Quantcast

Do you believe that Moral Behavior is impossible without religion, or that higher animals like mankind evolve Moral Behavior over time?

bob 2012/08/07 20:41:27
I believe that Moral behavior is impossible without religion
I believe that man kind evolves Moral behavior over time to fit the needs of civilization
There is no reason to suppose that morality has arisen in a way different from all other animal characteristics evolved.
The soul is imagined special gift of God to humankind, and it was this soul that distinguished humankind from all other animals and provided human beings with their moral sense.
If God did not create morality, where did it come from and other God of the Gaps arguments
The godless morality has no specific provisions against fun. Thus it does not deny pleasures such as drinking alcohol, dancing, singing, gambling, playing games or sexual activity. The only restraints necessary are those that affect others
Moral behavior is free to expand or change as society changes.
Other animal species displays moral behaviors, so they must have a soul too
Ok maggot, Don’t you know only the soul-man has a soul
Undecided
All of the above
None of the above
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • GaolBlaze 2012/08/19 21:02:26
    Moral behavior is free to expand or change as society changes.
    GaolBlaze
    Morality is really complex. But I believe it does't matter what species you are, you can have a personality, you can have morals. And they do change all the time, and depending on where you are, too. Religion is just one factor for people who have it, but where you live, who you spend time with, where you go, what you see, are all factors, too. And of course, it depends on the person themselves.
  • elijahin24 2012/08/14 20:53:48
    Moral behavior is free to expand or change as society changes.
    elijahin24
    I find moral behavior far easier, without the impediment of religious moral tunnel-vision. Quite honestly, much of the "morality" of many religions (Christianity included) is decidedly immoral by any modern standard.
  • no no 2012/08/09 01:08:30
    None of the above
    no no
    Individual and group behavior based on survival , not some soul, is the genesis of morality in mankind and some other animals that has changed and changes to fit environmental social conditions of the time; morality does not remain static.
  • Leeaqua 2012/08/08 20:54:51
    None of the above
    Leeaqua
    You don't need to believe in the supernatural to be a good decient person !
  • M.C 2012/08/08 20:49:06
    I believe that man kind evolves Moral behavior over time to fit the needs of ...
    M.C
    +1
    we do not need religion or a book to tell us what is right or what is wrong.
  • ur XLNC 2012/08/08 20:05:33
    I believe that man kind evolves Moral behavior over time to fit the needs of ...
    ur XLNC
    I do not think religion is anything close to what the original gods imposed. I don't practice religion in any fashion and I DO KNOW the difference between right and wrong. My morals are in fine shape even though I'm not over-burdened with compassion.
  • Jean 2012/08/08 14:18:38
    I believe that Moral behavior is impossible without religion
    Jean
    When man tries to invent his own morality it never seems to work out very well. Look at Marxism, a "moral code" that was created to make the world "fair." In order for it to work, various despots had to murder millions of people (Stalin murdered 10 million Ukranians) and imprison a few million more and still there has been no Marxist country in which "fairness" exists. When people look at a force larger than themselves, they are less likely to let ego get in the way and more likely to adhere to conscience. Animals behave rationally and in ways that serve their self-interest. Yes, a dog may save it's "master", but only because the pack instinct tells it that is how to preserve its own life. Polar bears kill for sport, cats enjoy torturing their prey, and a horse will kill its owner during a temper tantrum as easily as it eats oats. I love animals so this isn't an indictment of any single species, it's just an observation of the way the world works.
  • bob Jean 2012/08/08 19:55:47
    bob
    +2
    man invented religion, so man defines moral behavior
  • no no bob 2012/08/09 01:16:35
  • norman Jean 2012/08/09 17:05:27
    norman
    +1
    First off, Marxism was never devised as a "Moral Code" at all, It was a theory of economics and historical direction and had little to do with morality. It's basic premise was that most of the benefits of industrial production should accrue to those who actually produced rather than all going to the owner class. It also proposed that this "historical direction" was part of the "natural order of human society" - it was wrong of course. But its corruption by the likes of Stalin and Mao is no more an indictment of Marxism than are the Crusades and the destruction of the native peoples of the "New World" by European Christians an indictment of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

    Secondly, "man" has always "invent(ed) his own morality" and up until the last 2000 or 3000 years it had little relationship to any religion. Lao Tzu, a Chinese philosopher who lived more than 600 years before the birth of Christianity, devised a moral code for guiding man on the proper path that was premised on one simple, and rational, rule: "Do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself." This was not a code "handed down from on high," rather it was based on the belief of a shared experience and connection fundamental to all humans.

    All of the great Greek moralists and philosophers - Plato, Aris...





    First off, Marxism was never devised as a "Moral Code" at all, It was a theory of economics and historical direction and had little to do with morality. It's basic premise was that most of the benefits of industrial production should accrue to those who actually produced rather than all going to the owner class. It also proposed that this "historical direction" was part of the "natural order of human society" - it was wrong of course. But its corruption by the likes of Stalin and Mao is no more an indictment of Marxism than are the Crusades and the destruction of the native peoples of the "New World" by European Christians an indictment of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

    Secondly, "man" has always "invent(ed) his own morality" and up until the last 2000 or 3000 years it had little relationship to any religion. Lao Tzu, a Chinese philosopher who lived more than 600 years before the birth of Christianity, devised a moral code for guiding man on the proper path that was premised on one simple, and rational, rule: "Do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself." This was not a code "handed down from on high," rather it was based on the belief of a shared experience and connection fundamental to all humans.

    All of the great Greek moralists and philosophers - Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, et.al. - certainly did not draw their lessons from that of their gods. On the contrary, most Greek and Roman gods were capricious, selfish, morally bankrupt and often murderous entities (not unlike the Old Testament, Hebrew god, Yaweh, who had tendencies toward infanticide, massive cultural destruction, and in some cases, outright genocide).

    History is replete with moral sensibilities remarkably similar across a broad range of human cultures dating all the way back to the time of the earliest homo sapiens - and there's even some archeological evidence of moral awareness in the time of the Neanderthals.

    Btw, animals do not "behave rationally," as animals do not display an ability to reason. They are instinctual creatures (humans are also but their ability to reason allows them to transcend their hardwired instincts). They do sometimes display what we like to think of as "loyalty" but that's really a function derived from training not from reasoning.

    Without the ability to reason there can be no rationality, nor morality, for that matter.
    (more)
  • Jean norman 2012/08/16 14:51:00
    Jean
    Doesn't one's concept of "fairness" - i.e., the "immorality" of some people owning property while others don't - fall into the realm of morality? Therefor, Marxism was an economic theory that was sold on the basis of its moral superiority to capitalism. As a matter of fact, one of Marx's evangelists - Leon Trotsky - began recruiting in synagogues throughout Russia and Belarus. His appeal was that the revolution would bring heaven on earth, create justice, etc. How is that NOT tied to morality?
  • classic 2012/08/08 14:12:19
    Moral behavior is free to expand or change as society changes.
    classic
    +5
    Any person that needs a Diety, or other outside sorces to dictate morality to them has a mental deficiency... Morality is decided by the society you live in... Hell , very little morality was exhibited in the bible.... LMAO
  • bob classic 2012/08/08 19:56:18
    bob
    good point
  • no no classic 2012/08/09 01:16:12
    no no
    totally agree
  • HillaryLover 2012/08/08 08:40:18
    I believe that man kind evolves Moral behavior over time to fit the needs of ...
    HillaryLover
    +1
    Executions are immoral, primarialy because they are unnecessary to society and serve only to ecact vengeance.

    Homosexuality is immoral because it is an excess of human nature and a weakness of mind - very much like alcoholism, drug addictions, and other failings.

    Ignoring and disrespecting the elderly, poor, and disabled -mentally or physically - is immoral.
  • norman Hillary... 2012/08/09 17:07:46
    norman
    Maybe you should define this "human nature" that an "excess" of leads to various forms of what you seem to think of as depravity..
  • Hillary... norman 2012/08/10 00:25:13
    HillaryLover
    "...a weakness of mind - very much like alcoholism, drug addictions, and other failings."
  • art1ej 2012/08/08 07:51:51
    Moral behavior is free to expand or change as society changes.
    art1ej
    +1
    Morals have changed over time i think...
  • wrwheelerjr 2012/08/08 07:04:03
    Moral behavior is free to expand or change as society changes.
    wrwheelerjr
    +1
    Morality is not the point of religion, but a relationship with and an understanding of God and his desires for you is. Morality is important because it make you better able to advise, incourage and even correct others when what they are doing is hurting themselves or others. Few people will follow the instruction you have to offer if you are a failure in that area. So overcoming the things that trip people up makes you more valuable to help those having trouble. Immorality is often the ruin of people we love and as a result we suffer with them as their lives fall apart. A moral person will see the failure and try to help them see it also. The healing process is good for everyone involved.
  • Psicolabis 2012/08/08 04:49:23
    None of the above
    Psicolabis
    Moral is imposed from the bourgeoisie THROUGH religin
  • docdj 2012/08/08 04:30:34
    None of the above
    docdj
    Say your prayers little one
    Don't forget my son
    To include everyone
    I tuck you in
    Warm within
    Keep you free from sin
    'Til the sandman he comes

    Sleep with one eye open
    Gripping your pillow tight

    Exit light
    Enter night
    Take my hand
    We're off to never never-land

    Something's wrong, shut the light
    Heavy thoughts tonight
    And they aren't of snow white
    Dreams of war
    Dreams of lies
    Dreams of dragons fire
    And of things that will bite, yeah
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  • wtw 2012/08/08 04:19:35
    None of the above
    wtw
    Any body can follow moral codes and that is a good thing for an orderly society. Atheist have no reason to follow a certain code. There code if they believe with their heads they is no god should be to beat the system, get ahead at any cost, enjoy--eat, drink and be merry and cruise not really caring about others. Most do not because they realize that moral values actually make sense in terms of happiness and living a fulfilling life. The problem with this truth is that morality makes sense and man would not naturally follow that if it did not work! A belief in God inspires morality and dedication to service to others with a sense of purpose in life. Atheism by it's nature is purposeless. Atheism has no basis in morality noting to point with real authority. What makes one atheist morality better than another?
  • norman wtw 2012/08/09 17:14:20
    norman
    "A belief in God inspires morality and dedication to service to others with a sense of purpose in life."

    A ridiculous assertion proven so by history itself. If there are any examples that disprove such an assertion, none could be more explicit than the European Crusades, the European invasion of the New World and the current crop of maniacal, Islamic jihadists.
  • caius madison 2012/08/08 04:12:37
    Moral behavior is free to expand or change as society changes.
    caius madison
    This answer for the win.
  • J.MaisOui 2012/08/08 03:26:18
    Moral behavior is free to expand or change as society changes.
    J.MaisOui
    I dont believe in imaginary beings. I am kind,giving ,respectful,save strays and always try to find ways to help others because i enjoy doing so.no god,fairy,ghost,unicorn or dragon is invol ved in my decision. I choose to be a moral person who also doesnt smoke or drink,or use drugs...because i enjoy my way of life...its just easy being me and i love it.
  • Jean J.MaisOui 2012/08/08 14:24:38
    Jean
    And what if you really REALLY wanted a Coach purse, and it would make you happy to have one. Would you steal it? The "I do what I want because it makes me feel good" argument is pretty lame. Serial killers feel good when they commit murder, rapists feel good when they rape, pedophiles will tell you six ways from Sunday that doing a kid is GOOD for the kid (Kinsey's pedophiles actually reported that "children enjoy being molested.) So, are these people "moral" because their behavior makes them feel good, and would you want to live in a society in which "what makes me feel good" takes precedent? I think not.
  • norman Jean 2012/08/09 17:22:33
    norman
    I think you misread J.MaisOui's intent. I believe she probably meant that doing good was morally satisfying, not "what makes me feel good."

    And every example you cited was that of extremely aberrant, and even psychopathic behavior, none of which could legitimately be posed as an example of a "lame" moral code.

    One doesn't need a god to treat others decently, one merely needs to understand our shared human experience and understand a single basic moral precept: treat others as you would like to be treated.
  • Eddie 2012/08/08 02:03:41
    I believe that man kind evolves Moral behavior over time to fit the needs of ...
    Eddie
    +1
    As far as I know all stable and healthy societies have developed a format of morality which underlies the social fabric of and provides a form of unity among the members of that society. I think that in general these basic guidelines are similar in most all societies. Though there are specific differences among various societies. Especially those that have little or no contact with one another. For instance the moral code pertaining to marriage may differ so that in some places a man may have only one wife at a time. Whereas in another he may have as many wives as the man can afford to support. However in virtually all societies. Things like murder and thievery/robbery are taboos.
  • rand 2012/08/08 01:53:47
    I believe that man kind evolves Moral behavior over time to fit the needs of ...
    rand
    George Price's mathematical theorem about William Hamilton's thesis that mankind evolved to genetically reward altruistic behavior was very conclusive. "Fittest" to homo sapiens includes moralistic behavior. It's refinement is up to each and every one of us.
  • darwolf 2012/08/08 01:38:22
    None of the above
    darwolf
    I know a few people few that has no religion and have morals. But humans evolving moral behavior over time. That's funny. But we won't.
  • rdyjoe 2012/08/08 01:15:45
    None of the above
    rdyjoe
    +1
    Bob, have you ever noticed that all your questions "none of the above" is the common response?
  • Jean rdyjoe 2012/08/08 14:25:58
    Jean
    +2
    I guess when you load your questions with obvious bias, "none of the above" is the correct answer.
  • ▼♥☆Greencone☆♥▼ PB90s 2012/08/08 01:01:10
    The godless morality has no specific provisions against fun. Thus it does not...
    ▼♥☆Greencone☆♥▼ PB90s
    Saying that what harms others is immoral and what benefits others is moral and what neither helps nor harms others is amoral is probably the most objective way of looking at morality. I believe that at best religion has no effect on peoples moral behavior and at worst it causes people to do immoral things such as sacrificing their children or mutilating the genitals of their children.

    If people do not use the principal of harming others is immoral but anything that is harmless is ok then they can lable things that are harmless such as homosexuality as immoral and also lable things that are harmful such as genital mutilation ok.
  • Dawn Jacquelyn 2012/08/08 01:00:21
    Other animal species displays moral behaviors, so they must have a soul too
    Dawn Jacquelyn
    I don't think we're all that much different from lower life forms. We're just too egotistical to think we're the "top of the line". Maybe on this planet, but we don't know what else is out there!
  • darlenedoskas1969 2012/08/08 00:46:55
    None of the above
    darlenedoskas1969
    moral behaviour is not limited to those who practice a monotheist religion...
    further, moral behaviour is not limited to those who practice religion at all...
    morals develop out of the need for society... a society can only function peacefully if the people practice peaceful ethics and morals... religion can help, but is not necessary
  • Odinsown 2012/08/08 00:34:20
    The godless morality has no specific provisions against fun. Thus it does not...
    Odinsown
    Morality is a social construct.
  • JenSemPa 2012/08/08 00:18:22 (edited)
    None of the above
    JenSemPa
    We're the only species that has ever advanced morally, not to mention socially and technologically. Only us, out of millions and millions of species of life forms that have ever inhabited this planet.

    That doesn't prove God is real, but it gives strong evidence for the Christian view that there is a God ... and that He placed us in a unique and superior position above all other living things.
  • ▼♥☆Gree... JenSemPa 2012/08/08 04:58:01
    ▼♥☆Greencone☆♥▼ PB90s
    +2
    Other animals do have morals. They just apply their morals to their own species like how we apply our morals to our species. An ant for instance will appear amoral to us because it will not help humans but it will help other ants.
  • M.C JenSemPa 2012/08/08 20:55:37
    M.C
    actually there are several animals that have morals.
  • Truth Matters 2012/08/08 00:13:38
    None of the above
    Truth Matters
    Moral reality is impossible without God. There is no possible objective grounding for moral values and duties.

    Morality doesn't require belief in God. Morality requires God.

    Premise 1) Objective moral values and duties do not exist unless God exists
    Premise 2) Objective moral values and duties DO exist.
    Therefore, God exists.

    Don't ignore and twist the argument Atheists. Try and defeat it. You can't

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2013/05/22 02:41:07

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals