This is such a deeply disturbing viewpoint.
When someone says that a lack of religion leads to a lack of morality, what they’re necessarily really saying is that they’re so deeply sociopathic that they not only can’t reason morally, but can’t even envision the possibility of doing so. They’re effectively stating outright that they can’t even imagine arriving at sound moral judgments through the application of reason, empathy and concern for others, and that the only way they can even conceive of morality is as a set of rules laid down and enforced by some enormous daddy figure who’s going to punish them if they break them.
It’s astonishing really. And sobering.
It gets worse, because that’s what people use to justify the argument that people being evil is a part of human nature. Because they genuinely believe that being evil is the default state of humans despite centuries of evidence otherwise.
It’s also the reason that religious people can contentedly do horrible things - because they have no ability to make moral judgments on their own, so if their religion tells them that something that anyone with even a minimal ability to reason morally would recognize to be obviously wrong is actually right and proper, they just slavishly believe that it’s right and proper.
Well… Some cannot make those judgements but some can. Those who can, and some who are told to do or believe things that contradict their sense of morality will refuse to do so. And end up having to question their leader, church, even their entire belief system. I’m speaking from experience here.
I dunno, I don’t believe in a god, but I also don’t believe humans are good either. We’re pretty fucked up creatures.
To quote MIB: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
I think it applies pretty broadly that individuals are decent but organized into society, we mess up quite a bit.
I always say that the idea of civilised society is something we tell ourselves to make us feel better about the fact that we’re living amongst wild animals.
We are a very mixed bag.
There are a range of people from altruistic to greedy sociopaths. And few if any are so simple that “good” or “bad” is a sufficient descriptor.
Humans evolved to be cooperative, on average, only to such a degree to enable us to survive. On the surface we can mostly not maim and kill each other enough to work together on things.
But we have many competing motivations and instincts. We aren’t far enough removed from our violent ape ancestors to my taste. As one can see by reading the news on any given day.
I hear this over and over but I don’t think it’s universally true.
For me, when I was still a believer, I thought and said (at one point) that religion was needed for morality only because I didn’t think too hard (as is true for many religious folk) and also because if people could be decent and moral without religion it called into question some fundamental tenets of Christianity.
At some point not long after I said this to someone, who called me out on it, I realized this idea was stupid and was easily disproven by the many good, non-religious people I knew. That was one of many realizations on my path to deconversion.
Another was encountering religious people who seemed not to have any empathy (or who had been brainwashed into having none). So probably some make that claim who are sociopaths. Anyway I was horrified by some of the statements and attitudes and that prompted further thinking.
You said “this isn’t true” but then went on to agree with the other comment. Just sayin’.
Noticed that. After I finished reading their comment, I think they meant they hear the “There is no Morality without Religion” often
No, they said that someone could believe that morality without religion is impossible not because they are a sociopath, but rather because they haven’t thought “too hard about it.”.
When people tell you who they are, believe them.
(I would fact-check such a claim, though)
That’s what you get for delegating all the reasoning to a single book.
In the ordinary moral universe, the good will do the best they can, the worst will do the worst they can, but if you want to make good people do wicked things, you’ll need religion.
Christopher Hitchens
Sounds a lot like Steven Weinberg
With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.
Isn’t a person that is only kept from doing evil by being threatened with damnation … just an evil person?
I think if we’re going to categorize people as “good” or “evil”, we should distinguish between their thoughts and actions. Otherwise, we’re playing Thought Police.
In other words, I think a good answer to your question is, “Potentially.” or “Quite possibly, but we will never know for sure, because things played out differently.”
Well, evil oriented, perhaps then.
It’s a really weird argument. I never even thought about murdering anyone, and never needed a sky wizard to tell me so. Imagine thinking about strangling your neighbour every day if it weren’t for that pesky bible.
i dont need the threat of eternal punishment to be a good person
wtf is wrong with these people (rhetorical question)
To much religion clearly
I remember when I told my mother I was an atheist and she asked me “then how do you know right from wrong?”. She is a nice person but religion was so core to her upbringing I suppose she never questioned it
The religious are over represented in prisons.
Lot of good that religious moral compass did them
Not trying to defend the moral compass argument but legality doesnt equate morality either
Legality offers a closer shot to morality than religious doctrine by a country mile.
I would argue that’s not necessarily the case - see slavery, caste systems, discrimination etc. In many countries currently and throughout history it’s been perfectly legal to treat the “other” as less than oneself, even up to and including murder and torture.
Also, often laws are created to enforce religious doctrine, which while perhaps morally preferable to those of that religion may be abhorrent to those outside it. (Abortion, burkas/hijab, education restrictions, prison sentencing, drug/alcohol legality, etc)
Ask yourself which is more likely to have a special set of rules for the “out group” between state laws and religious denominations.
There’s a lot of law protecting immorality/punishing moral actions as well. Look at how difficult it is for people to get justice through the legal system in so many cases. It can take years fighting corporations lawyers before they’re paid damages.
That’s only if the people writing the law have a moral compass of one sort (religious or not).
If I become ruler and write the law so that helping the poor is criminal, the only solution to a person unable to pay their debt is death, and that only people of a certain demographic are allowed to use front doors to establishments I don’t think you’d say that the law is a closer shot to morality than religious doctrine.
You don’t need any religion for a “moral compass”, but basic ethical principles.
For the most time religions were (and are still) used as a means of power to either suppress your own population (see most islamic countries today) or divide people and justify wars (see catholics and protestants / orthodox in the past).
Countless people were killed in the name of some “religion”.
You could’ve also written:
“… Divide people and justify wars (also Islamic countries today)…”
That’s true.
deleted by creator
I don’t know… seems to me like there’s no sin enumerated in Bible that believer would be unable to somehow explain as a pro god action. God’s mercy and 10 commandments are concepts that appear to be paradoxical to each other.
Christians have 10 commandments and can’t follow them, most often even won’t pretend to, because… checks notes … god will forgive them… Imagine the talk with saint Peter after death — ”so what do you have to say for yourself?“ — ”well, I went to church and shit, and God forgives“ — ”in my experience he really responds to arrogance and taunting“.
I love the story of the 10 commandments — so he went up a mountain, sat there for way too long (I guess good clubs up there, after all he comes back later), came down with the tablets (something about killing or not written on it), didn’t like what he saw, smash the priceless religious relic and proceeded to murder everyone. Any true crime podcast would tell you that is destruction of evidence and premeditation, also clearly psychotic tyrannical religious cult leader kind of situation. Appears to me he ”saved“ them from Egypt for his own amusement.
As an aside — Jews have over 600 commandments sourced from the VERY SAME BOOK.
Judaism fascinates me with their rules. From an outsiders perspective, it’s like a constant game of cat and mouse with God trying to find loopholes in their laws.
jew: “murder is a sin!” god: “but if i let a volcano erupt then its natural causes” jew:
You forgot the part of the story everyone glosses over; he went back to get another copy of the tablets and the new set have different rules. The new set is the one called “The Ten Commandments” in the story, not the one most people thing of.
Erroring.
Kindly f&!k off.
Or are all those who spread terror and hatred for religious reasons simply not religious enough. Of course, religion does not necessarily have to degenerate into violence, but it is not at all suitable as a measure of morality, as history shows us.
Buuuuuurn
Perhaps taking remedial English lessons would would help THEM realise their own “erroring”.
Idiot.
Religion bad any upvotes
I don’t like the concept of organized religion either
Yet u didnt upvote 🤬
Which invisible man in the sky do you believe in?
I feel like we’re lacking the initial message here, the religious person was responding to.
Throwing that priest rape strawman at the end, is a rhetorical tool, but clearly is not addressing whatever the religious person was talking about. So this shit post is disingenuous, and a logical fallacy what about ism.
If we’re going to deconstruct people’s positions, we should at least be honest about it, and give the original context
the original commenter expressed religion is necessary for a ‘moral anchor’, and that isn’t true, and that’s what this is about.
anybody who throws up religion as a catch-all for solving problems is just asking for examples of religion causing problems.
What was the context that the original commenter was responding to?
Were they responding to studies where children and young people brought up in communities with a sense of self-identity have better outcomes? Religion could be a stand-in for community involvement.
Responding to somebody’s comment in a vacuum, is disingenuous, it misses the context, and we could be missing the entire point. We don’t have enough data.
And most importantly, this method of rhetoric does not convert people to your position.
i don’t have access to that person’s thoughts, but the statement looks clear to me. there’s always more context, you could grind it down to the sub-atomic if you want.
studies where children and young people brought up in communities with a sense of self-identity have better outcomes. Religion could be a stand-in for community involvement.
this is the position you were angling for, so you could have said that. I don’t disagree with the first part exactly, but religion is not what I would choose as a stand-in. It’s more like a substitute for science and arts education, including basic philosophy.
I wasn’t angling for any religious position. I just think it’s unfair to take somebody’s comment out of context, slap a zinger on it, and then make a social media post about how you got’em.
At best it’s lazy, at worst it’s misleading. it encourages sophistry.
As a kid, I had many legitimate questions about religion (my mother was very christian), and all of them got smothered with a simple “you’re too young, you wouldn’t understand / it’s too complex / you’re missing context”. Turns out, she was simply wrong about a shitload, and didn’t want to admit it.
The religious person made a pretty black and white comment. Maybe there is a lot of nuance in the context, but this comment has no nuance itself. It’s going from whatever context to making a general comment on the lack of religion and what it does to morality.
They said " That’s what lack of religion does to people"… So we’re missing the does in this context. We don’t know what they’re actually trying to say.
They did say it: “there is no moral anchor anymore.”
Uh oh… Someone let in an Internet debater!
According to Google it’s a comment on an r/watchpeopledieinside post with a clip from this (prank) video. I don’t know which part of the video was clipped since the post is deleted but… yeah. Even if it wasn’t a prank, looks like it’s just people malding over promiscuity.
Which invisible man in the sky do you believe in?
None. I have no belief in a deity.
