How Secular Family Values Stack Up

[Fweethawt]

Well, well, well...

 

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-82535717/

 

“If your morality is all tied in with God,” she continued, “what if you at some point start to question the existence of God? Does that mean your moral sense suddenly crumbles? The way we are teaching our children … no matter what they choose to believe later in life, even if they become religious or whatever, they are still going to have that system.”

[Bhim]

Yes, I agree with this. Secular morality, in my opinion, is vastly more robust than Christian morality. Perhaps it is even stronger than the Hindu morality with which I ally myself (although since Hinduism doesn't require faith, it carries similar advantages over Christianity). A secular person does not need God to be a good person, only his sense of logic and rational thought. His morality is not even predicated on atheism, and he would retain it upon conversion to theism. All other things being equal, I'll trust an atheist over a Christian any day. My personal experience has confirmed this.

[Guest end3]

Yes, I agree with this. Secular morality, in my opinion, is vastly more robust than Christian morality. Perhaps it is even stronger than the Hindu morality with which I ally myself (although since Hinduism doesn't require faith, it carries similar advantages over Christianity). A secular person does not need God to be a good person, only his sense of logic and rational thought. His morality is not even predicated on atheism, and he would retain it upon conversion to theism. All other things being equal, I'll trust an atheist over a Christian any day. My personal experience has confirmed this.

You wish to qualify robust?

[Jeff]

^ Probably the statistics in the article?

[Guest end3]

^ Probably the statistics in the article?

Briefly perusing the article, people are actually acting religiously without assigning there actions to a cause. Qualifying robust would mean understanding the full scope of morality. The article lacks depth.

[duderonomy]

 

^ Probably the statistics in the article?

Briefly perusing the article, people are actually acting religiously without assigning there actions to a cause. Qualifying robust would mean understanding the full scope of morality. The article lacks depth.

 

 

You wish to define "religiously"?

[Guest end3]

 

 

^ Probably the statistics in the article?

Briefly perusing the article, people are actually acting religiously without assigning there actions to a cause. Qualifying robust would mean understanding the full scope of morality. The article lacks depth.

 

 

You wish to define "religiously"?

 

Yes, the latter part of 1 below.

re·li·gious·ly.

[rəˈlijəslē]

 

ADVERB

 

1.in a way that relates to or conforms with a religion:

"the religiously based school"

 

•with consistent and conscientious regularity:

[miamia]

 

^ Probably the statistics in the article?

Briefly perusing the article, people are actually acting religiously without assigning there actions to a cause. Qualifying robust would mean understanding the full scope of morality. The article lacks depth.

 

OR religious people are falsely assigning a normal human behavior (which predates organized religion,) that developed via natural selection, to their belief system that comes from an era where people did not understand such concepts...

 

lets not forget that robust MORALITY as defined by the bible includes genocide, selling a woman to her rapist, and even killing your own children at the behest of god... 

We have since decided that we don't like those behaviors, and they do not help sustain a peaceful society, so we don't do them, and we look down on those that do. Even christianity itself underwent a huge reformation because the morality in the bible did not sit well with christians, who are of course also human beings capable of empathy and reasoning

and as the man states in the video, statistically, the behavior of a "none" includes tolerance, being less warlike,less prejudicial, less accepting of violence, etc..

the morality of a none is defined by what kind of world they want to live in.

the morality of a religious individual is defined by a set of largely fictional consequences,however, their interpretation of the behavioral set/consequences is often bent over time to accommodate their sensibilities, because the morality of the bible is a contradicting and unsustainable set of behaviors.

[duderonomy]

 

Yes, the latter part of 1 below.

re·li·gious·ly.

[rəˈlijəslē]

 

ADVERB

 

1.in a way that relates to or conforms with a religion:

"the religiously based school"

 

•with consistent and conscientious regularity:

 

 

Thanks End. I wasn't sure which meaning you were thinking of.   It gets confusing when we argue about religion religiously.

[duderonomy]

Miamia, drat that I'm out of upvotes for the day.   Your post was great.

[rjn]

Miamia, drat that I'm out of upvotes for the day.   Your post was great.

I second that.

[Guest end3]

 

 

^ Probably the statistics in the article?

Briefly perusing the article, people are actually acting religiously without assigning there actions to a cause. Qualifying robust would mean understanding the full scope of morality. The article lacks depth.

 

OR religious people are falsely assigning a normal human behavior (which predates organized religion,) that developed via natural selection, to their belief system that comes from an era where people did not understand such concepts...

 

lets not forget that robust MORALITY as defined by the bible includes genocide, selling a woman to her rapist, and even killing your own children at the behest of god... 

We have since decided that we don't like those behaviors, and they do not help sustain a peaceful society, so we don't do them, and we look down on those that do. Even christianity itself underwent a huge reformation because the morality in the bible did not sit well with christians, who are of course also human beings capable of empathy and reasoning

and as the man states in the video, statistically, the behavior of a "none" includes tolerance, being less warlike,less prejudicial, less accepting of violence, etc..

the morality of a none is defined by what kind of world they want to live in.

the morality of a religious individual is defined by a set of largely fictional consequences,however, their interpretation of the behavioral set/consequences is often bent over time to accommodate their sensibilities, because the morality of the bible is a contradicting and unsustainable set of behaviors.

 

What I am attempting to express is you can't have a generation of "none" pop up and say they haven't been effected my NUMEROUS generations before.....

 

And you would like to say that the morality of the "none" crowd will be fixed and absolute? ha

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

^ Probably the statistics in the article?

Briefly perusing the article, people are actually acting religiously without assigning there actions to a cause. Qualifying robust would mean understanding the full scope of morality. The article lacks depth.

 

OR religious people are falsely assigning a normal human behavior (which predates organized religion,) that developed via natural selection, to their belief system that comes from an era where people did not understand such concepts...

 

lets not forget that robust MORALITY as defined by the bible includes genocide, selling a woman to her rapist, and even killing your own children at the behest of god... 

We have since decided that we don't like those behaviors, and they do not help sustain a peaceful society, so we don't do them, and we look down on those that do. Even christianity itself underwent a huge reformation because the morality in the bible did not sit well with christians, who are of course also human beings capable of empathy and reasoning

and as the man states in the video, statistically, the behavior of a "none" includes tolerance, being less warlike,less prejudicial, less accepting of violence, etc..

the morality of a none is defined by what kind of world they want to live in.

the morality of a religious individual is defined by a set of largely fictional consequences,however, their interpretation of the behavioral set/consequences is often bent over time to accommodate their sensibilities, because the morality of the bible is a contradicting and unsustainable set of behaviors.

 

What I am attempting to express is you can't have a generation of "none" pop up and say they haven't been effected my NUMEROUS generations before.....

 

Even if you do express this End, it would amount to no more than your opinion on the matter.

 

But if you could cite some evidence to back up your opinion, that might be more persuasive. 

 

And you would like to say that the morality of the "none" crowd will be fixed and absolute? ha

 

Until Miamia answers your question End, any conclusion drawn by you about it is premature.

 

 

Also, a given generation can be positively or negatively affected by it's preceding generations.

 

Perhaps the nones have been negatively affected by the un-Christian behavior of preceding (and supposedly) Christian generations?

[Bhim]

Meh, I'll answer end's question. He, unlike Ironhorse, provides meaningful responses.

 

End, by robust I mean an atheist's morality is not fickle, and does not change with his theological paradigm. Generally, I've found good atheists to be consistently good to people without bias. Christians, on the hand, are good at helping only Christians, and are contemptuous of non-Christians.

[miamia]

 

 

 

^ Probably the statistics in the article?

Briefly perusing the article, people are actually acting religiously without assigning there actions to a cause. Qualifying robust would mean understanding the full scope of morality. The article lacks depth.

OR religious people are falsely assigning a normal human behavior (which predates organized religion,) that developed via natural selection, to their belief system that comes from an era where people did not understand such concepts... lets not forget that robust MORALITY as defined by the bible includes genocide, selling a woman to her rapist, and even killing your own children at the behest of god... We have since decided that we don't like those behaviors, and they do not help sustain a peaceful society, so we don't do them, and we look down on those that do. Even christianity itself underwent a huge reformation because the morality in the bible did not sit well with christians, who are of course also human beings capable of empathy and reasoningand as the man states in the video, statistically, the behavior of a "none" includes tolerance, being less warlike,less prejudicial, less accepting of violence, etc..the morality of a none is defined by what kind of world they want to live in.the morality of a religious individual is defined by a set of largely fictional consequences,however, their interpretation of the behavioral set/consequences is often bent over time to accommodate their sensibilities, because the morality of the bible is a contradicting and unsustainable set of behaviors.

What I am attempting to express is you can't have a generation of "none" pop up and say they haven't been effected my NUMEROUS generations before.....And you would like to say that the morality of the "none" crowd will be fixed and absolute? ha

no, absolutely not. Morality is not fixed and absolute. It is a set of behaviors that evolves according to a set of variables. One of those variables are the behavior of the predecessors of said "nones", along with other changes in the environment. Just as the christians of yesteryear were affected by their non religious predecessors, and the stressors of the age.

 

Are you trying to claim that the religiosity of our forebears acts as a sort of inoculation against lawlessness and war?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

So, End3, you want to discuss morality again, huh?  I've got one word for you, my friend: subjectivity.

[Guest end3]

Meh, I'll answer end's question. He, unlike Ironhorse, provides meaningful responses.

 

End, by robust I mean an atheist's morality is not fickle, and does not change with his theological paradigm. Generally, I've found good atheists to be consistently good to people without bias. Christians, on the hand, are good at helping only Christians, and are contemptuous of non-Christians.

I will admit that younger, less finished Christians are as you say. Hopefully we all get it in the end....no pun intended.

 

To the former....don't know what to say here Bhim...it just changes with the culture rather than theological understanding. One is fixed, one is not.

[Guest end3]

Are you trying to claim that the religiosity of our forebears acts as a sort of inoculation against lawlessness and war?

Yes, to some degree. Nature and nurture have no effect??

[Guest end3]

So, End3, you want to discuss morality again, huh?  I've got one word for you, my friend: subjectivity.

Thanks, I knew that....lol.

[miamia]

 

Are you trying to claim that the religiosity of our forebears acts as a sort of inoculation against lawlessness and war?

Yes, to some degree. Nature and nurture have no effect??

Of course nature and nurture have an effect. But why do you belive religiosity specifically, is the cause of what is now generally considered good behavior, considering that the most common religion in the U.S. comes from a book that condones rape, slavery, genocide, etc, but forbids wearing fabric of different colors, working on certain weekdays, masturbating, touching a woman on her period, and consensual sex and love between certain people based on gender... all actions that hurt absolutely no one.

[Guest end3]

 

 

Are you trying to claim that the religiosity of our forebears acts as a sort of inoculation against lawlessness and war?

Yes, to some degree. Nature and nurture have no effect??

 

Of course nature and nurture have an effect. But why do you belive religiosity specifically, is the cause of what is now generally considered good behavior, considering that the most common religion in the U.S. comes from a book that condones rape, slavery, genocide, etc, but forbids wearing fabric of different colors, working on certain weekdays, masturbating, touching a woman on her period, and consensual sex and love between certain people based on gender... all actions that hurt absolutely no one.

 

I think there is backlash due to our lack of understanding some moral absolute. When the "moral", religious, behaviors do too much harm, there is a push back to the middle. Having heard stories about Christianity in the 50's, I believe there was and still is a push against that extreme.

 

And because the backlash yields new behaviors, doesn't mean that these new behaviors are any more moral.

[miamia]

So moral religious behaviors can do too much harm? As in the behaviors I cited before?

[Guest end3]

So moral religious behaviors can do too much harm? As in the behaviors I cited before?

So moral religious behaviors can do too much harm? As in the behaviors I cited before?

yes, of course.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Moral behaviors based on subjective beliefs--that's the problem here, not culture, nature/nurture, or religion (per se).

[miamia]

 

So moral religious behaviors can do too much harm? As in the behaviors I cited before?

So moral religious behaviors can do too much harm? As in the behaviors I cited before?

yes, of course.

 

but some of these behaviors are required by the bible, are you saying that the bible should not be followed in all cases?