What should replace religion?

BadSheep said:
Eventually as science replaces religion as an explanation for "why," and religion grows increasingly irrelevant, a void will be left. Science may be able to explain the "why," but it does not provide for a moral code.

Do we need to develop a new moral code? What would this moral code be? I would rather not get bogged down in objective vs. subjective morality, so this final question will allow us to circumvent that for this discussion: What morals should society agree to (doesnt matter if morality is subjective or not)? How will these morals be enforced (if at all)?
Click to expand...
In terms of explanations for how the universe works, obviously science.

As for the moral code, it should be based in suffering. Actions that increase suffering = bad, actions that decrease/prevent suffering = good.
 
BadSheep said:
What does and does not count as mental suffering in your opinion? And does this mental suffering count under "suffering?"
Click to expand...

Obviously mental suffering is suffering. In terms of specific problems, there are too many to list. What is your point?
 
Last edited:
kanoguti said:
Obviously mental suffering is suffering. In terms of specific problems, there are too many to list. What is your point?
Click to expand...

I dont have a point. Just curious. How far do you take this mental suffering? For example, if I say something in public that is offensive to someone and their feelings are hurt (because they heard me), have I been immoral? Is it also immoral to say the same thing if that same person is not around to hear me? Or does this example not count as mental suffering at all?
 
BadSheep said:
I dont have a point. Just curious. How far do you take this mental suffering? For example, if I say something in public that is offensive to someone and their feelings are hurt (because they heard me), have I been immoral? Is it also immoral to say the same thing if that same person is not around to hear me? Or does this example not count as mental suffering at all?
Click to expand...

Moral and immoral are pretty vague words, to be honest. Really, it's more about decreasing suffering rather than living up to a moral code. Not all suffering is equal, either.
To be more specific, it's about unnecessary suffering.

So in your example, if you're an asshole to someone for no (mutual) beneficial gain, then that action/statement should not be repeated in the future.
 
kanoguti said:
Moral and immoral are pretty vague words, to be honest. Really, it's more about decreasing suffering rather than living up to a moral code. Not all suffering is equal, either.
To be more specific, it's about unnecessary suffering.

So in your example, if you're an asshole to someone for no (mutual) beneficial gain, then that action/statement should not be repeated in the future.
Click to expand...

Just quoting yourself from earlier: "As for the moral code, it should be based in suffering. Actions that increase suffering = bad, actions that decrease/prevent suffering = good." So is it about a moral code or not?

I also have another question. Does one have an obligation to reduce suffering in addition to avoiding inflicting suffering? Or not?
 
Kristaok said:
Like I said I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
Click to expand...
So what is the irrefutable proof then that a god made life and morals?
 
Nah said:
Never said I had any.

Are you going to answer my question?
Click to expand...

Look around, take a long hard look.... All of what we see came from something. Nothingness cannot create a something, it's just not possible. It takes way too much faith for me to believe there was nothing, it exploded and became something / primordial soup, so on and so forth.

Also if evolution / macro was real then why don't we have gills? I thought we came from fish... If we truly evolved wouldn't we progress instead of regress?
 
Kristaok said:
Look around, take a long hard look.... All of what we see came from something. Nothingness cannot create a something, it's just not possible. It takes way too much faith for me to believe there was nothing, it exploded and became something / primordial soup, so on and so forth.

Also if evolution / macro was real then why don't we have gills? I thought we came from fish... If we truly evolved wouldn't we progress instead of regress?
Click to expand...

Are you saying that you believe everything the bible says literally? Cause I have some really bad news for you if that's the case - a lot of the stuff in there is physically impossible. I'm not saying there is no God, I personally feel like there is something out there, but I'm not going to claim there is because it's impossible to prove or disprove. Which is yet another reason nothing has to replace religion I guess.

The point Nah is making, is that he doesn't see how it takes more faith to believe in something coming from nothing than it does for an all powerful creator to have made everything there is on a whim. When you look at it logically, both are just as outlandish and hard to comprehend as each other. That's why faith doesn't make for a great argument either way. Your view isn't being dismissed, he's just saying that you're not being very open minded.

Also, you misunderstand how evolution works. It's not about progression or regression, it's about what allows a species to survive a specific environment or situation. Animals needed to survive on land for whatever reason (my guess would be food sources), so the ones that mutated the ability to breath air survived and the ones that didn't died off. Then, since those animals didn't need to breath underwater anymore, they eventually lost the ability to do that. Evolution is just random mutations being more successful than others, there's no intend behind. We didn't develop ears specifically to hear, something mutated ears and their line survived because it was a useful adaptation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nah
Yes I absolutely do literally believe everything the Bible says, and yes what's contained within is possible, it happened.

God In A Nutshell/ Trey Smith shows how these things like the ark & flood could have very well worked in his DVDs.
 
Kristaok said:
Yes I absolutely do literally believe everything the Bible says, and yes what's contained within is possible, it happened.

God In A Nutshell/ Trey Smith shows how these things like the ark & flood could have very well worked in his DVDs.
Click to expand...

Let's just pick three examples shall we?

1. There is literally not enough water on the Earth to totally flood the entire planet, even if all the ice on the planet was melted.

2. The Earth has been around longer than the bible says.

3. The fossil record/simple physics completely disprove the biblical creation story.

I don't really care if you believe in god or not, but applying common sense never hurt anyone.
 
gimmepie said:
Let's just pick three examples shall we?

1. There is literally not enough water on the Earth to totally flood the entire planet, even if all the ice on the planet was melted.

2. The Earth has been around longer than the bible says.

3. The fossil record/simple physics completely disprove the biblical creation story.

I don't really care if you believe in god or not, but applying common sense never hurt anyone.
Click to expand...

1 Corinthians 1:18
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
 
I think religion will stick around, and so will atheism so I think everything will remain the same
(as in that religion and science will live side by side).
I also suggest looking at Sikh's views on science to see that religion can live side by side.
 
BadSheep said:
Just quoting yourself from earlier: "As for the moral code, it should be based in suffering. Actions that increase suffering = bad, actions that decrease/prevent suffering = good." So is it about a moral code or not?

I also have another question. Does one have an obligation to reduce suffering in addition to avoiding inflicting suffering? Or not?
Click to expand...

Yea I know what I said earlier. lol. It's why I corrected myself.

And to answer your question, we should try to reduce suffering and try to avoid inflicting suffering on other sentient creatures. We always try and go for the option that harms the least amount of people. It's okay if people aren't perfect, but we should try.
 
Kristaok said:
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Click to expand...

God didn't write the bible... even the bible admits this. I don't know about you but I don't believe every random group of people who claim to speak to God.
 
gimmepie said:
God didn't write the bible... even the bible admits this. I don't know about you but I don't believe every random group of people who claim to speak to God.
Click to expand...

It was "divinely inspired" by the Holy Spirit, according to the Catholic Church that is. So it (allegedly) can't be wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top