Religious moralism vs true morality

[lightgigantic]

The idea that God does not operate on what you called "a low grade morality" of reward and punishment

actually it was about low grade morailty being categorized as that morality that has no motivational factors outisde of fear of punishment .... but yeah whatever ....

is your own and is not found in the Bible.

and, lo and behold, you not only find references in the bible where they talk about a type of morality beyond fear of punishment, you also find scriptural commentaries on it too ...

As I already pointed out the Bible is filled with examples of God punishing humans with fires, plagues, and flood as well as with eternal hellfire. Heaven otoh is God's reward for the faithful. This is what your own religion teaches. Own it..

And as I pointed out, there are also many examples of the state incarcerating and punishing its citizenry ..... of course where you would go vfrom there to the automatic assumption that it has no modus operandi beyond such scheduling of tasks is beyond what you have so far offered in this thread.

 

[Dazz]

Hi, long time no see. Got lotza appointments.


Pertaining the moralism preached by the monotheist churches, i think it is fair to assume that it upholds itself as the above-all truth to be praised, that can not be made clearer than it already is.
But as far as these monotheist religions are nothing but an anthropomorphical projection of transcendental imagery, it is fair to assume as well, that whatever may come from that caleidoscope is the result of fundamental human judgement, i am taking into consideration yes, that whatever god that may be believed to be above us, apart being taken as real or not, it's laws can suffer judgement and can be submitted to subjective discernment, which leads us to the point that the moralism held by religious people/leaders CAN be doubted and put under trial, as far as interpersonal free will can go, and principles of mutual respect (common sense that is, anyone conscious can have it), by advent of shared experience from bygone ancestors, said laws and principles (now deemed morality, ethics and the hell on) were considered to be the major keepers of the order that they were used to have, and needed for survival.
Said moralism probably had a root from such liberties as free will and stuff (doesn't matter if god is real or no), but only as long as it was the consensus between the primal founders of the given order of manners, per say. What is preached today has nothing to do with those needs for behavioral patterns of the old days, but only chastisement and praising politics, where if you follow you are good, if you don't you are bad and will not receive candy. Also serves as well as a kind of segregative protocol as a inherent result of the aforementioned politics, with the intrinsic job of a disguised frowner upon those who are not ok with the rules played, althought this is kinda like "Which came first? Egg or chicken?" riddle to be solved, religious morality and moralism of sorts all have the same modus operandi and foundations.
I do reckon that, in older days, if it wasn't for the church the people would have blown itself apart but, i am trying to point out that deeming religious morality a moralism is as correct as deeming morality itself a moralism. Relative.
And also, that the dogmas presented by the monoteist churches are as sure as that tomorrow will be another day, outdated as shit. And cannot any longer be deemed and deem itself THE truth.

 

[Mathers2013]

I think it doesn't matter WHICH religion you are practising, the reason is simple: you BELIEVE!

 

[Yazata]

Yeah. If criticism of a system of belief and dogma that has enforced itself on the masses with lies and superstitions and guilt and fear constitutes some kind of moralism, then so be it. I'll take that hit in the service of speaking the truth.

'Religion' isn't 'a system'. When seen globally, throughout history, religion appears in countless different manifestations. There's no single dark authority up on top 'enforcing' any evil designs over the human race.

Religion is something that arises naturally in most people, even in you MR. When you aren't in your periodic atheist-jihad mood, you're a seeker yourself, looking for transcendence wherever you can find it: Ghosts, crop-circles, death an illusion, denials of scientific physicalism, affirmations of idealistic philosophies... You're seeking and searching for some cryptic sign of something... greater. There are people, not so different than you, who would call that transcendental goal 'God'.

Humans make distinctions between good and evil. But only religion enforces those distinctions as some arbitrary absolute that everyone must believe in and conform to.

There are stoutly secular things called 'police', 'courts' and 'criminal codes'. And once again, many atheists show no hesitation at all in casting moral judgements and in condemning others (such as "religionists") for their perceived moral failings.

One of the biggest things that set moral value-judgements apart from aesthetic value-judgements is that moral judements are prescriptive. They aren't just expressing a subjective judgement that 'I like this one and dislike that one'. They are saying 'You should behave this way and not that way'. It's hard to imagine how human beings could live in social groups unless there was some of that going on.

I pointed out that 'religion' isn't synonymous with 'the three monotheisms'.

It is in this thread.

No it isn't. Atheists don't have the power to warp facts to fit their agenda. That's like the recent threads in which equally agenda-driven theists were announcing that non-theists can't possibly understand morality as well as theists.

Even if, just for the sake of argument, we did accept the narrow and rather Christian-inspired thesis that the three Semitic religions that recognize the Hebrew Bible are somehow the best illustrations of religion in its true essence (that sounds like something a 19th century missionary would say), over-the-top atheistic condemnations of those religions would still to my eye be overly simplistic.

It's easy to select out all the bad stuff associated with Christianity (or whatever it is) and make a hostile case. It's just as easy to select out all the good stuff and make a positive case. But both strategies distort the data, which are a mixture of good and bad. It's like in politics, where libertarians select out all the repressive features of government, while socialists choose to emphasize all the beneficial features. In real life, governments display some of both.

Yeah..I'm really missing out on something not loving a system of delusional lies and fables designed to keep it's adherents from doing what they really want to do in life and believing in themselves. Poor pitiful me..sniff sniff.

The thing is, that isn't all that religion is. It certainly isn't what religion looks like to religious people. It's a hostile caricature. If it's all that somebody can see when they look at religion, then I do think that's sad.

Atheists SHOULD be a little mad in a world where like 90% (the religious at least) are too cowardly to even speak out against religion and its long history of mind control and psychological enslavement and anti-science indoctrination.

Religious people do speak out about human rights abuses in the name of religion, they do it all the time. Christians speak about love and forgiveness probably more often than they speak about judgement and damnation. Far from seeing human beings as hopeless fallen beasts, Christians typically imagine humans as having some image of divinity in them, something that links them to God, which is one reason why some find biological evolution so difficult, since it seems to them to deny that.

Despite all of its faults, the medieval Christian world created the European university and generated no end of highly sophisticated ideas in the arts and philosophy. And it's only fair to point out that many of the iconic founders of modern science, people such as Isaac Newton, were deeply religious people.

The place of religion in the human psyche, and the influence of religion in the history of ideas and of science, is a lot more complicated and far subtler than the myth of good atheists forever battling against evil religious thought-control and obscurantism suggests.

 

[Hapsburg]

Religion generally assumes it has the market cornered on morality.

Some do. Most don't. Most don't claim to be relevant to anyone outside of a small group or tribe.
Most theistic religions, in stark contrast to what you're claiming, affirm that morality is a human-created thing. It might reinforce it through mythology, but they don't make the claim that morality derived from the gods. The gods are usually seen as far above such petty human concerns. And I agree.

 

[Anew]

please what about ethics vs. morality

 

[Magical Realist]

Some do. Most don't. Most don't claim to be relevant to anyone outside of a small group or tribe.
Most theistic religions, in stark contrast to what you're claiming, affirm that morality is a human-created thing. It might reinforce it through mythology, but they don't make the claim that morality derived from the gods. The gods are usually seen as far above such petty human concerns. And I agree.

I've never heard of a theistic religion that doesn't see God as the source of morality for humans. Perhaps you can cite a few. I've also not seen a religion that doesn't generalize its morality and eschatology to include the whole human race. Most view outsiders as the enemies of the faith, usually driven by dark if not demonic motives of hatred for God and envy of his darling lambs. Just watch how fast atheists get bashed and ad homed in this forum for merely speaking out against religion.

 

[Magical Realist]

'Religion' isn't 'a system'. When seen globally, throughout history, religion appears in countless different manifestations. There's no single dark authority up on top 'enforcing' any evil designs over the human race.

No doubt there is a phase when any religion is little more than a grassroots movement of loosely connected spiritual philosophies and ideas. But even then it's hegemonial nature, as a social power structure, is coming into play with the selection of a body of loyal believers chosen to represent the will of the leader. Over time this hierarchal power structure becomes more rigid to the point of developing its own creeds and sacred set of writings that are taught to the members by select priests. At that point it becomes a religion.

And so yes, it IS a top down institution that feeds off the charity of its members and bolsters its numbers by brainwashing the children of the members with its fear driven doctrines and mind-controlling agenda. It is a social system that defends itself like an organism and perpetuates it's memes into every new generation of believers that are born into it. How else do you think religions survive with such ludicrous myths and obselete concepts? Do you think people just come up with this shit on their own? No..it is imposed upon them from a powerful authoritarian institution that's permanently entrenched itself into the prevailing culture for centuries.

Religion is something that arises naturally in most people, even in you MR.

Most people don't come up with their religion or ANY religion on their own. That requires a lot of time and imagination and financial backing and social connections, something guys like Joseph Smith and Ron L. Hubbard and David Koresch apparently DID have. Nowadays though, with a more astute and widespread mental health system, religion starters generally don't fare well like they used too. We have special medications now for people who hear voices and see visions.

When you aren't in your periodic atheist-jihad mood, you're a seeker yourself, looking for transcendence wherever you can find it: Ghosts, crop-circles, death an illusion, denials of scientific physicalism, affirmations of idealistic philosophies... You're seeking and searching for some cryptic sign of something... greater. There are people, not so different than you, who would call that transcendental goal 'God'.

I don't think me allowing for the existence of the paranormal, ufos, bigfoot, and esp necessarily constitutes a religion on my part. I mean it might if I pursued it night and day, obsessing over it in some unnatural fashion to give my life a meaning it is missing. There are some people who DO make of these things a religion. But not me. And I reject outright the premise that there is a God out their planning everything and watching over things. The universe I live in is one of total uncertainty, a recognition of the huge unknowns that outlie our mundane experiences. That is opposite the religious impulse, which seeks to alleviate the sense of the uncertain and the uncontrollable in life with authority-enforced dogmas and beliefs and rituals.

I pointed out that 'religion' isn't synonymous with 'the three monotheisms'.
No it isn't. Atheists don't have the power to warp facts to fit their agenda. That's like the recent threads in which equally agenda-driven theists were announcing that non-theists can't possibly understand morality as well as theists.

Sure..you can dig up obscure exceptions to the widely understood sense of what religion is in our modern world. Perhaps we should consult Hapsburg on the religious practices of 5th century Dionysian cults. I'm not talking about these. I'm talking about religion as we experience it in the modern world. I'm not going to play your game of shutting down conversation for the sake of some definition of religion we'd only read in a college anthropology textbook.

Even if, just for the sake of argument, we did accept the narrow and rather Christian-inspired thesis that the three Semitic religions that recognize the Hebrew Bible are somehow the best illustrations of religion in its true essence (that sounds like something a 19th century missionary would say), over-the-top atheistic condemnations of those religions would still to my eye be overly simplistic.

That's a moral premise in itself isn't it? That I shouldn't talk about the bad aspects of religion at all. That all conversation on religion should axiomatically be void of value statements--a dry sterile treatise of facts and events that would bore anyone here to tears. I'm not going to do that. I'm going to talk about religion as I personally experienced it and see it demonstrated in my everyday life. I'm going to let myself be passionate and hyperbolic and critical and resentful because that is what religion has left me with. If you don't like it don't read it. But I'm not going to censor myself or my feelings here because it violates some moral code you have of compassionately respecting everybody's beliefs. I DON'T respect religion anymore than I respect fascism. And I have the right to say why.

It's easy to select out all the bad stuff associated with Christianity (or whatever it is) and make a hostile case. It's just as easy to select out all the good stuff and make a positive case. But both strategies distort the data, which are a mixture of good and bad. It's like in politics, where libertarians select out all the repressive features of government, while socialists choose to emphasize all the beneficial features. In real life, governments display some of both.

People should be able to make value statements about ideologies and belief systems they have had direct experience in. People who get sick at restaurants should be able to give those restaurants shitty reviews. Is it fair to the restaurant? Maybe not. But it's certainly something people should hear about before deciding to eat there again.

The thing is, that isn't all that religion is. It certainly isn't what religion looks like to religious people. It's a hostile caricature. If it's all that somebody can see when they look at religion, then I do think that's sad.

Hostility is natural, especially when you see the majority of the human race glibly floating along believing all sorts of silly crap they never even thought through and pretending to be things they weren't meant to be to begin with. I consider my moral duty to be hostile about that. As an atheist I would think you could appreciate the desire to free people of the lies and deceptions of their childhood.

Religious people do speak out about human rights abuses in the name of religion, they do it all the time. Christians speak about love and forgiveness probably more often than they speak about judgement and damnation. Far from seeing human beings as hopeless fallen beasts, Christians typically imagine humans as having some image of divinity in them, something that links them to God, which is one reason why some find biological evolution so difficult, since it seems to them to deny that.

Man was created in God's image, usually meant in a physical sense not a moral sense. Since the Fall, man has devolved into a wretched sinner in need of salvation and special forgiveness by God. That's how religion views human nature--a sewer of decadent lusts and greed and selfishness totally incapable to elevating itself.

Despite all of its faults, the medieval Christian world created the European university and generated no end of highly sophisticated ideas in the arts and philosophy. And it's only fair to point out that many of the iconic founders of modern science, people such as Isaac Newton, were deeply religious people.

Was that before or after they burned Bruno at the stake and imprisoned Galileo? Was that DURING the Crusades and the Inquisitions and the witch burnings and the Jewish persecutions, or sometime afterwards?

The place of religion in the human psyche, and the influence of religion in the history of ideas and of science, is a lot more complicated and far subtler than the myth of good atheists forever battling against evil religious thought-control and obscurantism suggests.

Forever isn't as long as it used to be. The number of atheists and secularists is growing by leaps and bounds these days, and that's even WITHOUT brainwashing toddlers with tales of genocide and plagues and fire and brimstone.

 

[Hapsburg]

I've never heard of a theistic religion that doesn't see God as the source of morality for humans. Perhaps you can cite a few.

Most traditional/ethnic religions are as I describe. You are generalising "religion" based on the two large Abrahamic religions. Even Judaism doesn't strictly view their moral system as applicable to non-Jewish ethnic groups.