fucktoyprincess
Posts: 2337
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
quote:
Here is some background on Neolithic communities that have been found throughout the world. Yes, both cites are from Wiki, but they are accurate and comprehensive but still a readable length. I think even as early as the Neolithic era we have VAST evidence of communities of people. And I am sure for those communities to have functioned, they required some rules of conduct. And again, I ask anyone on this thread to tell me why those rules of conduct would have to come from "god(s)".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution
Okay, I dutifully clicked the links. Here was the first thing I spotted in the "Neolithic" entry:
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2012)
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (February 2012)
Farther down, this caught my eye:
An early temple area in southeastern Turkey at Göbekli Tepe dated to 10,000 BCE may be regarded as the beginning of the Neolithic 1. This site was developed by nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes, evidenced by the lack of permanent housing in the vicinity. This temple site may be the oldest known man-made place of worship.[10]
quote:
Again, no one on this thread disputes the fact that atheists can be good people. So therefore, why do we need to assume "god(s)" to have morality?
Whether atheists are good people is a completely different question from the prehistory conundrum of whether humans developed a sense of morality before or after they developed religion.
I realize, but they have not found things like temples in all places. In other words, it is an open issue. But people on this thread who are saying that "god(s)" have existed everywhere that humans have simply have no proof of that. I am just saying it is possible that some of these communities did not have this concept of god or religion.
And here is something very, very important to consider. The early religions are absolutely NOT Abrahamic religions. And so to the extent that morality differs between different religions, one still then has to ask, what is morality in a country where you have multiple religions? And this is where I feel you can determine morality without having to look to any one religion, or even all religions to figure out what is right or wrong. It is simply not necessary.
Let's take one modern example. For Hindus killing a cow is an immoral act. Because we have Hindus in the United States, does this mean that Hindus can impose their morality on the rest of the country and say all slaughterhouses must be shut down because it violates their religious belief, even though killing cows does not violate the beliefs of other religions. Whose morality do we choose? Because each religion does not, in fact, agree on what is moral. And I completely reject the idea that some religions are more "moral" than others or that some are more deserving of respect. That is simply false. If one believes in freedom of religion then I think the only logical way to structure that in a pluralistic society is to avoid imposing another's belief system/morals on another person who may or may not believe in your god(s) or who may or may not believe in god(s) at all.
The fight that the religious right in this country wage is not about believers vs nonbelievers. It is predominantly the Christian right trying to impose its values on all other people, including those who believe in other god(s). How do we square this with any kind of notion of religious freedom? Once you impose one religion's definition of morality on the group then you have, in effect, violated the Constitution. The Constitution reads the way it does precisely because the founders were worried about the majority imposing their will on minorities in the country. So the fact that a majority of the country is Christian is irrelevant from a Constitutional perspective.
I'm not interested in prohibiting Christians from slaughtering and eating cows because, quite frankly, it does not violate their moral code. But what gives any religion the right to say they have a monopoly on morality? For someone who believes killing a cow is an immoral act, that is their belief. And they are equally entitled to it for personal purposes. But the moment the personal becomes an imposition on the public at large, there is a problem. So Christians who want to impose their morality on me, or any other person, must ask themselves why they believe their morality is superior. Christians who believe that their morality should be imposed on others, should then be willing to shut down slaughterhouses and stop eating beef. In other words if people believe that freedom of religion means ALL religious beliefs are imposed on everyone - well then it should not be legal for anyone to eat beef.
I could make the same argument with any number of other social issues (e.g., war, divorce, drinking alcohol, children out of wedlock, caring for aging parents, etc. etc. etc.) Religions do NOT agree on what is moral. For example, why is divorce legal in this country when some religions consider it immoral? Why is war legal when we have some religious groups who are personally morally opposed to war under any circumstances? So as a society we HAVE to be able to answer for ourselves what our laws should say. And while they can be based on an overall concept of morality, there is simply no way to choose one morality over another without violating the Constitution. Again, the best way to approach any of this is to give people the maximum personal freedom possible where people disagree about the "morality" of a particular thing. And the very fact that many major religions disagree on certain things should give people pause to consider whether they have the right to impose their morality on others. Again, people who belabor freedom of religion often don't seem to understand what it really means.
And for me, as an atheist, the very fact that there are differences in morality between religions says a lot to me about the existence of "god(s)". When religious groups disagree about the morality of things like whether animals should be eaten, whether war is acceptable, whether divorce should be allowed, it seems to me that what religion is, is simply the codification of different cultural approaches to life and society. I'm not really getting the omnipotent, omniscient "god" from these different moral codes. And who am I to claim that any of these moral codes is superior? As an atheist I find it interesting that every believer always believes their religious code to be the superior one (after all, why would they choose it otherwise?) So again, there is a fear factor involved here, i.e., people worry that "if my religious moral code is not the "superior" one or the "right" one, then does it undermine my religion or my religious beliefs" - so many religious people seem to have a vested interest in ensuring that their religious morality is the one imposed on everyone regardless, because then it helps support the notion that their religious views are in fact, "superior" or "correct".
Again, I understand the need that people have for religion. And if I made up the rules, people would be free to practice whatever religion they choose. But why should one religion consider itself the morality enforcer and law-maker for people of other faiths??
< Message edited by fucktoyprincess -- 6/1/2012 8:16:17 AM >
_____________________________
~ ftp
|
RE: Why Atheism Scares People - 
Profile
It was presented. moreover, with no qualifiers, as a matter of plain fact. That seems somewhat at odds with the "open issue" stance you took more recently. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread