[lpkmckenna]

Palin: "morality itself cannot be sustained without religious beliefs." See: Sarah Palin is wrong about John F. Kennedy, religion and politics

Forgeting Palin for a minute, do people here really believe this?

[SpaceMonkey]

IMO, the only prerequisite for morality is empathy. Empathy does not require religious beliefs.

[Doofy]

She's got a point.
Without an external tether, society could move in any direction (over generations, of course).

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

She's got a point.
Without an external tether, society could move in any direction (over generations, of course).

Do you believe that tether must be a belief in the supernatural?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

She's got a point.
Without an external tether, society could move in any direction (over generations, of course).

As if society can't/doesn't move in any direction even with an external tether.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Do you believe that tether must be a belief in the supernatural?

It has to be some sort of constant outside of the society. I can't think of any others, so...?

[andi*pandi]

You can believe in the Golden Rule without believing in god.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

As if society can't/doesn't move in any direction even with an external tether.

Yes, but without the tether this would be faster and more disruptive.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It has to be some sort of constant outside of the society. I can't think of any others, so...?

Human nature is one. Mathematics is another. Or astronomy. Heck even astrology.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

She's got a point.
Without an external tether, society could move in any direction (over generations, of course).

Sort of. Her real point is that the world should be governed by Christians who share her ridiculous interpretation of their mythology.

Religious tethers keep Iran, Syria, Sudan, et al from moving in a positive direction, and they use their religion as justification for human rights violations.

I find it interesting that people most vocal about government intervention in their lives are most supportive of intervention by an invisible man.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

You can believe in the Golden Rule without believing in god.

QFT.

I think it is a valid to ask political candidates about their religious beliefs, and about how their beliefs will affect their political views. That's why I think both Kennedy and Romney's speeches were essential to their campaigns, as they were quite clear about how their faith would (or would not) factor into their decisions.

While the Federal Government cannot establish any religious test, private citizens are under no such constraint. Palin is free to only support candidates who worship her God the way she thinks is best. And our Freedom of Speech means she is free to communicate this.

And I am free to consider her a dingbat, based on her public statements. Ain't this a great country?

[beorning]

Morality is one aspect of the glue that holds society together, ethics is another. Morality can be seen as how I act when no one is watching, and ethics are how I act when others see me.

Does morality require belief in God? No, but in does require acceptance of some transcendent code or norm. Often when we call someone immoral, we really mean he or she is acting unethically, that is against the ethical code or norm.

Interestingly, those who believe in God - even the same God - do not share the same code. For example it is perfectly acceptable for a Muslim to have more than one wife while the common Christian construction is that this is unacceptable.

I think it is a valuable challenge to define a code that is acceptable to all without a pre-determined belief and without precluding anyone who does believe.

[SpaceMonkey]

Edit: Never mind. I totally misread andi's post.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It has to be some sort of constant outside of the society. I can't think of any others, so...?

Any study of the way a belief system is practiced throughout a period of time makes it clear that religion is far from constant.

[nonhuman]

Let's assume for a second that the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible / Tanakh is what it claims to be. This is a fairly non-controversial assumption as Christians, Jews, and Muslims all profess to believe this.

Does this book provide a basis for morality? Absolutely not. It certainly provides some good moral lessons, but it also provides some absolutely horrible ones (do not kill people: good; give up your daughters to be raped by a crowd of lusty men: bad). Many people will make the argument that only some parts of the book are intended to be moral teachings or that only some should be taken literally, or some variant thereof. However to make that argument is to admit that the book is not a source of morality because it is impossible to determine which of those passages is a good moral lesson and which isn't without applying some external morality to them. Therefore, unless you truly believe that everything in the Bible is literally true and you can honestly say that you think that all actions therein sanctioned by God and/or represented as holy and/or righteous are good, then you are, by necessity, acknowledging that the Bible is not your source of morality.

[sek929]

The morals passed down within the family structure are infinitely more important than religious belief.

[Doofy]

Pointless thread. Get back to your red vs blue, boys.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Without an external tether, society could move in any direction (over generations, of course).

Religion is not outside of society.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Pointless thread. Get back to your red vs blue, boys.

Pointless because you're losing?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Pointless because you're losing?

No. It's pointless because it's already reverted to the usual "atheist vs religionist" arguments. And a lot of you are confusing "religious beliefs" with "religion".

[sek929]

Are you confusing religious beliefs with spirituality?

[Laminar]

16-0, the tribe has spoken.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Are you confusing religious beliefs with spirituality?

I don't know. Wouldn't we need to define these things first? Maybe your definitions don't match mine?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It has to be some sort of constant outside of the society. I can't think of any others, so...?

The realization that we need some sort of cohesion and respect for each other, so we don't slaughter each other, or rob each other blind, will do. It all comes down to self preservation.

[Athens]

Morality and Religion do not mix. Religion can justify any unmoral act in the name of religion such as the crusades. Morality is learned from parents and society while religion can corrupt/twist morality for its own gain. Politics and Religion do not mix. Morality and Religion do not mix. Science and Religion do not mix.

Religious Laws such as thou shall not kill are easily replaced with society laws of Do Not Murder. Its all about organization, before countries and communities and civilizations there was no structure and religion created such structure. Modern day society has replaced that structure with a secular structure. Same rules, same morality, same punishments but now its society dictating the rules vs a religious leader. The people vs the pope. Why do people follow either structure? Well under religion its not to piss off god and go hell. In a secular society its not to piss off law enforcement and go to jail. Remove both law and religion morality will go out the window. Morality can stay in place with either or. Law is a set foundation difficult to corrupt while religion is all interpreted and subject to change. Its why religion can corrupt morality when it see's fit while its much more difficult to corrupt law.

[The Final Dakar]

This thread does a nice job of illustrating why most polls in the PL are doomed to failure.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This thread does a nice job of illustrating why most polls in the PL are doomed to failure.

Could you explain in more detail? How do you consider this poll is a failure?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Could you explain in more detail? How do you consider this poll is a failure?

I don't consider the results are an accurate representation of the PL.

[Demonhood]

Weird. I thought orthodox religious types loved to vote for things.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Could you explain in more detail? How do you consider this poll is a failure?

It's a public poll.

[imitchellg5]

You can't have morality without some sort of baseline standard. Religion is often provides that standard, but other beliefs can as well.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

You can't have morality without some sort of baseline standard. Religion is often provides that standard, but other beliefs can as well.

I never thought of calling Laws beliefs but I guess you could say that. I believe in Law, ok it does work

[Shaddim]

Is it required? No. Does it often make moral decisions easier? Yep.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Is it required? No. Does it often make moral decisions easier? Yep.

And does it make doing immoral things easier too, well ask a suicide bomber before he goes off for the answer

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Athens 

And does it make doing immoral things easier too, well ask a suicide bomber before he goes off for the answer

I wouldn't know, I've not talked to any of those. And, if I saw one I'd shoot him between the eyes first. Damn, that's a tough one.

[Athens]

Either way Law and Religion makes it ok to murder people. Religion says its ok to kill for what ever religious reason, and state laws allow the murder of the enemies of the state. Religious murders (wars) vs State murder (wars) both set the foundation of moral behavior for situations such as living amongst your brothern in peace and both allow for the normal moral rules to be broken in times the situation calls for it such as war with enemies. The solder who comes back from war broken because of the enemies he has killed had a higher sense of personal morals of right and wrong then the solder who comes back bragging and showing off his trophies. If you ask me morals come from parents and up bringing, and when your living in ideal conditions and comfortability morals are easy to live by but take away warmth, food and comforts we degrade back into basic instincts for self preservation at all cost. History has shown this to be the case, perfectly normal moral people committing horrible acts due to religious pressure, political pressure or survival pressures. Morality is the product of society and with out society there is no morals. Nazi German, South Africa, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Iraq all examples of moral people doing immoral things when the situation called for it or allowed for it. I live in a comfortable house, I have heat, food and entertainment. Take it all away from me and face starvation from death or stealing to survive I will steal to survive. As long as I have all my comforts im a moral person. You might say to yourself if I lost my job and my home im not going to steal. Well its easy to say that. Its easy to say I will just fine another job, I will find a shelter. But its not the same until you really are in that situation. Morality is a by product of comfort, security and happiness. Immorality is a by product of the opposite.

[finboy]

Whatever system you use to define your morality is plain and simple a religious system. It is your belief in the system itself that sustains it. Just saying that something is "right" or "wrong" requires a belief system.

Does that have to encompass some deity? No. Collective consciousness? Yes, or at least a belief that what you're doing would be recognizable as "moral" by some folks out there.

Palin is talking out of her butt once again, but she's not wrong here - you have to have beliefs to have morality.

Take reciprocity for example, the most basic moral system. Do unto others as THEY WOULD do unto you. An eye for an eye. Etc. That belief depends on the idea that others will act the same way, but it's a basic ingrained characteristic of (healthy) humans.

Did God say "let there be reciprocity?" Yes, but it existed long before anyone wrote it down.

Palin's position is consistent with the idea that science implies its own morality. It does. We do things in science, generally, with the attitude of "hey y'all, watch this" and see if it blows up under us. But the morality there is that we can do it so we should do it (therefore it's the right thing to do). It's resulted in plenty of advancements too, but Mengele was a high priest.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Athens 

And does it make doing immoral things easier too, well ask a suicide bomber before he goes off for the answer

Immoral by your definition, not by his.

[Chongo]

John Adams, 2nd POTUS from his first address to Congress 11/23/1797

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.

[SpaceMonkey]

^ I'm not exactly sure how that quotation addresses the topic of this thread, but to correct you on one thing, it's actually from an October 1798 letter from Adams to the Massachusetts Militia, Third Division, First Brigade, in response to an address he received from the unit's commanders. (Adams received a number of friendly addresses, letters of support, etc. from military units at the time, after his commissioning earlier in the year of George Washington as commander-in-chief of armies raised for a prospective war with France.)

In the context of the full letter the language you quoted is really a shot at France, playing to domestic uproar raised over the XYZ Affair, anxiety over the course of the French Revolution, and the common view of the French character as being a bit two-faced.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

It's a public poll.

That's not the main problem, though it's certainly contributing in this case. If this poll had the same exact results, only private, that'd be pretty misleading, wouldn't it?

[imitchellg5]

Sure. It also needs more options.

[The Final Dakar]

Agreed. That's why I didn't vote.

[imitchellg5]

Yeah there is no option that fits my opinion, and my opinion on this matter isn't that complex.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Immoral by your definition, not by his.

Very true, in fact right to the point. My beliefs say its wrong, the bombers beliefs says its right.

[hyteckit]

Religion is great for sustaining immorality.

Justify killing in the name of God.

[Laminar]

And hyteckit swoops in with another of his classic posts. Well done.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

And hyteckit swoops in with another of his classic posts. Well done.

He just copies them off his RAtM t-shirts.

[smacintush]

I don't really think that either religion or most non-religous have much to say about morality. One one hand we have "morality" based upon the supposed will of a fictional being(s), on the other we have "morality" based upon...? Whim? "Moral intuition"? How good or bad something makes you feel?

Nonsense.

[Lateralus]

I personally don't require any daily guide on morality, so I voted no. But there should probably be a third poll option because after having lived in a redneck state for years and seeing several of my redneck friends who were 'strong of faith' struggle to make clean decisions, I have to say that I think for people of a certain 'caliber' religious guide is a necessity.