Comments on: Challenging Religious Myths 1: No Morality without Religion

By: Free Blonde Porn

Free Blonde Porn — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:27:36 +0000

Wonderful beat ! I wish to apprentice while you amend your web site, how can i subscribe for a blog web site? The account helped me a acceptable deal. I had been tiny bit acquainted of this your broadcast provided brilliant clear concept

By: Rosita

Rosita — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:38:49 +0000

The very first comment [saintlewis] asserts that “there can be no objective morality without God”.

This is absurd because there is absolutely no agreement by people who believe in a god or gods about what this “objective” morality is. There is not even agreement among those who belong to the same congregation of the same branch of the same denomination of the same religious classification. There is even less agreement from nation to nation and complete about faces over decades, centuries and milleniums.

The more freedom people have to roll their own religion free of the asserted interpretive authority of religious leaders, the greater the degree of dissent and difference of interpretation of exactly the same doctrines and religious texts. The Christian Bible, for example, has been called the Great Big Book of Multiple Choice because it is and has been used to justify just about any moral point of view which an individual arrives at in response to their society, environment, background and early nurture.

By: Christopher Wing

Christopher Wing — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 21:35:36 +0000

There seems to be something theists forget, starting with Dostoyevsky – just because you may be immoral without your religion doesn’t mean that I will be immoral without your religion.

By: The 10 Commandments are an extremely weak basis for morality « de-conversion

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:28:17 +0000

[...] HeIsSailing’s The Bible does not contain a guideline of moral absolutes, AThinkingMan’s Challenging Religious Myths 1: No Morality without Religion, and Stellar1’s You do not need religion to be moral. Of course this is not an exhaustive [...]

By: pericles

pericles — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:49:40 +0000

Again, we need to see that humans are both selfish and altruists. It gives us an evolutionary advantage.

Furthermore, if morality is based on religion then it has negative meaning because such morality is based on fair of eternal punishment.

By: Challenging Religious Myths 2: Atheism is just another Religion « de-conversion

Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:12:14 +0000

[...] See also: Challenging Religious Myths 1: No Morality without Religion [...]

By: The Barefoot Bum

The Barefoot Bum — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:29:00 +0000

Christianity is based on confessing that you are a breaker of God’s law, worthy of the death penalty, but allowed to be forgiven, if trust is placed on Jesus having died in your place, and having the right to be both your Savior and Lord. This makes absolutely no sense to me. It says to me, "We're horrible, but it doesn't matter." Fine. So I'm intrinsically depraved, but I'm absolutely forgiven. So what? The catch is, of course, god's law. There are only two options: Either this god communicates its law to me directly, in which case my own moral intuition can be taken as authoritative. In this case, everyone is entitled to call himself a just as good a Christian as anyone else: you, me, my uncle Fred, Gandhi, Hitler, bin Laden, Calley, Eichmann, Bojaxhiu, Schweitzer, and Darwin. It doesn't draw any sort of meaningful distinction. Alternatively, this law might be communicated indirectly, via scripture, prophets and/or priests. But if you have privileged some external source as authoritative, then you have just established a religion.

By: Greg Merrill

Greg Merrill — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:35:19 +0000

I totally agree with the claims of how detrimental religion has been upon the face of this planet for the people of the world. I am glad as having been a Christian for over forty-eight years, and a pastor of a church for nearly ten years, that I am not religious. The church so often referred to by historians and atheists is the Catholic Church, a true religion. True Christianity is not a religion, no matter the statements to the contrary by historians and atheists, but a real spiritual relationship to the living Lord, Jesus Christ. All religions are based on being good to be accepted by God. Christianity is based on confessing that you are a breaker of God’s law, worthy of the death penalty, but allowed to be forgiven, if trust is placed on Jesus having died in your place, and having the right to be both your Savior and Lord. To know more go to http://www.centinelabible.org. and may God lead you to He that is the truth, Jesus Christ.

By: loopyloo350

loopyloo350 — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:57:25 +0000

Barefoot Bum: Thank you for the clarification. I personally have no problem believing in evolution and see no value in denying something that is obvious. People who try to make the world fit into their way of belief are the same to me as flatworlders. I accept the fact that I will never know everything and take great delight in searching for knowledge. i do not see this as a conflict with my belief or my faith. Each person has to find the path that is right for them and not go blindly into the darkness. If we don’t explore and feed our curiousity then we die. I personally love to hear how others define their belief/disbelif. In fact found and interesting blog awhile ago that compares Christianity with Wicca. Who knew?

By: The Barefoot Bum

The Barefoot Bum — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:34:31 +0000

loopyloo: Sorry. It's just that evolution ought to be as much of a no-brainer as gravity. It is a non-trivial subject, to be sure, but the two fundamental principles are fairly straightforward: Random mutation and natural selection. Natural selection is not random, it is occurs by natural law, reducible (in principle) to the laws of physics. All the rest is how these principles operate. If you want to learn more about evolution, there are any number of good books on the subject, aimed at a lay audience. A search for evolution on Amazon will give a number of books with a diversity of views. Dawkins book, The Selfish Gene is especially good. Charles Darwin's seminal works, including The Origin of Species are available online and are quite accessible, if you can get past his Victorian style.