[aldo_14]

Certain, yes.  But not all; and you should never 'punish' the majority for the actions of the minority (ad I have no doubt it is a minority).

EDIT; or the inverse, obviously.

[Flipside]

Oh certainly, and there always will be those who will, just as there will always be scientists who are avidly opposed to any kind of religion. I doubt that will ever change, those who fear the unknown will lash out at anything.

That's just human nature, even a Utopia would have Anarchists, we just can't help it

[Kazan]

45% of the US population thinks the world is less than 10K years old

so yes it's a monitory - of total US population

only around 76% of the US is christian, about 13% is atheist/agnostic

[Ford Prefect]

45% of the US population thinks the world is less than 10K years old

Again, this is because they're stupid, not because they're religious. Stupid people think their religion will explain everything that has nothing to do with religion.

The great art and philosophy of the world is doomed to be oversimplified by the vast majority of the population.

[Flipside]

Well, it's like using braces to make teeth straight....

You don't just grab the tooth and force it into where you want it to be, you ease it, a little at a time, first of all you convince them that religion is against things that pretty much anyone would be against.... Murder, Rape, Torture etc.

Then you start edging them into your line of thinking... What is murder, to answer that question you have to ask, what is life, and when does it start? Hence the motion begins...

Once you have peoples trust, and as long as you sound like you know what you are talking about, they will choose to believe you, because you were there, and the scientists weren't.

The same  applies for teachers, they hold ni their hands the responsiblity for creating a free-thinking person, if they knowingly abuse that privilege then they not only abuse the children, but they abuse the entire name of 'teacher'.

[Ford Prefect]

I don't see the point in linking morality to religion either. Conduct towards other people strikes me as a seperate thing.

[aldo_14]

I always reckoned the sins defined by religion came from morality, not the other way round.

[Flipside]

Morality isn't linked to religion, but by introducing people using what can be described as the 'basic morailties', i.e. our own pack instincts against theft and murder etc, it provides an easy introduction, what religion does is use those morals and couple them with what is frequently Dogma or incomplete evidence, and twist it to say what they wish. However, that is the Church doing this, not peoples religion.

Religion is not the source of morality by any means, but fear of having those basic rights abused is what pushes many people to join churches.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Flipside
Morality isn't linked to religion, but by introducing people using what can be described as the 'basic morailties', i.e. our own pack instincts against theft and murder etc, it provides an easy introduction, what religion does is use those morals and couple them with what is frequently Dogma or incomplete evidence, and twist it to say what they wish. However, that is the Church doing this, not peoples religion.

Religion is not the source of morality by any means, but fear of having those basic rights abused is what pushes many people to join churches.

Well, my view of religion is that it's main purpose is to provide a framework for espousing those moral value, wrapping it up in a nice easy-to-swallow 'you'll get your reward in heaven' style coating.

[Ford Prefect]

I can't believe that, primarily for the reason that even being a steadfast atheist, I have still had what you could call religious experiences. So I think the religious tendency is an emotion seperate from what governs morality.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
I can't believe that, primarily for the reason that even being a steadfast atheist, I have still had what you could call religious experiences. So I think the religious tendency is an emotion seperate from what governs morality.

I tend to disregard the spiritual aspect and simply view it as (principally) a symbolic way to espouse morality.  At least, for the more regimented - stroke - organised religions.

(I'm a very cynical person, I know)

[Ghostavo]

aldo_14, isn't using reward systems linked to morality a bit immature for the user of such method?

Originally posted by aldo_14
Well, my view of religion is that it's main purpose is to provide a framework for espousing those moral value, wrapping it up in a nice easy-to-swallow 'you'll get your reward in heaven' style coating.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Ghostavo
aldo_14, isn't using reward systems linked to morality a bit immature for the user of such method?

 

Why?

[Ghostavo]

Because it means they would do it just to suit their needs, so instead of a moral system you would have... a reward system with applied moral values. In the future when those rewards were taken for granted, or ignored, wouldn't they consider morals to be useless? Or am I confusing what you said?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Ghostavo
Because it means they would do it just to suit their needs, so instead of a moral system you would have... a reward system with applied moral values. In the future when those rewards were taken for granted, or ignored, wouldn't they consider morals to be useless? Or am I confusing what you said?

Noooooo...... it's giving a consequence for a good deed that means all good deeds are in the persons ultimate interest.  i.e. a more tangible extension to 'a good deed is its own reward'.

I view it (religion) as a different way to structure a moral framework.

[Ghostavo]

What about when a good deed is against your self interest? How will that work out?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Ghostavo
What about when a good deed is against your self interest? How will that work out?

It's never against their self interest, because their self interest is in ultimately going to heaven, or reincarnation as a better being, etc.  Y'know, something supernatural which overrides personal interests.

[Ghostavo]

I'm not following you then... when the future generations of those people taught by that same method start ignoring those metaphysical rewards ("screw heaven", "screw reincarnation", etc... ) how will they behave and think about the morals that were encouraged by the reward method they turned their backs on?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Ghostavo
I'm not following you then... when the future generations of those people taught by that same method start ignoring those metaphysical rewards ("screw heaven", "screw reincarnation", etc... ) how will they behave and think about the morals that were encouraged by the reward method they turned their backs on?

I think you missed my point... what I was saying was that religion can offer that sort of reward to stop that sort of thing and that IMO that's probably why we ended up having the likes of deadly sins and commandments and whatnot; to reflect societal morals & encourage people to obey them.

Like, people kept on falling off roofs, so there's a line about building battlements on your house in the Bible.  That sort of thing.

I didn't say it was the best way, or the only way - obviously, cos I'm an aetheist and consider myself a pretty damn 'good' person - but it is a way.  And it works for some, and it doesn't for others.

[Ghostavo]

Misinterpreted then... sorry.