Religious people and a lack of a moral compass.

[Power Cosmic]

So I was just thinking and well... I always find that religious people seem to lack an innate moral compass.
Now before I get lynched for blasphemy, let me explain what I mean. I mean they lack an innate moral compass. I often find religious people learn their rights and wrongs from some ancient text that's already riddled with metaphor that's been translated and re-written so many times over the centuries that you could more or less justify anything based on it, and hence can commit the most atrocious of acts or hold the most loathsomely discriminatory views and still tell themselves that what they're doing is Good.
But people who don't believe in any religion or are part of the various pagan faiths all have an innate sense of right and wrong, based on what is good and what isn't, and in determining such a moral compass have higher reasoning abilities and are almost always more open minded about...well, anything. I mean, have you ever heard of an atheist who doesn't like gays, for example? It's always religious people =/.
I mean, sure what's good for religious people and what's good for humanity do often align, like charities for those worse off etc. but I can't help thinking that these people are just doing it because they think they're going to get something out of it (or avoid something bad)after they die, and that they're only deluding themselves with thoughts of altruism, that it's all about them in the end. Or that even if those people are doing nice things, they could be hating gays tomorrow, or endorsing massacres of people of a different religion/race etc. the next day, and still think that they're wonderfully amazing people.
Ech, I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm well aware that some followers of the Big Three manage to rise past their religion and develop their own proper sense of morality and ethics.

As a side note, I define the terms 'moral', 'ethics' and 'good' to all mean for betterment of the human race as a whole, and to contribute towards every single person on the planet being happy and content as an idelogical endpoint. Anything that's against that is Wrong.
I mean, some people say that the words are flexible...but the concepts arn't. You're either doing something positive or negative. You're either being a dick or you arn't.

*sigh* I mean...I dunno, I guess I'm just wondering if there's any religious people who can try and justify such a standpoint, and to hear from others if they've also noticed this saddening phenomenon.
I just feel it's such a crutch to the betterment of humanity as a whole that an alarming segment of society base what's wrong and right off of savage, murderous and hateful ancient texts, never questioning, never thinking.
I refuse to believe that the population of the world is too stupid to think for themselves... that just can't be right =/...

[Anthropomorphic]

It's incredibly hard for a person to form their own opinions of morality when they are taught that doing so is a violation of a higher power that they also believe in. If a person believes most of what the Bible tells them (in concordance with a religious leader like a pastor), then what should stop them from believing the rest of it? Such strong reinforcement of being told what to think is hard to overcome and replace with an individualized viewpoint, one that is influenced not only by dogmatic religious teaching, but also by personal experiences, other peoples' ideas, and social mores.

[John 6:29]

I'll respond more later, but in regards to "thinking for themselves," Christianity teaches relative morality as well as objective morality. Liberals deny the latter, while Conservatives deny the former.

[Sythan]

The Religious people you speak of are of the Abrahamic religions. Religions like Paganism, Hinduism, Wicca, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc. all have a major part of the religion based on common human morality. Christians, Muslims, and Jewish people may lack an innate moral compass and loving your fellow human, but I have not yet seen a Buddhist who lacks morality or hates anyone.

[Xujhan]

I look at things a little differently. Most people have some innate sense of morality; that's merely the result of evolution. It's a fairly primitive intuition: things like "Be nice to other people". I think religious people have more or less as much of this as atheists do. Religion is dangerous because it's very good at co-opting this desire to do good and twisting it to its own ends. Sometimes those ends are benign, but not always. Religion by its nature tends to involve more dictation than discussion, so the bad ideas are harder to weed out and often overtake the garden altogether, so to speak.

It's not that religious people are amoral; I'd wager that if you could magically strip people of their religion they'd have more or less the same desire to good as they always had. Rather it's what Steven Weinberg says: "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion."

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

I think religious people along with atheists, agnostics and whoever else, all have innate moral compass. I find there's a difference though between what religious people say and what they'll do. For example, they may condemn someone who says something but not all them will go about and physically affect the person as said in the bible for that particular thing. In addition, many religious people reject certain parts of the bible no matter which version they're using. To me, that shows there is an innate moral compass at work, however, the religion can over-ride their moral compass. Many religions are centered around the idea that if the believer does X, they'll be rewarded in some way, so the believer is compelled. Humans in general are compelled by this, so the religion often compounds this desire thereby reinforcing the believer to do/believe in a particular concept.

The best analogy of this would be drugs such as cocaine. Humans have a built-in neurological "reward system" that makes certain things more favourable from an evolutionary perspective (i.e. food is favourable). Drugs such as cocaine use this "reward system" to form an addiction whereby the addict learns taking the drug produces euphoria. However, eventually the addict just takes the drug because they cannot get clean or don't want to get clean but don't take the drug out of love for it. This is akin to religion because at first the religious person likes what they've found then they love it. Eventually, they lose sight of other things not allowed in their religion so the may be at a conflict but favour the religion because that's what they've learned.

I think much of this though depends on the particular religion because many others advocate a moral compass that's in line with the innate moral compass. It seems that monotheistic religions often are the ones where the believer's innate moral compass gets over-ridden so they eventually cannot think for themselves. Many of them cannot understand why people are against what they have said because their moral compass is religion-based and they view pretty much everything through the eyes of the religion and any of its texts only. Thinking for themselves, particularly if it deviates, comes later or not at all.

[Troubled_Heart]

I believe in God but I refuse to worship him because of the views a religious person is meant to have... they put a downer on anyone who isn't 'normal' unless they're like liberal christians or something... Religious people are scared to say what they think God would not like and it makes them think how they think God thinks and what they have interpretted as God's opinion is the only right one... but if God's meant to be understanding surely he would take into account other peoples views...

[Power Cosmic]

Originally Posted by Sythan

The Religious people you speak of are of the Abrahamic religions. Religions like Paganism, Hinduism, Wicca, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc. all have a major part of the religion based on common human morality. Christians, Muslims, and Jewish people may lack an innate moral compass and loving your fellow human, but I have not yet seen a Buddhist who lacks morality or hates anyone.

That's true. I was actually about to say "Didn't I say that?:S" and reading over my post I realise I forgot to do so, but I meant to. It's really the abrahamic religions that I find have this problem, pagan beliefs are usually a lot better at encouraging individual moral standpoints.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

It's not that religious people are amoral; I'd wager that if you could magically strip people of their religion they'd have more or less the same desire to good as they always had. Rather it's what Steven Weinberg says: "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion."

I've seen that quote before, I've always thought it was really well said ^^.
And I agree with what you're saying, about how religious people arn't necessarily amoral. But as you said, religion is one of those things that can encourage such alarming levels of conformity where atrocities happen.

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

I think religious people along with atheists, agnostics and whoever else, all have innate moral compass. I find there's a difference though between what religious people say and what they'll do. For example, they may condemn someone who says something but not all them will go about and physically affect the person as said in the bible for that particular thing. In addition, many religious people reject certain parts of the bible no matter which version they're using. To me, that shows there is an innate moral compass at work, however, the religion can over-ride their moral compass. Many religions are centered around the idea that if the believer does X, they'll be rewarded in some way, so the believer is compelled. Humans in general are compelled by this, so the religion often compounds this desire thereby reinforcing the believer to do/believe in a particular concept.

Hm, I get what y0u mean here, about how religious people can rise above their religion and do good anyway by ignoring the parts of their doctrine that enshrine acts of barbarism and prejudice etc. It's just the fact that it's still there. Makes me wonder why they don't realise this and realise that they're doing the best things they do as a person when they side-step their religion, and why they don't just ditch it all together and embrace personal freedom, you know?

The best analogy of this would be drugs such as cocaine. Humans have a built-in neurological "reward system" that makes certain things more favourable from an evolutionary perspective (i.e. food is favourable). Drugs such as cocaine use this "reward system" to form an addiction whereby the addict learns taking the drug produces euphoria. However, eventually the addict just takes the drug because they cannot get clean or don't want to get clean but don't take the drug out of love for it. This is akin to religion because at first the religious person likes what they've found then they love it. Eventually, they lose sight of other things not allowed in their religion so the may be at a conflict but favour the religion because that's what they've learned.

I like that analogy, havn't heard it before, but it works I guess.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by The Odinson

Hm, I get what y0u mean here, about how religious people can rise above their religion and do good anyway by ignoring the parts of their doctrine that enshrine acts of barbarism and prejudice etc. It's just the fact that it's still there. Makes me wonder why they don't realise this and realise that they're doing the best things they do as a person when they side-step their religion, and why they don't just ditch it all together and embrace personal freedom, you know?

I agree, the issue is that the barbaric and prejudice acts are in the religion even if a religious person doesn't abide by them. Many, if not all, Christians in the present world ignore certain parts of the bible and these parts usually are the absurd or barbaric ones. Perhaps by doing so they rationalize those parts aren't a concern to be addressed. Furthermore, ignoring certain parts does get them some personal freedom although overall, I wouldn't call it "personal freedom". They seem to re-define the concept into something that somehow fits with their view and ignore it until people challenge it.

Originally Posted by The Odinson

I like that analogy, havn't heard it before, but it works I guess.

Usually I like thinking in terms of analogies, especially to neurobiology as I study it and I find it fascinating, so hopefully the analogy works. It probably was too long-winded as most of my posts tend to be and I think there are better analogies but I haven't a clue how they'd be, haha.

[ChaosControl]

I've got to agree with most of what the OP said. I wouldn't generalise to everyone, but I do think that sometimes religion can dictate beliefs and behaviours that don't fit in with the modern, often very liberal views, some of us prefer to hold.

The concept of religion, to me, is teaching people to conform, to blindly obey, to believe in something "just because", and to contribute to ideological social control. Again, it's a generalisation and doesn't apply to everyone. But yes, it some cases it certainly limits the extent to which someone can think for themselves, and that frustrates me.

The only comment I disagree with is this:

Originally Posted by The Odinson

I mean, have you ever heard of an atheist who doesn't like gays, for example? It's always religious people =/.

The majority of homophobic people I've encountered have been atheists, or at least did not bring religion into their argument. Although I see what you mean as some people interpret their religion as condemning homosexuality. Which, once again, is blind obedience - some ancient text tells them to hate gays, and they go ahead and do it. Not everybody, but the number of people it can influence is really quite alarming.

[QuantumModulus]

I think that anyone who believes that a god - who punishes, tortures, and kills his creations is benevolent and loving, only killing the innocent to "test their faith" - is in some way lacking of a moral compass. However, I don't think that religious people are the only ones who do. It's just that religion gives many of them the motivation to have morally deplorable ideals -- and subsequently force them upon everyone else.

[JKmadu619]

"Christians, Muslims, and Jewish people may lack an innate moral compass and loving your fellow human, but I have not yet seen a Buddhist who lacks morality or hates anyone."

What? Are you really saying because I believe in Jesus Christ I'm a spiteful little man who hates everyone but my own? Invalid.

"I think that anyone who believes that a god - who punishes, tortures, and kills his creations is benevolent and loving, only killing the innocent to "test their faith" - is in some way lacking of a moral compass."

If you would listen to the arguements I promise you have already had, you would understand that he isn't all ruling. He didn't cause the earthquakes in Japan. He simply has a lack of power to stop them. Or if you're referring to older stories (Moses and the flood pherhaps?) that was in the old testament, and to make a long story short, before he mellowed out. The key idea is God causes good and the Devil causes evil. Yin and Yang. Two conflicting forces if you will.

"However, I don't think that religious people are the only ones who do. It's just that religion gives many of them the motivation to have morally deplorable ideals -- and subsequently force them upon everyone else."

Morally deplolrable ideals? Are you saying "Don't steal" and "Never kill" are wrong? And no one has forced them unto you. Pherhaps they have talked to you, ranted or overall were annoying, but forcing it onto you means that you were forced to be religious. Which legally, no one can.

On the topic of hating gays, to translate it into understand able words:

"For two straight men to engage in sex (For a lack of women) is a sin."

For instance pirates often did so on long voyages. Yet many, many people simply pretend that it says "For two men to have sex is bad!!!!!"


I do not see how what I believe changes who I am. I would never harm another human for no reason, never steal, never hurt. I don't see how this makes me flawed.

- Justin

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

First, can you please quote things properly? Type "[quote=___] [/quote/]". Remove the punctuation marks and the / after the "e", I put those in otherwise the post wouldn't show the coding. The ____ is where you put the username of whom you're quoting.

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

"Christians, Muslims, and Jewish people may lack an innate moral compass and loving your fellow human, but I have not yet seen a Buddhist who lacks morality or hates anyone."

What? Are you really saying because I believe in Jesus Christ I'm a spiteful little man who hates everyone but my own? Invalid.

You've missed the point entirely. The term "innate" was used to mean the morals developed are from the religion believed, although it was a slight over-exaggeration because many religious folk will not believe certain aspects as they don't approve of them.

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

"I think that anyone who believes that a god - who punishes, tortures, and kills his creations is benevolent and loving, only killing the innocent to "test their faith" - is in some way lacking of a moral compass."

If you would listen to the arguements I promise you have already had, you would understand that he isn't all ruling. He didn't cause the earthquakes in Japan. He simply has a lack of power to stop them. Or if you're referring to older stories (Moses and the flood pherhaps?) that was in the old testament, and to make a long story short, before he mellowed out. The key idea is God causes good and the Devil causes evil. Yin and Yang. Two conflicting forces if you will.

I don't think you understand what you're saying. God created the devil and has power over him, so they're not equal in power, no yin yang. This is echoed in so many parts of the bible. If they were in equal power, it wouldn't be a monotheistic religion. Saying "lack of power to stop them" implies he is not all-powerful, which according to the bible is wrong. He has the power to stop them, he just doesn't. The bible also has verses saying the Old Testament must still be believed and acknowledged, despite Jesus in the New Testament. For example:

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:18-19), said by Jesus.

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

"However, I don't think that religious people are the only ones who do. It's just that religion gives many of them the motivation to have morally deplorable ideals -- and subsequently force them upon everyone else."

Morally deplolrable ideals? Are you saying "Don't steal" and "Never kill" are wrong? And no one has forced them unto you. Pherhaps they have talked to you, ranted or overall were annoying, but forcing it onto you means that you were forced to be religious. Which legally, no one can.

This returns to "innate moral compass", see above. In the past, yes people were given the ultimatum: believe or die.

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

On the topic of hating gays, to translate it into understand able words:

"For two straight men to engage in sex (For a lack of women) is a sin."

Re-read Leviticus, you're not understanding it because it is not addressed to Christians, it's addressed to Israeli children.

For instance pirates often did so on long voyages. Yet many, many people simply pretend that it says "For two men to have sex is bad!!!!!"

Here's the actual passage:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13)

If you're being put to death for doing an action, don't you think the action is considered bad? I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make here exactly.

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

I do not see how what I believe changes who I am. I would never harm another human for no reason, never steal, never hurt. I don't see how this makes me flawed.

It makes your morals flawed depending which parts you support as Jesus preaches love and peace, yet you may be favouring bigotry, hatefulness and ignorance. It also may make you a hypocrite depending on the passages you support versus what you have just said.

[dr2005]

I'll have you know my innate moral compass is quite offended by claims of its non-existence.

I could write a lengthy critique of some of the claims being advanced in this thread, but that's probably not in anyone's best interests (and certainly not mine - I'm supposed to be winding down after work, not winding myself up again!). As such, I'll confine myself to easy-to-digest bullet points, revision guide style:

• There is no empirical means of testing for the existence of an innate moral compass, much less establishing causation or correlative relationships between religiosity (or any other factor) and its existence or otherwise. Any such claims can only take their basis in subjective hypothesis which is inherently shaky. The idea that religion inevitably conflicts with a person's innate moral compass is likewise afflicted by lack of empirical evidence and reliance on subjective speculation.
• Religion cannot provide a substitute moral compass should an innate one not exist, because no religion on the planet has a single unified perspective on every issue in human life. To take Christianity as one example, there is extreme dissonance between different denominations and even within denominations as well (to give one example, anyone believing birth control is a settled question in Catholicism is VERY much mistaken. Seriously). Religion relies upon a person's own moral compass working in order to be implemented, and how well that functions will determine which set of possible beliefs and opinions a person identifies with, much as the same applies to any secular philosophy.
• Religion similarly cannot adopt a dictatorial approach even if it wanted to, both for the reason stated above and because moral issues which may warrant guidance nowadays did not necessarily exist when their religious texts were written. Interpretation is the guiding factor as to how certain issues will be approached, and as such rational argument is required to determine which interpretation is correct. This inherently negates any claims of a dictatorial or automatically overriding approach being plausible, as internal assessment is always necessary at some point.
• The claim that non-religious persons or those belonging to less prominent faiths have developed morality independent of the influence of the Abrahamic religions is incorrect where such persons have grown up in Western or Middle Eastern countries with a strong tradition in such religions. Regardless of whether such countries still maintain strong traditions or otherwise, the historical basis for much of their ethical framework comes from such religions as do a number of principles such as philanthropy and equality of personhood. To those who find such a claim objectionable, I would advise reading up on William Wilberforce who was both an ardent Christian and an advocate of both.
• The claim that religion inherently stifles free thought and development of good, wholesome moral principles and must be overcome to attain such principles is with respect complete nonsense again based on a view of religion as an absolutist entity with no variation whatsoever. This is demonstrably false.
• An absence of a moral compass, or indeed the possibility of good people doing evil, is not confined to religion or reliant upon religion, and Steven Weinberg's claim to the contrary in my view demonstrates a palpable lack of awareness both of human nature and the causes of "evil" behaviour (coercion, violence, desperation and greed to name but a few). Whether a person believes in the existence of a God or otherwise makes them no more or less prone to committing evil acts, and people have successfully found secular grounds for doing so as even a cursory glance of modern history shows.

As I said, I could go into more depth but that covers my main objections. As always feel free to critique and I'll do my best to respond.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by dr2005

An absence of a moral compass, or indeed the possibility of good people doing evil, is not confined to religion or reliant upon religion, and Steven Weinberg's claim to the contrary in my view demonstrates a palpable lack of awareness both of human nature and the causes of "evil" behaviour (coercion, violence, desperation and greed to name but a few). Whether a person believes in the existence of a God or otherwise makes them no more or less prone to committing evil acts, and people have successfully found secular grounds for doing so as even a cursory glance of modern history shows.

Although I don't espouse the same view as the OP, this criticism of Weinberg's quote falls flat on its face. Neither he nor I claim that evil is reliant on or confined to religion; suggesting as much demonstrates a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of the accusation. The point is not and has never been that religion is the root of all evil; only that religion is the root of enough evil to be worth objecting to.

[dancinfool]

Regardless of whether such countries still maintain strong traditions or otherwise, the historical basis for much of their ethical framework comes from such religions as do a number of principles such as philanthropy and equality of personhood. To those who find such a claim objectionable, I would advise reading up on William Wilberforce who was both an ardent Christian and an advocate of both.

This is utter bull. I'm sorry but this view really upsets me. I am not denying that religions tend to advocate a certain 'ethical framework', or that indeed I agree with quite a few of these ethics or morals. But having been an atheist for as long as I can remember, the idea that my morals somehow regardless are based on religion is ridiculous. We were taught in secondary school that 'modern morals' are based on the 10 commandments. Not so for many, they are based on the innate 'moral compass' previously discussed. If I had had no contact whatsoever with Christianity or any other religion, I am 100% certain I would still know its wrong to kill, to discriminate and to hurt others..
Maybe thats not what you were trying to say but it definitely sounded like it.

[Power Cosmic]

If that was what you meant, then I object strongly too ^^;


I do understand your point of view dr2005, and I acknowledge I was really stressed when I made this thread (after reading about loads of homophobic views from religious people), but I still think that religion, by it's very nature does encourage a certain conformity and a closed-ness of thought. I mean, I can see this effect in action by just observing my religious extended family, or a lot of religious people here, elsewhere online and other places.
You're right, not all religious people are evil, neither are all evil people religious, but a lot of evil people will use religion to justify their evil and tell everyone they're being good, whilst a lot of good people will do evil things because their religion told them they were doing good.

But to be honest, I'm glad there's religious people who arn't innately amoral and do have the ability to think outside the box. I still think that this is a minority though...most people are content to simply be told what to do and what to think. I remember an article where someone quoted an evangelist saying "Why would you need to think when Jesus can think for you?".

Statements like that make me die a little inside -__-;;

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Although I don't espouse the same view as the OP, this criticism of Weinberg's quote falls flat on its face. Neither he nor I claim that evil is reliant on or confined to religion; suggesting as much demonstrates a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of the accusation. The point is not and has never been that religion is the root of all evil; only that religion is the root of enough evil to be worth objecting to.

In hindsight I should have been more careful with my phrasing, as that was not what I was intending to claim he said. What I was taking aim at was his inference that religion is the only factor which can make good people do evil acts (which is what he is effectively claiming with his last sentence), which is utter nonsense. Looking back it was a poorly worded paragraph so mea culpa on that one, but my point was that factors such as coercion, violence, desperation and greed are all quite capable of making good people do evil acts without religion being present. Hence my objection to Weinberg's statement. He makes it out as if the possibility of good people doing evil acts would magically disappear if religion never existed, and in my view if he honestly believes that he has no comprehension of human behaviour.

Originally Posted by dancinfool

This is utter bull. I'm sorry but this view really upsets me. I am not denying that religions tend to advocate a certain 'ethical framework', or that indeed I agree with quite a few of these ethics or morals. But having been an atheist for as long as I can remember, the idea that my morals somehow regardless are based on religion is ridiculous. We were taught in secondary school that 'modern morals' are based on the 10 commandments. Not so for many, they are based on the innate 'moral compass' previously discussed. If I had had no contact whatsoever with Christianity or any other religion, I am 100% certain I would still know its wrong to kill, to discriminate and to hurt others..
Maybe thats not what you were trying to say but it definitely sounded like it.

I apologise for any offence caused; however, I feel I should clarify I was making no specific claims about any individual's morality in the slightest. My comment was focused more on the societal framework in which a person's moral compass develops (and it is not by any means a purely innate process - environment plays a substantial part in determining a person's morality and moral tendencies, hence why there are such divergent opinions on moral issues even within a single society). By and large, if a person grows up in a society where one of the Abrahamic faiths has been particularly dominant, then such a faith will have played a significant role in shaping the direction of societal moral norms and therefore influence the morality of later members of that society even if they do not belong to that faith or indeed are appalled by that faith altogether. It does not mean that their morals continue to be influenced by that faith either; merely that in historical terms religion has played a part in that society's particular framework. To take the "killing is wrong" example, the fact that this has been in society for a significant period of time does have a lot to do with the fact that it is also in the Ten Commandments. Other societies had significantly fewer qualms about the use of killing (the Romans spring to mind, not for the Coliseum but for the fact that killing the emperor was quite easily absolved and even lauded if it was done "for the good of the Republic"). The Ten Commandments have nothing to do with the retention of that tenet of the moral framework just as religion by and large has nothing to do with the nature of the moral framework nowadays, but that is the difference between a historical basis and a contemporary basis. I outlined the former, which is correct, but not the latter. Going back to the development of an individual's moral compass, therefore, while it is not directly based upon religion in the slightest the societal principles which influence its development do take their root - if not their detail - from the guiding philosophy of the time of their adoption, and in a number of cases that means the Abrahamic religions. Secular justifications for such principles do exist, but by and large they came after their adoption which makes them a posteriori justifications for their continued usage rather than a priori arguments for their adoption in the first place. The a priori arguments tend to take their root in religion, at least in the case of our societies up to the Enlightenment, after which it's a completely different story altogether.

I hope that clarifies what I was trying to say and makes it less offensive - as I hope is now clear, my claims were directed at the historical rather than the contemporary. I certainly did not intend to imply that atheists who claim to have developed their own morality are deluding themselves - such a claim would itself be deluded in the extreme - rather that the societal foundations of the development of their individual morality are in part constructed from the Abrahamic faiths in a lot of countries and are not necessarily self-evident. Morality is after all highly subjective and contextual in its application. The Wilberforce example meanwhile was an illustration of how a widely adopted secular principle took some of its root from said Abrahamic faiths, even though its modern application is entirely secular. Needless to say, if there is still offense caused please let me know and I'll try again.

Originally Posted by The Odinson

I do understand your point of view dr2005, and I acknowledge I was really stressed when I made this thread (after reading about loads of homophobic views from religious people), but I still think that religion, by it's very nature does encourage a certain conformity and a closed-ness of thought. I mean, I can see this effect in action by just observing my religious extended family, or a lot of religious people here, elsewhere online and other places.
You're right, not all religious people are evil, neither are all evil people religious, but a lot of evil people will use religion to justify their evil and tell everyone they're being good, whilst a lot of good people will do evil things because their religion told them they were doing good.

But to be honest, I'm glad there's religious people who arn't innately amoral and do have the ability to think outside the box. I still think that this is a minority though...most people are content to simply be told what to do and what to think.

I can understand completely how certain views which are espoused lead to that kind of frustration - I readily admit some of my fellow "believers" can lead me to facepalm on a daily basis. On the point of religion encouraging closed-ness of thought I would imagine we will have to agree to disagree, and likewise the majority of religious people being innately amoral - my personal experience on both does not tally with either claim, but I appreciate its limitations and the fact that some people do exhibit both traits on a worryingly consistent basis.

Originally Posted by The Odinson

I remember an article where someone quoted an evangelist saying "Why would you need to think when Jesus can think for you?".

Statements like that make me die a little inside -__-;;

Ditto my friend, ditto. I'm pretty sure Jesus wouldn't be too impressed with that one either to put it mildly.

On another note, that's the last time I put my arguments in bulletpoint form.