"The purpose of Science is to explain why you live, whilst the purpose of religion is to give a guideline on how to live it."
Disagree, The purpose of science is a perpetual quest for knowledge. The purpose of religion is to perpetuate itself.
That quest for knowledge is to answer why your here, not how I should live my life. Science dosen't give an answer for that.
People can be moral with or without religion.
They have not source for morality, they cannot logically think they are acting moral
Good way to put it👍🏻
In its modern context, that's all it is and all it should be. Religion, however, was originally conceptualized to explain a universe that primitive societies didn't understand.
This is one of the many reasons I don't shackle myself to religious morality, given that many of its 'morals' are archaic and/or horrifically barbaric.
Disagree. Most religious texts have elements so horrifying or absurd, I would never want to base my life around a religion.
That wasn't the question.
It's not a guideline for *me*.
"Most religious texts"
Please enlightened me on which religions you're reffering to? If you're painting them all the same color than please read more "religious texts".
3 religions out of over 2,000. Therfore they're all bad?
They are major religions. That matters. I'm a nonbeliever anyway, so of course I don't find inherent value in religion. Some have positive elements of course, but I'd never use one as the guide on how to live my life.
Why not? There's thousands to choose from.
No need. I can have strong values and be a compassionate human being without having some belief in the supernatural.
You don't necessarily have to believe in a higher order to follow a religion. Guidelines in European Paganism for example puts man as the highest order. The god's are metaphorical for human emotions, and what they can be. At least in Odinism, very symbolic. It's confusing at first put when you study it it makes perfect sense.
You cannot call yourself compassionate or moral if you dont believe in morality
I have strong values and a sense of morality. It's simply not that of any given religion.
Ok give me a valid nonreligious source of morality
Modern humanism- secular focus on reason, compassion, etc.
Do you know where a lot of those Humanist ideas of reason came from?
From recognition that one can and should be good without God.
No, Humanist ideals were influenced from Christianity, philosophy, and past European Paganism.
The Renaissance "Rebirth" is Humanist ideals became popular agian. People went back to past European traditions, whilst trying to reform Christianity.
Where Christianity played in the mix is that all Humans are equal in the eyes of God and should be taken care of by other on Earth. I will admit Paganism teaches Survival of the fittest thus why their societies survived Persian raids, etc
A lot of Renaissance artwork and ideas came from European Paganism and past from former European philosophers. If you're talking about a time period where people left religion than you're talking about the enlightenment, which I really dislike to a degree.
But still the Enlightenment reasoning was influenced by the Renaissance, the Renaissance reasoning influenced by religions. You follow their moarls without realizing it.
Renaissance period humanism is not the same. And of course things are influenced by religion and its historical presence. But I'm not sure why you believe those who write religious texts are more qualified thinkers than secular philosophers or those who challenge those religious beliefs. Religion is not needed to be -and can even prevent one from being- a good, ethical person.
I'm not arguing that you should have one, that's Mobius. I'm just wondering why you don't have one and wanted to see your reasoning.
Although I will admit it's a moarl duty of mine to inform others of my religion, with hopes of finding more followers.
Modern humanism isnt a moral source. It comes from the human mind. Its basically saying "X is true because i think it is". Try again
Disagree, At least for me. For some religion is a guideline how to live. But as an atheist I don't need religion how to tell me live.
Where are your moarls influenced from?
The purpose of religion is being a guideline. It doesn't have to be correct, but yes, it's a guideline.
First I would like to argue morals don't come from religion "Thou shall not kill" did not just magically convince everyone it was bad to kill.
Second my morals are based of how my actions affect people. If someone is harmed, then it is something bad. It's based of the effects of my actions. You do not need religion to have morals
Moarls did come from religion, man didn't start off civilization atheist. A guideline from someone's beliefs or society's beliefs told you at a wrong age what you're doing is wrong.
Morals existed before religion. Existing Morals shaped the Morals listed by religions.
Religion put together the moarls and formed a guideline for life, thus the point of the poll.
The poll wasn't asking if it was necessary for you to follow it, but if the existence of religion is to form a guideline whilst science explains why you're alive.
Well religion tries to explain it as well.
The independent vote really dosen't agree with the quote. It is as if the majority of them are Liberal Atheists...
It's technically true haha agreed %100 my friend
Comments: Add Comment