IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN RELIGION...

[nineteeneightysix]

(especially the traditional Judaism, Christianity and Islam)...

How can you say that the Newton Massacre was "Wrong"...?

Now, remember there is a difference between illegal/legal and right/wrong...For example, at some point slavery was legal, but was it right...?

Can you scientifically prove that the Newton Massacre or any such similar event is wrong...?

Ever since I stopped being a Christian, I have been struggling with this issue...People who say that they are not religious...

Even though I don't believe in a superstitious supernatural power, I believe every single human being with adequate intelligence has a religion (and I define religion as a code of morals, ethics and beliefs that govern/control behaviour)...

Think about the laws of our countries (USA and Canada), are these laws based on any kind of scientific research...? No...

So why do we believe in them, and isn't this a form of religion...?

In fact, isn't the constitution of the USA/Canada a religious book such as the Torah, New Testament and the Koran...?

What's your opinion on this line of reasoning...

Is the law of the land a religion...?

 

[zerozero]

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" -- Hamlet

The basic philosophical idea that supports laws and responsibilities etc is called social contract theory. It's based on actually deciding what sort of social order you want to live in

 

[Silver Surfer]

Stopped reading after the second line.

 

[zerozero]

Social contract - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In political philosophy the social contract or political contract is a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.[1] Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social contract theory.
Although the antecedents of social contract theory are found in antiquity, in Greek and Stoic philosophy and Roman and Canon Law, as well as in the Biblical idea of the covenant, the heyday of the social contract was the mid-seventeenth to early nineteenth centuries, when it emerged as the leading doctrine of political legitimacy. The starting point for most social contract theories is a heuristic examination of the human condition absent from any political order that Thomas Hobbes termed the “state of nature”.[2] In this condition, individuals' actions are bound only by their personal power and conscience. From this shared starting point social contract theorists seek to demonstrate, in different ways, why a rational individual would voluntarily consent to give up his or her natural freedom to obtain the benefits of political order.
Hugo Grotius (1625), Thomas Hobbes (1651), Samuel Pufendorf (1673), John Locke (1689), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) are among the most prominent of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century theorists of social contract and natural rights. Each solved the problem of political authority in a different way. Grotius posited that individual human beings had natural rights; Hobbes asserted that men consent to abdicate their rights in favor of the absolute authority of government (whether monarchial or parliamentary); Pufendorf disputed Hobbes's equation of a state of nature with war.[3]
Locke believed that natural rights were inalienable, and that the rule of God therefore superseded government authority; and Rousseau believed that democracy (self-rule) was the best way of ensuring the general welfare while maintaining individual freedom under the rule of law. The Lockean concept of the social contract was invoked in the United States Declaration of Independence. Social contract theories were eclipsed in the nineteenth century in favor of utilitarianism, Hegelianism, and Marxism, and were revived in the twentieth, notably in the form of a thought experiment by John Rawls.[4]

There's a layer lower than this though where you can ask basically "what is a natural right?" or "why is murder wrong?" Which is hard to answer

 

[MeachTheMonster]

It's wrong because its bad for humanity as a whole. Before and after the current popular religions morality comes for a standpoint of doing what right for humanity or your communty.

 

[KiD WavE]

I don't believe in Religion but that doesn't mean im some monster who doesn't believe in society and morals.


20 children were robbed of their lives and were brutally murdered




how can you even ask this question ...so much ignorance

 

[tru_m.a.c]

this thread. again.

 

[Bud Bundy]

(especially the traditional Judaism, Christianity and Islam)...

How can you say that the Newton Massacre was "Wrong"...?

Now, remember there is a difference between illegal/legal and right/wrong...For example, at some point slavery was legal, but was it right...?

Can you scientifically prove that the Newton Massacre or any such similar event is wrong...?

Ever since I stopped being a Christian, I have been struggling with this issue...People who say that they are not religious...

Even though I don't believe in a superstitious supernatural power, I believe every single human being with adequate intelligence has a religion (and I define religion as a code of morals, ethics and beliefs that govern/control behaviour)...

Think about the laws of our countries (USA and Canada), are these laws based on any kind of scientific research...? No...

So why do we believe in them, and isn't this a form of religion...?

In fact, isn't the constitution of the USA/Canada a religious book such as the Torah, New Testament and the Koran...?

What's your opinion on this line of reasoning...

Is the law of the land a religion...?

so your saying morals and the scientific method are one in the same.

you think an invisible being guides your morals.

and you think one can not have morals without religion?

fukk out of here.

 

[MostReal]

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" -- Hamlet

The basic philosophical idea that supports laws and responsibilities etc is called social contract theory. It's based on actually deciding what sort of social order you want to live in

so this is why no cacs care about black kids dying in the streets & Africa everyday.

 

[mbewane]

That old "aint no morals without religion" thread.

 

[nineteeneightysix]

so your saying morals and the scientific method are one in the same.
you think an invisible being guides your morals.
and you think one can not have morals without religion?
fukk out of here.

No, I am saying the opposite...

Morals and ethics have NOTHING to do with science...In fact, to conduct the most methodologically sound scientific experiment, you would need to throw morals and ethics in the bushes...

Morals and Ethics are subjective, you can't back them up with science...

And yes, I am saying you CANNOT have morals without religion...

Religion, morals, ethics, values, tradition, culture and etc are just words that describe similar ideologies...

You can't be a 100% logical human being, and function healthily in society...You have to believe in something, and whatever you believe in is your RELIGION...

Without religion there is no right or wrong...Just legal or illegal...

Without religion/belief, then the Newton massacre is no different than me picking up a can of insecticides, and spraying it on some roaches...

Why? As scientist you have to remain objective, so when you put your human bias aside, scientifically speaking, is there really a difference between killing a baby roach and killing a human baby...?

Is one organism more deserving of life than another...?

Only Human religion tells us yes...

 

[the cac mamba]

i feel even worse for the kids than you do. you know why? because you believe that theyre floating around in the clouds, while i know that theyre rotting in the ground for good and thats all we can be 100% sure of

 

[Silver Surfer]

No, I am saying the opposite...

Morals and ethics have NOTHING to do with science...In fact, to conduct the most methodologically sound scientific experiment, you would need to throw morals and ethics in the bushes...

Morals and Ethics are subjective, you can't back them up with science...

And yes, I am saying you CANNOT have morals without religion...

Religion, morals, ethics, values, tradition, culture and etc are just words that describe similar ideologies...

You can't be a 100% logical human being, and function healthily in society...You have to believe in something, and whatever you believe in is your RELIGION...

Without religion there is no right or wrong...Just legal or illegal...

Without religion/belief, then the Newton massacre is no different than me picking up a can of insecticides, and spraying it on some roaches...

Why? As scientist you have to remain objective, so when you put your human bias aside, scientifically speaking, is there really a difference between killing a baby roach and killing a human baby...?

Is one organism more deserving of life than another...?

Only Human religion tells us yes...

You are trying to sound smart but you are putting your foot in your mouth

 

[Robbie3000]

Morality doesn't come from scripture breh. No one needs a 2500 year old book to tell them that killing innocent children is wrong. Further the same book continually justifies the killing of innocent children time and time again. Here is just one example, does this body count make god worse than Adam Lanza? What about the flood and the number of young children who died in that event?

Kings
2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

No, I am saying the opposite...

Morals and ethics have NOTHING to do with science...In fact, to conduct the most methodologically sound scientific experiment, you would need to throw morals and ethics in the bushes...

Morals and Ethics are subjective, you can't back them up with science...

And yes, I am saying you CANNOT have morals without religion...

Religion, morals, ethics, values, tradition, culture and etc are just words that describe similar ideologies...

You can't be a 100% logical human being, and function healthily in society...You have to believe in something, and whatever you believe in is your RELIGION...

Without religion there is no right or wrong...Just legal or illegal...

Without religion/belief, then the Newton massacre is no different than me picking up a can of insecticides, and spraying it on some roaches...

Why? As scientist you have to remain objective, so when you put your human bias aside, scientifically speaking, is there really a difference between killing a baby roach and killing a human baby...?

Is one organism more deserving of life than another...?

Only Human religion tells us yes...

If morals come from religion, how did we maintain our well being before religion?

The morals in the bible are just reaffirmations of morals that where already being practiced by humans.

If your premise is true it would mean that there was total chaos before organized religion, we all know that that's not possible, because we couldn't have made societies strong enough to even contemplate religion without the morals being there in the first place.

As for a scientific explanation, all of our morals are supported by evolution and foster the well being of the entire human race.

Thou shall not steal. If we all steal then there is nothing to be stolen. Stealing does not support our well being.

Thou shall not kill. If we are all killing............. You get the picture