Morality

[Abaddon_ire]

I think I forgot to mention the topic of God is old to me and seems almost unrelated to morals.

Then what is, in your opinion?

Well like I postulated in the other post I think religions may have been created to form the foundation for morals in society.

Occam's razor applies. For a social species not god is needed for morality to develop.

The need for a "sky god" theory falls apart for me with religions like Buddhism. Many of them don't worship any Gods.

So what? Religions simply arose as a way to explain the natural world. Where does lightning come from? Thor, obviously. And so forth. In fact, they were simply the first attempts at explanations for the natural world and how and why it operated.

Also I can't imagine man having the time to ponder such a question which brings no immediate result to the difficult state of life at the time.

Your lack of imagination is not any sort of argument.It is the formation of a social species that allows for the time to consider such existential questions.

So the question to why are there always these religions puzzles me. Though I'm sure some here are quite comfortable in ignoring eastern religions to stick to their sky daddy desire complex

Again, nobody cares that you are puzzled. That is a failure of your intellect. You don't get to foist that on everyone else.

Our morals are based on self, here and now.

False.

They vary between people. If I polled a question, any question like abortion there will be different opinions. Which one is right? How do we know it's right? Right for who? Each person's opinion is made on their preferences.

Trivially true, just not in the way you mean.

Cave man's preferences are based on instincts, on self preservation. I don't see much about morals in a societal context, always of self.

False.

So although a person without religion can be a good person, a society needs to operate on one unified moral system which is built not for us, here and now but for future generations.

False.

Humans are very narcissistic.

False.

They believe they can control the weather, create a new universe and are all knowing.

Maybe on planet sausage. Back here in reality, not so much.

I read that if a person doesn't have a religion then the text or entity which they value the highest will be their religion or God.

Flat out lie.

This leads to a hostile and dogmatic defense of this God which mirrors theists defence of their doctrines. I find this so true which scares me cos I see what I was like wen I was an atheist/anti theist and I never want to be in that closed off mindset again.

You pulled that out of your ass.

I can get the 10 commandments and mirror many of them onto atheism.

You got that backwards. Of the ten commandments 4/5 refer to a deity which cannot be mirrored in any way onto atheism and the remaining predate religions anyway.

This Gae Bolga guy for example looks only about 26-28yo, uses only agriculture to form theories while ignoring all the others factors. Yet refuses to enter a civilized discourse dismissing any argument as if he is this all knowing entity by which the laws of nature adhere to. To these types of snowflakes I say grow up. U are not unique. Ur thoughts are just that... Thoughts. Immature thoughts that will no doubt develop over time

Well, if you want to play that game, YOU self present as a spotty teenage basement dweller happily congratulating yourself for being clever enough to have worked everything out. You come across as a pretend atheist using that gambit to attempt to "embarass" atheists because you think it makes you look smart.

It doesn't. It makes you look like a dumb kid.

[Angrboda]

The need for a "sky god" theory falls apart for me with religions like Buddhism.

It's worth noting that the Buddha was agnostic about questions regarding the afterlife and gods and such, and so his teachings were in a sense rather secular. To suggest that this makes the sky god theory fall apart seems to indicate only an unfamiliarity with Buddhism and an innocent attempt to characterize Buddhism as sufficiently similar to the sky daddy religions that the lack of such in Buddhism proves a flaw in the sky daddy theory, rather than a flaw in your analogy between the two. It's worth noting as well that later Buddhist movements did add sky daddies, miracles, and the supernatural to Buddha's original teachings, so it's not at all clear why this shows a failing of the sky daddy theory. A largely secular movement was supersized with sky daddies and such. That seems to endorse whatever you are referring to by the sky daddy theory.

[Agnostico]

What drugs are you taking and where can I get some?

Hehehehe. A simple analogy of how i found it hard to crack. Apparently incorrect. AHAHAHAHAHA. Dogmatic to the extreme. Won't accept anything
At least im honest. Every one pretending to know what their on about. But just one of yas, B37, has actually given this a good thought.
Its a shame cos it looks as though u could of added something but ur just a troll in the end. Goodbye
The rest haven't even cracked the surface. Not even close

[no one]

You mention crack a lot.

[Agnostico]

The role of religion in morality is to codify what the founders of a religion consider moral. It's sometimes an improvement on the general morals of the time and place the religion was birthed in. However, the codified morality necessarily becomes stagnant in the face of new moral discovery. In the broadest sense, our morality tends to advance. We came to realize that it's wrong to own another human being in hereditary bondage, for instance. This is a problem for people trying to base their morality on what codified over a thousand years before, if they treated their scriptures as the beginning and end of morality and they don't say anything against slavery.

If there is a Creator, the only work we can be sure it is the direct author of (by definition) is the universe. If you hold to scripture in the face of scientific discovery, an error has been made. If there is a Creator, scientists are the only ones truly studying what it is the author of. Scriptures are written by people, and demonstrably influenced by human bias, copy errors, and mistranslation; even if they really divinely inspired in the first place. The consistent theistic position would be to always trust the original manuscript (the universe) over information transmitted over centuries by humans for which all original manuscripts have been lost.

I tend to agree in part. I question the terms "slavery" and "servant". There is no term for employee back then so, I dunno
Average person today makes $3.50 to the dollar the company makes. A Roman slave had a better life than most today. Its a thought

Another little issue is written language. We only find it around 3,500 BC from memory. Some much older texts would be helpful, but...

---

You mention crack a lot.

Umm excuse me?  Oh the word. Do I...LoL. Im a terrible writter. I'll keep it in mind

[no one]

You're excused.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Uhm.... no? Roman slaves did not 'Have it better'*.

* I add the caveat that modern society has a HUGE variety of socioeconomic forms and that yes (Under specifics) there are some people who in some terms and cases are, if not worse off, perhapse on par with those slaves of Roman times.

As for language/knowledge transmission? Please look up Proffessor Lyn Kelly's book "The Memory Code". Very edifying in showing the different methods some ancient people used to pass on information as well as remember oodles of stuff.

[Agnostico]

At work.

Uhm.... no? Roman slaves did not 'Have it better'*.

* I add the caveat that modern society has a HUGE variety of socioeconomic forms and that yes (Under specifics) there are some people who in some terms and cases are, if not worse off, perhapse on par with those slaves of Roman times.

As for language/knowledge transmission?  Please look up Proffessor Lyn Kelly's book "The Memory Code".  Very edifying in showing the different methods some ancient people used to pass on information as well as remember oodles of stuff.

Cmon man, better, on par. Isn't it a bit anal to pick out the tiniest little detail that could be seperated by only a dollar.
A Roman slave from 50BC was paid differnt to the slave from 300AD. I don't remember which one was better off but.
if I get the worse off employee today and the best off Roman slave I think the slave is better off.
The slave also was provided accomodation and food i think. A season pass to the Colossium... Lovely... LoL

Its all moving away from my point which is there was no word for employee back then and most people are slaves to society  today anyway.
So a slave back then seems to almost translate to employee

I had a skim throught it as u mentioned it before. Looks interesting. its in the queue. thanks

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Uhm.... no? Roman slaves did not 'Have it better'*.

* I add the caveat that modern society has a HUGE variety of socioeconomic forms and that yes (Under specifics) there are some people who in some terms and cases are, if not worse off, perhapse on par with those slaves of Roman times.

As for language/knowledge transmission?  Please look up Proffessor Lyn Kelly's book "The Memory Code".  Very edifying in showing the different methods some ancient people used to pass on information as well as remember oodles of stuff.

Cmon man, better, on par. Isn't it a bit anal to pick out the tiniest little detail that could be seperated by only a dollar.
A Roman slave from 50BC was paid differnt to the slave from 300AD. I don't remember which one was better off but.
if I get the worse off employee today and the best off Roman slave I think the slave is better off.
The slave also was provided accomodation and food i think. A season pass to the Colossium... Lovely... LoL

Its all moving away from my point which is there was no word for employee back then and most people are slaves to society today anyway.

Nope, I'm going to continue to disagree with your comparison of slavery under Romans and modern, western work practices/ethics.

Also I would quite like some one with an ancient knowledge bent to join the thread such as to give those reading some good knowledge about such things as workers, payments etc.

Also, please look up Prof Lyn's book. Is a good read.

[Agnostico]

The need for a "sky god" theory falls apart for me with religions like Buddhism.

It's worth noting that the Buddha was agnostic about questions regarding the afterlife and gods and such, and so his teachings were in a sense rather secular.  To suggest that this makes the sky god theory fall apart seems to indicate only an unfamiliarity with Buddhism and an innocent attempt to characterize Buddhism as sufficiently similar to the sky daddy religions that the lack of such in Buddhism proves a flaw in the sky daddy theory, rather than a flaw in your analogy between the two.  It's worth noting as well that later Buddhist movements did add sky daddies, miracles, and the supernatural to Buddha's original teachings, so it's not at all clear why this shows a failing of the sky daddy theory.  A largely secular movement was supersized with sky daddies and such.  That seems to endorse whatever you are referring to by the sky daddy theory.

See. Intersting. Id like to ask some questions but I know ur just a troll trying to set me up so why bother trying to intiate a civil disscussion
Its a shame really. Someone seemingly intelligent and logical resorting to such weak tactics. And why?
U just read between the lines with paranoid glasses on.
Did u even consider my thought? Off course not. Stuck in ur one belief.
Buddhasm is one example. There are more. U should know ur Asian. LoL
So as u dissmissed me so i dissmiss u as false.

---

At work.

Cmon man, better, on par. Isn't it a bit anal to pick out the tiniest little detail that could be seperated by only a dollar.
A Roman slave from 50BC was paid differnt to the slave from 300AD. I don't remember which one was better off but.
if I get the worse off employee today and the best off Roman slave I think the slave is better off.
The slave also was provided accomodation and food i think. A season pass to the Colossium... Lovely... LoL

Its all moving away from my point which is there was no word for employee back then and most people are slaves to society  today anyway.

Nope, I'm going to continue to disagree with your comparison of slavery under Romans and modern, western work practices/ethics.

Also I would quite like some one with an ancient knowledge bent to join the thread such as to give those reading some good knowledge about such things as workers, payments etc.

Also, please look up Prof Lyn's book. Is a good read.

Hehehehe. The almighty. Rejecting thoughts. Dogmatic to his beliefs.
Will not accept that "just over" may be 1 cent more than on par.
Will not accept that nuances will change the "on par"
I bet u take this book as factual knowledge... Grow up man