It's certainly theoretically possible to come up with an independent system of morals that closely matches revealed morality, but it's highly unlikely that anyone will get it right on their own, for reasons that ought to be intuitively obvious to any engineer.
One of the simplest mistakes for an...
@Marc: It has when people keep up their end of it. But there have always been two classes of people who screw it up for the rest of us: the ignorant and the malicious. Ignorant people chafe at the restrictions required by moral law and think that they can get the benefits of a good life without actually living a good life, and try to invent new moral systems to make this possible. This is basically trying to get something for nothing, which does not work on any level, from the Second Law of Thermodynamics on up.
Meanwhile, malicious people pervert the morality of God by hijacking it, trying to use the power of religion as a political tool to gain power over others. Such people almost invariably become (or associate with) tyrants whose reign is marked by blood and horror. (See the Middle East for a good example. Or see any major Communist nation past or present, which were founded on what are basically religious moral principles, but without the actual religion to give them strength.) When these two classes of people are not allowed to gain influence, things do run smoothly in a moral society.
@Mason now you're doing a disservice by asserting that anyone who doesn't agree with the view is ignorant. I would argue the opposite - indeed, there is a strong inverse correlation (taken over the population, not individuals) between education and religious views; and you are assuming that dissenters are hedonistic... Not sure that is constructive.
@Marc: Being "educated" in some area does not necessarily make one an expert (or knowledgeable at all) on subjects like sociology, history, or morality. Please leave the straw men at home.
@Marc: An explanation, not the explanation. Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said it was the only cause. For most people, the reason they don't believe is probably because they were taught not to by some authority figure. But someone taught them, and someone taught them, and so on until you reach a root cause, which was usually someone ignorant enough to think they could do it better. And when those people gain influence in society, that's one of the main points where the decay of civilization starts.
I said "as an explanation" - you counter with "An explanation, not the explanation" - I did not put words in your mouth; my words were the same as yours... "an"
Your thinking here, though, is very contrary. Looking at western Europe / USA, a great deal of the non-believers there are non-believers despite their Christian upbringing. People who have been exposed their entire life to those teachings.
They haven't been told not to by some authority - they have been told "believe", but simply: they cannot hide away from the inconsistencies enough. The "suspension of disbelief" is not enough.
Additionally, your claim to some magic knowledge to the decay of civilization is nothing but supposition.
Yes, I have no doubt that if we turned back our knowledge - destroyed our science and technology, and lived in ignorance of the world; then yes, belief would be easier and more appealing.
Given the context of the question, a non-Christian answer was not, IMO, inappropriate - however, your response (in the comments) really is (I'm genuinely sorry to say) the worst kind of "my way good; otherwise bad people... bad!"
oh, and to avoid swelling the comments, I resisted my earlier urge to comment on your "political tool" comment; again, do you not see the way that Christianity barges into politics?
the Christian churches have no high-ground there
it should also be noted that visually and demonstrably denying a religion that is part of one's upbringing is not without cost - even today, socially etc; but historically, with much more real sense of physical threat.
it is, therefore, not unreasonable to assume that a great many people inside religion are not, in fact, believers.
Indeed, a lot of the non-believers I've spoken to have been , for extended durations, non-believers who attended church through expectation. Just sayin'
(oh, and behaving perfectly reasonably thanks; oddly enough, the church I attended as a youth was in a "rough" area - some of the most notorious trouble makers were and still are part of the faithful congregation; there is no assumption that all believers are "nice", either)
> @Marc: As near as I can tell, you think that the entire premise for this site is actively harmful and unsupportable. So why are you still here?
There are two types of information on this site; that which is based on Biblical sources, and that which is based on empirical observation/evidence.
People can make their own call on the Bible - People's beliefs are their own. In short: go for it!
However, when it comes to non-Biblical representation, I really do honesty feel that there is a lot of misinformation being used to support Biblical views.
"homosexuality doesn't exist" (the origin of the above comment, which you have claimed) is...
At best highly suspect - a very very adventurous claim
If you can support that claim, then please do so. But throwing something like that out by itself as justification is just... Improper IMO.
The same as how a Biblical claim would expect justification.
I really don't want to quarrel, but I worry that: unsupported, radical claims like that harm the site.
And "why am I still here" - because it is a subject of great interest. I'm not out to bash Christians (I have tried to limit any answers appropriately). However, I also worry (quite rightly it seems) about misinformation.
Discussion between Marc Gravell and M…
Discussion between Marc Gravell and M…