Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

National morality prevail without religion?

tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 10:56:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
George Washington said in his farewell address, "Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education…, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

True or not? Explain.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 11:53:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/18/2011 10:56:01 PM, tyler90az wrote:
George Washington said in his farewell address, "Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education…, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

True or not? Explain.

Not true. It is better for the human race to follow what we have started calling "moral" principals such as not murdering, stealing, or raping. No one wants those things done to them and even if they want to do those things, the population will always condemn and try to prevent those actions for their own sakes.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 12:02:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
In all honesty, I see "morals" as more of VERY ingrained societal rules. Beyond that, I'm a moral nihilist. There's really no way to appeal what is "absolutely right". We can agree, however, on morals. So maybe I'm a moral existentialist? I don't know. Anyway, the idea would be that people can come to together to lay down reasonable codes of behavior that are beneficial. I.e., you wouldn't want to be murdered, so don't murder. Laws are simply taking these codes of conduct and enforcing them.

But in general, I do not believe in "absolute" behavior. There is no "should", because "should" is dependent on conditions. Those conditions are not absolute, so "morality" cannot be absolute. Besides, if humans ceased to exist morality would not continue. For example, it's not moral for a rock to do anything.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 12:04:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I didn't really address the OP, so I'll try to now.

At 12/18/2011 10:56:01 PM, tyler90az wrote:
George Washington said in his farewell address, "Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education…, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

True or not? Explain.

My take on this is that, yeah, "national morality" (I'm assuming it means without religious influence) can prevail. But specifically, what does it need to prevail for? It's existence? Or some sort of end? Without that, we can't say for sure.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 8:41:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/18/2011 11:53:32 PM, rogue wrote:
At 12/18/2011 10:56:01 PM, tyler90az wrote:
George Washington said in his farewell address, "Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education…, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

True or not? Explain.

Not true. It is better for the human race to follow what we have started calling "moral" principals such as not murdering, stealing, or raping. No one wants those things done to them and even if they want to do those things, the population will always condemn and try to prevent those actions for their own sakes.

I find it hard to believe that everyone follows your sentiments. Maybe some people have morals, but not everyone. Even then, morals differ person to person, culture to culture. There are some tribes in Africa that think harming babies is a good thing. That is where religion is needed to create morality. Also the simple fact that everybody has different morals is a reason religion is needed to create national morality.

Lets create a new country, the citizens are people from every culture in the world. Think of all the different cultures in the world, with all their moral differences. Do you think that would be a stable country? I don't think it would, because everybody would have different morals, which would obviously create conflict. That could have been the USA, if we were not founded on Christianity.

There is no doubt because of religion people tend to follow moral principles more. Why is that? The reason is because they are accountable. People who are not religious, are more likely to commit crimes. Not only crimes, but minor things like lying or cheating. Those things major or minor, create an undesirable world to live in. Do you want to be lied to about everything? Do you want somebody to cheat you out of a job?
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 11:31:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 12:04:53 AM, M.Torres wrote:
I didn't really address the OP, so I'll try to now.

At 12/18/2011 10:56:01 PM, tyler90az wrote:
George Washington said in his farewell address, "Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education…, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

True or not? Explain.

My take on this is that, yeah, "national morality" (I'm assuming it means without religious influence) can prevail. But specifically, what does it need to prevail for? It's existence? Or some sort of end? Without that, we can't say for sure.

I agree here with Torres.

Technically you have to define prevail.

Nazi naturalistic morality prevailed without the drive of State Religion.

Stalin's and Mao's morality both "prevailed".

However, calling their systems of morality good would not be in line with our beliefs.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 11:33:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
To be fair,
George Washington meant the good prevailing in relation to Christian Moral values.

Which of course, Hitler, Stalin and Mao all proved him correct.
bigbob91
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 11:45:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/18/2011 11:53:32 PM, rogue wrote:
At 12/18/2011 10:56:01 PM, tyler90az wrote:
George Washington said in his farewell address, "Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education…, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

True or not? Explain.

Not true. It is better for the human race to follow what we have started calling "moral" principals such as not murdering, stealing, or raping. No one wants those things done to them and even if they want to do those things, the population will always condemn and try to prevent those actions for their own sakes.

yes and we get that from the 10 commandments and the golden rule from Jesus.
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 11:45:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 11:33:46 AM, Gileandos wrote:
To be fair,
George Washington meant the good prevailing in relation to Christian Moral values.

Which of course, Hitler, Stalin and Mao all proved him correct.

At 12/19/2011 11:31:44 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/19/2011 12:04:53 AM, M.Torres wrote:
I didn't really address the OP, so I'll try to now.

At 12/18/2011 10:56:01 PM, tyler90az wrote:
George Washington said in his farewell address, "Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education…, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

True or not? Explain.

My take on this is that, yeah, "national morality" (I'm assuming it means without religious influence) can prevail. But specifically, what does it need to prevail for? It's existence? Or some sort of end? Without that, we can't say for sure.

I agree here with Torres.

Technically you have to define prevail.

Nazi naturalistic morality prevailed without the drive of State Religion.

Stalin's and Mao's morality both "prevailed".

However, calling their systems of morality good would not be in line with our beliefs.

The quote is saying that national morality can not prevail without religion.

The morality he is speaking off is of the Christian form. Considering he was an American President. We should not kill, rape, steal and so on.

That is now the general view of morality by most Americans, because of the countries Christian upbringing. If the first settlers of this country were not Christian, America would have a different view of morality right now.

I agree that if religion just banished, America would hold on to its view of morality. It has been ingrained in us for many years now, even before America was formed, that was the view of morality. The question is how long would America hold on to that view of morality? What reason do people have to hold onto that view? The country would deteriorate, it would become survival of the fittest, to the extreme.

I fear that is what is happening in America, right now. Do not get me wrong, we are a long ways off from losing the current view of morality. However, it would happen eventually. We are on a slippery slope.

Also do not mistake me for wanting to have a mandated national religion, as I do not.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 12:15:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 8:41:03 AM, tyler90az wrote:
At 12/18/2011 11:53:32 PM, rogue wrote:
At 12/18/2011 10:56:01 PM, tyler90az wrote:
George Washington said in his farewell address, "Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education…, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

True or not? Explain.

Not true. It is better for the human race to follow what we have started calling "moral" principals such as not murdering, stealing, or raping. No one wants those things done to them and even if they want to do those things, the population will always condemn and try to prevent those actions for their own sakes.

I find it hard to believe that everyone follows your sentiments. Maybe some people have morals, but not everyone. Even then, morals differ person to person, culture to culture. There are some tribes in Africa that think harming babies is a good thing. That is where religion is needed to create morality.

It is not needed. Those tribes in Africa still function because they follow their own morals. Who are you to impose your morals on them? You have no more basis for your moral beliefs than they do.

Also the simple fact that everybody has different morals is a reason religion is needed to create national morality.

Why must everyone share the same morals? Is that not violating the freedom to question and believe what you want?

Lets create a new country, the citizens are people from every culture in the world. Think of all the different cultures in the world, with all their moral differences. Do you think that would be a stable country? I don't think it would, because everybody would have different morals, which would obviously create conflict. That could have been the USA, if we were not founded on Christianity.

You know nothing about our country. The United States was not founded upon Christianity. Many of the founding fathers did not like Christianity and there are many quotes of them talking about how they are not Christians. Plus it was basic doctrine that church and state be separate. You should know that at least. And I think if people were forced to live together, they would find a way to consolidate their differences because that is what is best for all of them

There is no doubt because of religion people tend to follow moral principles more. Why is that? The reason is because they are accountable.

No, it is because they are afraid of burning in hell and want to go to heaven. Accountability has nothing to do with it.

People who are not religious, are more likely to commit crimes. Not only crimes, but minor things like lying or cheating.

There is absolutely not correlation between people who lie, cheat, and commit crimes and atheism. Until you show me research that proves this you are making assumptions. On the contrary, there is a much higher proportion of Christians in jail than atheists. And that is proven.

Those things major or minor, create an undesirable world to live in. Do you want to be lied to about everything? Do you want somebody to cheat you out of a job?

You really think if everyone was atheist we would all lie about everything and cheat on everything? That happens enough as it is. Lots of "good christians" do these things every day. Atheists don't do those things more than others. Plus no one would want a world like that, it would be chaos, so few people would act the way you say because they do not want to be treated like that. Those that do would be ostracized the way they are today.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 12:17:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 11:45:13 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/18/2011 11:53:32 PM, rogue wrote:
At 12/18/2011 10:56:01 PM, tyler90az wrote:
George Washington said in his farewell address, "Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education…, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

True or not? Explain.

Not true. It is better for the human race to follow what we have started calling "moral" principals such as not murdering, stealing, or raping. No one wants those things done to them and even if they want to do those things, the population will always condemn and try to prevent those actions for their own sakes.

yes and we get that from the 10 commandments and the golden rule from Jesus.

Morality and stability existed long before the ten commandments and Jesus Christ. The human race did not just start learning such rules when those things came into being.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 3:55:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 11:45:13 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/18/2011 11:53:32 PM, rogue wrote:
At 12/18/2011 10:56:01 PM, tyler90az wrote:
George Washington said in his farewell address, "Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education…, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

True or not? Explain.

Not true. It is better for the human race to follow what we have started calling "moral" principals such as not murdering, stealing, or raping. No one wants those things done to them and even if they want to do those things, the population will always condemn and try to prevent those actions for their own sakes.

yes and we get that from the 10 commandments and the golden rule from Jesus.

Commandments = laws which are unbreakable. From the ten commandments, you also get lying -- goodbye fiction -- and coveting --goodbye free thought, and, by extension, the UN and EU human right acts.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 4:20:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It is not needed. Those tribes in Africa still function because they follow their own morals. Who are you to impose your morals on them? You have no more basis for your moral beliefs than they do.

I did not say impose on them and I also understand they are doing things from their perspective. However, it is important to note, I believe in moral absolutes. Most people who believe in God, believe in moral absolutes.

Why must everyone share the same morals? Is that not violating the freedom to question and believe what you want?

We have a moral code in America right now, you said it yourself. Not to kill, rape murder, steal etc., that is our national morality. Like I said that morality code is based off Christianity. Therefore, in America National morality did prevail with religion. The fear is that the moral code may deteriorate overtime, if believers start to lessen.

You know nothing about our country. The United States was not founded upon Christianity. Many of the founding fathers did not like Christianity and there are many quotes of them talking about how they are not Christians. Plus it was basic doctrine that church and state be separate. You should know that at least. And I think if people were forced to live together, they would find a way to consolidate their differences because that is what is best for all of them

I was actually referring to the Puritans, who settled, what is now known as America.

When the country was founded most citizens were Christian
Therefore
America was a Christian Nation

In that sense it was and is a Christian nation. However, I am not debating rather the founding fathers wanted this to be an absolute Christian nation. They did not, they wanted religious tolerance, that is clear. If they wanted America to be an absolute Christian nation, they would have imposed Christianity on everybody, not had religious tolerance.

Interesting information about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:
http://lds.org...
Our Father in Heaven planned the coming forth of the Founding Fathers and their form of government as the necessary great prologue leading to the restoration of the gospel. Recall what our Savior Jesus Christ said nearly two thousand years ago when He visited this promised land: "For it is wisdom in the Father that they should be established in this land, and be set up as a free people by the power of the Father, that these things might come forth" (3 Ne. 21:4). America, the land of liberty, was to be the Lord's latter-day base of operations for His restored church.

No, it is because they are afraid of burning in hell and want to go to heaven. Accountability has nothing to do with it.

You just gave an example of accountability.

There is absolutely not correlation between people who lie, cheat, and commit crimes and atheism. Until you show me research that proves this you are making assumptions. On the contrary, there is a much higher proportion of Christians in jail than atheists. And that is proven.

I am saying the people who are religious have a reason not to commit crime or do minor things. The reason is a belief in God, out of love or fear. Those who are not religion have no other reason, although they may not, they still have no other reason.

Also the statistic you pointed out is obvious, as there are more Christians in America, then Atheists.

You really think if everyone was atheist we would all lie about everything and cheat on everything? That happens enough as it is. Lots of "good christians" do these things every day. Atheists don't do those things more than others. Plus no one would want a world like that, it would be chaos, so few people would act the way you say because they do not want to be treated like that. Those that do would be ostracized the way they are today.

Your assuming..... I am not saying all atheists are bad people, that is pure nonsense. Nor am I saying all Christians are good people, that is also nonsense. What I said was that America is heading down a slippery slope. National morality would not be eliminated immediately, however, it could happen eventually.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
Calvincambridge
Posts: 1,141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 5:51:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/18/2011 10:56:01 PM, tyler90az wrote:
George Washington said in his farewell address, "Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education…, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

True or not? Explain.

Hell no why should I follow any morals without God?
Trying to figure out women is like trying to solve a Rubik's cube with missing pieces. While blind. And on fire. And being shot.-Agent_Orange
Dude. Shades
That is all.- Thaddeus Rivers
One thing that isn't a joke though is the fact that woman are computers.Some buttons you can press and it'l work fine, but if you push the wrong one you'll get the blue screen of death.
silly, thett. girls are only good for sex. being friends with a female is of no value.-darkkermit
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 5:54:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 5:51:04 PM, Calvincambridge wrote:
At 12/18/2011 10:56:01 PM, tyler90az wrote:
George Washington said in his farewell address, "Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education…, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

True or not? Explain.

Hell no why should I follow any morals without God?

You are getting the quote confused. George Washington is saying that national morality can not prevail without religion.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama