the moral chicken and egg

[This_person]

but its not called the religion of the experience, or the moral of the religion.....

and.....?

 

[tommyjones]

and.....?

morality is indenpendant of religion

 

[wxtornado]

It's the foundation, the principle behind the morality.

This may be true for you, but it certainly isn't for an atheist like myself. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

 

[This_person]

This may be true for you, but it certainly isn't for an atheist like myself. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

A person's ethical behavior, yes. That person's morality, no. See the definition of morality for this distinction.

And, as told many times before, a moral person, a religious person, is not controlled by punishment and reward. A moral person, a religious person, is controlled internally, and does right (and avoids wrong) to glorify that person's vision of their diety. If a person is acting out of fear of punishment, or hope of reward, they're not acting morally. They're acting selfishly. This, my friend, is the true difference.

 

[toppick08]

This may be true for you, but it certainly isn't for an atheist like myself. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

I hope you remember this when your on your death bed. It'll be like pissin' in the wind.

 

[wxtornado]

I hope you remember this when your on your death bed. It'll be like pissin' in the wind.

Why wouldn't I remember it? Unless I had alzheimers or something...??

 

[toppick08]

Why wouldn't I remember it? Unless I had alzheimers or something...??

Hell will ease your mind.

 

[wxtornado]

Hell will ease your mind.

You're asserting that I believe in hell. Hell doesn't exist in my worldview, so your claims are unfounded and don't apply.

 

[Xaquin44]

A moral person, a religious person, is controlled internally, and does right (and avoids wrong) to glorify that person's vision of their diety. If a person is acting out of fear of punishment, or hope of reward, they're not acting morally. They're acting selfishly. This, my friend, is the true difference.

I dunno .... I don't really see people doing good to glorify any particular diety. It's kind of hard to just do good, when the everpresent threat of eternity in hell is looming.

I mean, you can't just unknow that there is an ultimate goal to work towards.

 

[Xaquin44]

Hell will ease your mind.

lol .... see T_p, this is what I'm talking about.

(no offense toppick)

 

[2ndAmendment]

You're asserting that I believe in hell. Hell doesn't exist in my worldview, so your claims are unfounded and don't apply.

There was no assertion about anything you may or may not believe. Just a statement.

This would be an assertion about you and your beliefs: Your world view is false and hell does exist and the claims are founded and do apply. That was not done.

 

[toppick08]

You're asserting that I believe in hell. Hell doesn't exist in my worldview, so your claims are unfounded and don't apply.

You, yourself, and I don't stand much of a chance...

 

[wxtornado]

You, yourself, and I don't stand much of a chance...

Don't stand much of a chance at what?

 

[toppick08]

Don't stand much of a chance at what?

Facing your Creator.....believe It or not.

 

[tommyjones]

A person's ethical behavior, yes. That person's morality, no. See the definition of morality for this distinction.

And, as told many times before, a moral person, a religious person, is not controlled by punishment and reward. A moral person, a religious person, is controlled internally, and does right (and avoids wrong) to glorify that person's vision of their diety. If a person is acting out of fear of punishment, or hope of reward, they're not acting morally. They're acting selfishly. This, my friend, is the true difference.

you can say those two things together a million times and it wont make them the same.
morality is independant from religion, and religion can exist without morality. I mean all those catholic preists were religious, but also morally repugnant.


and you are making our point that people who are religious are moral for the fear of punishment/want of the reward of enternal life, therefore they are doing it for selfishness

 

[wxtornado]

Facing your Creator.....believe It or not.

Again, you're wrongly asserting that I believe in a creator, which I have no reason to.

 

[toppick08]

Again, you're wrongly asserting that I believe in a creator, which I have no reason to.

Fair enough. I'll pray for you.

 

[toppick08]

I pray that ALL will come to Christ. I wish nobody to die seperated from the Lord, red karma giver.....

 

[This_person]

I dunno .... I don't really see people doing good to glorify any particular diety. It's kind of hard to just do good, when the everpresent threat of eternity in hell is looming.

I mean, you can't just unknow that there is an ultimate goal to work towards.

I didn't say it was easy, nor always attainable. Just that it is what it is. People will act out of selfish beliefs, but when they do they're not acting morally - they're acting selfishly. When someone is doing something purely for the knowledge of right, regardless of the personal cost, they are acting morally. They are glorifying their diety, not for the gain, but because it's right.

 

[This_person]

lol .... see T_p, this is what I'm talking about.

(no offense toppick)

No arguments, there are those that end up going there.