Will God accept you if you renounce religion?
- Thread starter craptakular
- Start date
Was it the PEW conversation with Christopher? Hell of a conversation Cast, hell of a conversation.That should give you something to get your teeth into and rage a little over going into the New Year, no doubt Ringo and Jason will find it fascinating as well (albeit for different reasons).....Happy New Year Naffa.
Happy new year to you, too. I hope it's full of everything you want it to be, and a little bit of what you don't (we gotta keep on our toes, right?) Have a good one.
EDIT: I just have to say that the end of that line, Peter does say that you can't have morality without religion, and he pretty much says that he only acts in a good way because he believes that he is being watched by big brother. It seems like a crackpot statement to me.
Last edited:
I think it was.
Happy new year to you, too. I hope it's full of everything you want it to be, and a little bit of what you don't (we gotta keep on our toes, right?) Have a good one.
My New Year kicked off today with my new promotion, so hopefully it will be all onward and upward from here on in....
I wish you every success in your endeavour this year and you know where I am if you want to chat.
EDIT: I just have to say that the end of that line, Peter does say that you can't have morality without religion, and he pretty much says that he only acts in a good way because he believes that he is being watched by big brother. It seems like a crackpot statement to me.
Haha, perhaps, but I think he was generalising to be fair.
Last edited:
Congratulations, to infinity and beyond?
Thank you, I will remember that you said that. Time to grab the bull by the horns.
I had never seen this "Richard Dawkins & Ricky Gervais on Religion" interview before and found it really good. It's obviously not a debate as both are atheists but I still found the content to be interesting for anyone at home having a night in on new years.
Some highlights:
Why do the more Scientific logical religious people pray to a god they do not believe is interventionist, what's the point? Do they know but don't want to know?
Is religion just a continuous moving goal post which moves every time we discover more?
Are moustaches the route of the evil found in Stalin and Hitler?
Do people who believe in god because there's no way to know, follow the same rules with fairies and santa?
I found it entertaining anyway even if it was largely what I have heard before, mainly I think, because Ricky Gervais made it entertaining.
Some highlights:
Why do the more Scientific logical religious people pray to a god they do not believe is interventionist, what's the point? Do they know but don't want to know?
Is religion just a continuous moving goal post which moves every time we discover more?
Are moustaches the route of the evil found in Stalin and Hitler?
Do people who believe in god because there's no way to know, follow the same rules with fairies and santa?
I found it entertaining anyway even if it was largely what I have heard before, mainly I think, because Ricky Gervais made it entertaining.
Last edited:
Saddam had a moustache, as well...
With a static morality how do you deal with advancements in technology which may through up entirely new moral questions? How do you determine the fixed moral rules in the first place?
Well, if it a new question then surely you simply add to the existing structures, also wouldn't advancements in technology be created within the ethical boundaries of society anyway? In any case a Universal Morality doesn't necessarily have to absolute. Divine Command Theory is not necessarily absolute either as it can be determined by human nature and natural law as created by God. (although Christianity supports DCT, it is only part of the system that determines morality in Christianty, which would take an entire essay rather than just a forum post)
Last edited:
You can't add to existing structures as, in doing so, you would be changing the static morality. Adding to it is changing it. New technology could bring about new questions surrounding morality, if morality is unchanging you cannot address those questions.
What is the morality surrounding the development of true artificial intelligences for example? We would need to adapt our current moral rules or develop new ones. Either means change, change means your morality isn't static.
The flaw in your logic is that universal morality isn't static. It's not a set of stated rules, (that is natural law, which can form part of the method, but is not the method itself) it is a methodology for determining the moral value of things according to a specific set of agreed universal statutes. It is best illustrated by the Western Human Rights movement.
So it changes?
In which case why is ringo stating a changing morality is no morality? (The point I was addressing).
Because morality is not simply a set of stated rules, it is a method derived from a set of principles. The method and basic principles do not change, they are applied to changing environments and examples...just as we do with Human Rights legislation.
So you end up with an interpreted morality rather than a static one. Sounds terribly subjective don't you think?
So you end up with an interpreted morality rather than a static one. Sounds terribly subjective don't you think?
The rules and decisions derived from universal ethical principles are indeed subjective (they have to be to be relevant to the ethic value of the subject those principles are being applied to)...but the principles themselves are universal. For example consequentialism applies a set of principles based on consequence, this can be defined Universally (objectively) but the applied ethical statute would be subjective based on the action(s) being determined under that universal principle.
So you don't actually have a set morality. Instead you have multiple ways of working out morality depending on what ruleset you decide to apply. Remind me again where God comes in to the and how we are essentially lost without him?
Frankly I am getting terribly bored with the religious being so narrow minded they cannot think of how anyone could have morality without God.
You have a defined set of ethical principles...God is the authority behind these principles..they are also reinforced with Natural Law, Interpretation of Scriptures (Sola Scriptura), ethical philisophies such as Scholasticism and so on...like I said it would need a entire paper to explain in depth, but essentially the Principles remain Universal and are applied as such to subjective examples.
There are various methods of Moral Universalism, not only that dictated by the Divine Command Theory.
Then don't listen to them or keep getting involved in such debates.
Last edited:
All seems terribly wooly and open to a lot of interpretation. You would think an all powerful God would have been a touch more clear?
Probably better defined ones too...
Probably right, but that then let's such views go unchallenged which can be problematic in itself.
