Religious Autonomy of Thought

I don't even know if that title makes sense. I don't even care.

What I wanted to write was "Religious followers of all type - get a grip!"

I know most of you will find this insulting, if that's the case then let's just delete the thread right away.

The rant...

What on Earth are people of religious faiths doing letting a book or scripture tell them what to hate and what to like? This is personal choice and shouldn't come from someone else.

Where is your power of individual thought?!?!

Muslims told to hate Jews

Christians told to hate gays

Make up your own mind and toss religion in the bin.

It's not just about hate, it's morals. As a human you should respect yourself to make up your own morals, not follow some guidelines from a book. A BOOK!!!!

!

a reply to: and14263
It gets even more funny when you look at the Golden Rule and how it is almost universal amongst all religions.

Oh well. Better to take a sentence out of a paragraph out of a section out of a book and pervert it so it fits the way they WANT to believe rather than believing the whole.
My two cents.

a reply to: and14263

"This is personal choice and shouldn't come from someone else." is false.

If morals mean anything they must come from a divine mind (an intrinsic source of knowledge outside of mankind), otherwise it is just make-believe nonsense.

That is, morality is of the principles of will/desire, and such principles, if there is an intrinsic right and wrong, if there is any truth to the proper way of things, then it must be from a mind of higher divinity, as morality is of the principles of will/desire, and such principles, if true, can only come from a true source of divinity, a mind outside of human want. (If it doesn't comes from a place outside of man-made desire, outside of any made-up presumptions, then it is meaningless.)

a reply to: Bleeeeep

Yeah and these are books - not minds of ultimate divinity.

I can however make my own morals just fine even though I have no contact with divinity.

a reply to: and14263

Divinely inspired.

Where did your statement come from? If it is simply of your own desire, then it is meaningless. So we must assume, that if you are right, then you have been divinely inspired - you have seen truth.

The books are supposed to be understood to be divine truth/divinely inspired.

You are arguing your dogma verses theirs. How do we know you are right? You are just a man.

You can make your own dogma but you cannot make your own moral truth. If it is truth then it is something intrinsic to reality and something from a divine source - right and wrong must be from a will outside of man.

a reply to: Bleeeeep
The basis for your argument assumes the existence of divinity, and assumes the books originate from divinity, and therefore, morals originate from divinity, because the books say so. Circular logic.

a reply to: Klassified

My argument is not based on the books. It is purely logical -- moral truth cannot be subjective (from humans only) if it is to have meaning.

Further, the books are just an echo of what is in the spirit. If I didn't see truth in them, I wouldn't put any faith in them.

What you're saying is inconsequential.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

Where did your statement come from? If it is simply of your own desire, then it is meaningless. So we must assume, that if you are right, then you have been divinely inspired - you have seen truth.

My statement about religion came from my own mind, stressed from the actions of sheep who are told to follow a book. It is not meaningless because it is a human thought. The idea that you believe human thoughts and desires are meaningless is pretty sad. Human thoughts should be treasured and have great meaning, motivation and results. Results mean they are not meaningless (from a measurable point of view, materialism).

The books are supposed to be understood to be divine truth/divinely inspired.

There is no proof that these books are divine. That is an assumption. Assumptions are more meaningless than inspired thoughts.

You are arguing your dogma verses theirs. How do we know you are right? You are just a man.

I don't know I'm right. However common sense would say use the brain you have been born with don't let a book control it.

You can make your own dogma but you cannot make your own moral truth. If it is truth then it is something intrinsic to reality and something from a divine source - right and wrong must be from a will outside of man.

You are addressing a moral truth as absolute - fine in philosophy - not fine in religion where you have to hate gays.

a reply to: and14263

If you read in a math book that 1+1=2, do you believe it because it was in the book? Does the book make it right? Does the person who said it make it right?

You guys are arguing fallacies.

If a moral principle is true, it must be true whether a human assumes it or not. It must be objective.

eta: You need to understand the difference between relative and subjective. e.g. A law given to humans would be relative to humans but it does not then dictate, that because it is relative, that it must be subjective.

originally posted by: and14263
I don't even know if that title makes sense. I don't even care.

What I wanted to write was "Religious followers of all type - get a grip!"

I know most of you will find this insulting, if that's the case then let's just delete the thread right away.

Insulted? Not at all. What you believe -- even about me and other people of faith -- says everything about you and little (if anything about me.) Especially since your rant makes wholesale assumptions about a very diverse group of people. Perhaps you need to get a grip... on reality.

The rant...

What on Earth are people of religious faiths doing letting a book or scripture tell them what to hate and what to like? This is personal choice and shouldn't come from someone else.

Where is your power of individual thought?!?!

Many people of faith have never read a book on their faith.... so no, they are not simply believing what's in a certain book. Many people have read many books on many different faiths. Obviously they cannot believe everything in every book because they contradict each other... so no, they are not simply believing what they read in a certain book. Then there are all the people in the middle who may have read a little bit of their book of faith but not all of it, or those who have read more than one book on faith but not as many as others, etc. And then there are those who have read all or part of their book of faith and pick and choose what they want to believe.

Seems there's more to it than everyone of faith reading a certain book and believing it word for word as ultimate truth. There must be at least some individuality involved in picking and choosing what to read and what to believe, including personal experience, or there would only be one universal religion for all.

It's not just about hate, it's morals. As a human you should respect yourself to make up your own morals, not follow some guidelines from a book. A BOOK!!!!

!

Whose morals? Where would those morals come from? Political leaders?

There is another side of the coin to consider. Given that in this dog eat dog world nice guys finish last, if folks did not believe in a higher power than themselves... if people of faith did not believe that by their actions they could save their life but lose their souls... many of these same people would have no reason to be good or kind or righteous and therefore would have every reason to do unto others before they do unto them. Would that be better?

For everyone who uses their faith for ill, there are countless others that use their faith for good. We just don't hear about them because they are paying their alms in private so to speak. The problem isn't religion. The problem is people who want to force their will on others, and that's not limited to people of faith.

a reply to: Bleeeeep
There's some good points made in this link here about moral philosophy and objective morals:
Six Reasons Why Objective Morality Is Nonsense

a reply to: Boadicea
You make some valid points but it does not hide the fact that people who can't make their own morals must be weak in some way. Weak minded? A weak will to be independent? I don't know what it is but never would I let a book make up my mind for me on what to do for right or wrong.

Especially when most of the morals within are highly suspect.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: Boadicea
You make some valid points but it does not hide the fact that people who can't make their own morals must be weak in some way. Weak minded? A weak will to be independent?

Interesting. I hadn't thought about it in those terms, but yes, there are those sheeple who will believe what they're told without question, including those who are too weak minded to trust their own judgment. Or perhaps they simply want to ingratiate themselves to someone and adopt their beliefs. I wonder how many others do so in order to deflect responsibility... as in, "Not my fault! So-and-so told me so!!!"

For the faithful, at least, I don't think that'll get them any brownie points from St. Peter at the pearly gates.

a reply to: Bleeeeep
Here again. You make an assumption. First, that divinity exists, and second that universal moral truth(Natural Law) exists. Logic plays no part in it. Logically, morality must be subjective, unless you can prove your first two assumptions. Something none of us can do.

The truth is, I am inclined to agree with you to some degree, but logically, we have nothing but faith to base our hypothesis on. (Yes, I actually used logic and faith in the same sentence.)

a reply to: and14263

strength of religion is measured in units of 1/free will.

a reply to: and14263

I cannot speak for others...

But I never read a book and believed it...

I had a spiritual journey that led me to a book and it coincided with beliefs I already had...



& we are not told to hate anyone, Jews included.

That hatred that some have for Jews coming from an Islamic perspective are subjective to tribulations of the Life they had...

Much like Jews are not told to hate Muslims...
But because of circumstances and incidents that have affected their Life there is a select few with Hatred for Muslims...


& Christians are not told to hate Gays...
As far as I know they're told the act of sodomy is an abomination...
Rather than the Love a man may have for another...

Which is also how Muslims feel...
I don't hate Gay people, I wish them well...

The act of sodomy is what I personally think is a transgression, & not just when its between two men.


& that's how I felt before converting, so again, not because a book told me too, but because I relate to the book as it resonates with me on a level that transends our Earthly flesh.

a reply to: Boadicea

There is another side of the coin to consider. Given that in this dog eat dog world nice guys finish last, if folks did not believe in a higher power than themselves... if people of faith did not believe that by their actions they could save their life but lose their souls... many of these same people would have no reason to be good or kind or righteous and therefore would have every reason to do unto others before they do unto them. Would that be better?

They would have every reason to be good, kind, and "righteous". Their survival depends on it. That's where morals and ethics came from. The need for the human species to survive and thrive. Cooperation is key to the survival of any group. Without it, they don't survive, and they don't thrive. Therefore, they agree on a set of ordinances to govern behavior within the group. That said...

I am an atheist. There are no deities as far as I'm concerned, but I am willing to entertain the idea of a creator(s), and Natural Law. The problem is, we have nothing but faith that either one exists.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
If morals mean anything they must come from a divine mind (an intrinsic source of knowledge outside of mankind), otherwise it is just make-believe nonsense.

Anyone else see the irony here?

If it is simply of your own desire, then it is meaningless.

Why is the product of man's mind considered to be "meaningless"?

We can tell what's right and wrong without external input.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
We can tell what's right and wrong without external input.

So you have always existed in a state of all knowing?

All truth comes from within you and it has always been there, as you are eternal?

You guys are something else.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
We can tell what's right and wrong without external input.

So you have always existed in a state of all knowing?

All truth comes from within you and it has always been there, as you are eternal?

You guys are something else.

And yet, you do not see the irony in your own statements.