity here and merely talked about the basis for morality.
I have done zero of that
and I know more because I take the books literally
genesis 3
genesis 6
numbers 13
read them and take them literally
and you will understand why what you just wrote now becomes meaningless
im sorry we are getting close,
everyone has to pick a side
I have read the entire bible, and I took it literally.
You seem to have a pretty good knowledge about the Christianity?
I got few questions for you guys and I am not attacking anyone just curious about things,
I don't think there is any verse in bible that says, Jesus is God then where the hell did it come from?
Alcohol is carcinogenic and its side effects are quiet apparent, then why the hell did GoD would tell anyone to drink it? (I think GoD is educated enough to know its side-effects
Why every prophet in the bible is sinister? (I think God is capable enough to create things with perfect harmony, Universe is prime example)
Bible is collection of stories and rituals, then where did that Pope praying in Church and sister thing come from?
Why there are bible not a single book cuz there is supposed to be one?
If not then the book is rewritten by humans and why would read human creation?
Missionaries justify Christianity cuz older belief system (Jewish) was corrupted but now Christianity is corrupted (multiple bibles),
then why did Christianity was replaced, if we can consider your condition as fact.
The last one,
Why did you pray to Jesus not the one, Jesus used to pray too?
seriously guys last one struck me very hard, so your popes think they better than Jesus and pray him rather than the one. He told you to pray to and update Gods text cuz according to them Creater is old fashioned but we are better than him and Update it.
Guys I am not attacking and I have tried to talk to missionaries about it, but they run like crazy after hearing this. These are legitimate questions and on par with, what they told us and
I AM NOT ATTACKING CHRISTIANITY JUST CURIOUS to know from some one educated enough to answer cuz missionaries are pussies. Sorry guys !
wait last very very imp question,
If everyone will be forgiven due to "crucifixion of jesus" then Why the hell did there is even a concept of good or bad, the day of judgement and the Existence of hell?
I mean than if you become Christian, then you have to ticket to heaven no need to pray or anything,
really?
@AlphaGhost I guess that's for the OP and not me?
@AlphaGhost
but I will answer all this simply
there is no universe Jesus Christ is above the waters
go outside and look up he is only a few miles away
these few words make GOD real
(Glory to my lord Jesus Christ above the firmament)
go study
Seriously Guys stop repenting and I want an answer from both of you,
Stop "repenting" OP
Even the shit creature like us ask for evidence and can consider things, if they make any sense and if you believe GoD is i@iot (Forgive me),
You are the one, try to learn the things yourself "West is going down" our fertility ratio is 50% below normal and we have to find out the problem cuz,
We are just 700M strong but by the mercy of idiot Trump, whole world is now against us and we are dependent on trade with them.
@AlphaGhost
you are over complicating it Jesus Christ is above the firmament literally only a few miles away GO STUDY IT OUT
it's not hard
(rocket hits dome)
Glory to my Lord Jesus Christ above the waters
Okay continue repenting babe cuz I was consideration, you may follow your Jesus Christ but look like you are more in for popes :)
This is just a question for Atheists. If there is no God, no problem for me, just my prayers would be for nothing. But what if there is a God?
Intercessory prayer has been shown to fail, that said it sounds like you're going for a weird version of Pascal's Wager. What if you're wrong? What if the other god claims are right and you anger the real god by praying to a false one and then are sent to hell?
Then I am going to burn, lol. Why is it so hard to say that?
Do you lose any sleep over the possibility that a different god exists?
It just means I can update my understanding of the universe to include the existence of a god. My follow up question is: If such a being does make their existence apparent, how would I know if they're worth listening to and not a devil in disguise?
@Pluto4prez Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but I think the gist is that you don't concern yourself with other possible gods, because you don't have any reason to think they're real, and if they were you still may not concern yourself, because you could be under some delusion or being tricked? Is that a good way to put it?
I was responding to the original opinion, but you could interpret my answer that way. My point was that answering the question of the existence of a god or godlike beings would give rise to further questions, and the existence of the divine doesn't necessarily make religious claims about it any less subject to scrutiny.
@Pluto4prez Alrighty, in the same manner that you don't lose sleep over other supposed god claims, I don't lose sleep over yours either. That's the point I was trying to get at.
Having food around you doesn't make you a well nourished person.
So much hand-waving, so little convincing argument.
I don't really care. I just want my 6 experience points. Lol
interesting mytake..!
thanks!