Is Morality Driven From Religion Only

[words]

It's quite the contrary, if u have read it carefully.

I can't see how you can assume to contrary, Now let see what you have said:

*So you are saying that those God Less societies in the world have been there since the existence of historical figures? And they have not seen any religion, and thus what ever moral or ethical ideas they have developed are THEIR own?

Please name JUST ONE.*

Here you are asking the name of one God-Less society which have not seen the religion, your claim is that ethics, that these societies have is because of religion, that had influence some time in history.

Now Look at my response earlier:
*
The significance of religion is not just in its mere presence, but believing in it. If mere presence of religion in the history of man kind is enough, than i guess what you are suggesting is that, its not necessary to believe in religion to be moral, since there were religions in all the cultures.

*What I'm saying that mere presence of religion in that societies in their history is not enough, for God-less societies to be moral, they shall not be God-less but believers. So by saying that i should give you the name of one God-less society that is morally good and there was no religion in there history, you are saying what i had asked you below.

**What are you trying to suggest that its not necessary to believe in religion to be moral?

**Since God-less are not believing in religion yet they are morally good.

Please explain how my interpretation is wrong.

I have asked u name just one.. u have failed to name JUST ONE.

Where as i can give u the example of Arabs, how Islam changed their whole life style. Quite dramatically.... not sufficient enough,..... but quite marvelously indeed.

And what did u mean by 'take yourself as an example'... are u eloquently incoherent about your over sized ideas?

Hopefully you'll refrain from such maneuvers. Let a discussion, be a discussion.

Thank you.

Fellow, the background on which you asked the name of one society was faulty, for that you have to clear what i had written above.

Further what Arabs got was not in a vacuum, it was just a little polished version of there own culture, because when presented to them they could recognize it as good. (please give a little thought to this point, that's why i maintain that the morality that religion provides is the just a step in the process of cultural growth, there are no big jumps, nothing out of the way of culture.)

And further "take yourself as an example" was just a witty humor, but if you don't want it you won't get it, no problem..

[Yea_Boii]

We, as being humans, are limited in wisdom, knowledge, etc.; hence, we cannot decide for ourselves what is moral and what is immoral. Therefore, a Divine Being, who knows what is best for us, decides the morality for us and this is where the religion comes into play.

Really? my friend, did you really need Islam to tell you that killing an inncocent, robbing or raping is haraam? You wouldn't have figured that out by yourself without any sort of religous influence?

[COLD_FIRE]

I can't see how you can assume to contrary, Now let see what you have said:

*So you are saying that those God Less societies in the world have been there since the existence of historical figures? And they have not seen any religion, and thus what ever moral or ethical ideas they have developed are THEIR own?

Please name JUST ONE.*

Here you are asking the name of one God-Less society which have not seen the religion, your claim is that ethics, that these societies have is because of religion, that had influence some time in history.

Now Look at my response earlier: * The significance of religion is not just in its mere presence, but believing in it. If mere presence of religion in the history of man kind is enough, than i guess what you are suggesting is that, its not necessary to believe in religion to be moral, since there were religions in all the cultures.

*What I'm saying that mere presence of religion in that societies in their history is not enough, for God-less societies to be moral, they shall not be God-less but believers. So by saying that i should give you the name of one God-less society that is morally good and there was no religion in there history, you are saying what i had asked you below.

**What are you trying to suggest that its not necessary to believe in religion to be moral?

**Since God-less are not believing in religion yet they are morally good.

Please explain how my interpretation is wrong.

Fellow, the background on which you asked the name of one society was faulty, for that you have to clear what i had written above.

Further what Arabs got was not in a vacuum, it was just a little polished version of there own culture, because when presented to them they could recognize it as good. (please give a little thought to this point, that's why i maintain that the morality that religion provides is the just a step in the process of cultural growth, there are no big jumps, nothing out of the way of culture.)

And further "take yourself as an example" was just a witty humor, but if you don't want it you won't get it, no problem..

Again, refer to your earlier post for reference. I don't know why u are mingling everything up.

And then what Arabs got was not a vacuum, but just a little polished version of their own culture!!!

I am sorry but, please have a look at a dictionary, or wiki, of what culture really means then please come back to my original statement. I guess you'll see that my words will start making sense to you. Because to you culture is set a part from religion as far as i can extract... which is ridiculously insane.
And then you for some reason keep insisting that

"religion just provides a step in the process of cultural growth, there are no big jumps, nothing out of he way of culture"

Well helloowww. What are you saying that Islam just stepped up what cultural values Arabs had at those times....? Gimme a break will ya....

I still don't know how u keep loyal to ur words and deny the very obvious facts. Islam was everything... out of the way of Arab's old ideologies. Again, reiterate to the obvious facts. And i am stating yet again, Islam just didn't jumped up... it was the giant leap any society has ever seen in history. Islam just made Arabs from some nomads and desert dwellers to A FORCE to reckon with. Please have a look at the time lines... and again, i am just stating the obvious facts.
Thanks.

[words]

@COlD_FIRE

                 Originally Posted by **words**                    
             I can't see how you can assume to contrary, Now let see what you have said:

*So you are saying that those God Less societies in the world have been there since the existence of historical figures? And they have not seen any religion, and thus what ever moral or ethical ideas they have developed are THEIR own?

Please name JUST ONE.*

Here you are asking the name of one God-Less society which have not seen the religion, your claim is that ethics, that these societies have is because of religion, that had influence some time in history.

Now Look at my response earlier: * The significance of religion is not just in its mere presence, but believing in it. If mere presence of religion in the history of man kind is enough, than i guess what you are suggesting is that, its not necessary to believe in religion to be moral, since there were religions in all the cultures.

*What I'm saying that mere presence of religion in that societies in their history is not enough, for God-less societies to be moral, they shall not be God-less but believers. So by saying that i should give you the name of one God-less society that is morally good and there was no religion in there history, you are saying what i had asked you below.

**What are you trying to suggest that its not necessary to believe in religion to be moral?

**Since God-less are not believing in religion yet they are morally good.

Please explain how my interpretation is wrong.

You are talking about serious, and meaningful discussions, yet you are mysteriously ignoring the central part of my response, I'll come to rest of your reply when i see a response on these point to sum things up properly..

[diwana]

A lot of people beleive that morality is taken from religion. I personally believ that it is not true. Moral principles don't necessarily have to have a religious doctrine behind them.

Whats your view?

Since in this thread so far thoughts have been dispersed I had to start from your post.

First let me commend you on this question what I thought of asking sometime ago.

Morality is ever changing. It has a vast, variable understanding. Core of issue may be similar as in religion 'thou should not steal' in ten commandments.

But

Strictly thinking, religious teachings were also ever changing.

Let me clarify since some people may not like this.

Even in continuation of islam in 700 century, religious teachings have changed.

During the days of early Islam, alcohol was not prohibited and 'gradual' change occurred. Hope people know what I am talking about. Alcohol in moderate amount was still allowed. Sahabi even prayed under the influence of alcohol till someone recited Quran incorrectly.

I know some people will not even consider this a part of morality issue.

So lets think about marriages. Countless marriages were norm and allowed in religion. Now limited to four. And for some they are adamant on one marriage at a time.

Think about cousin marriages.

Think about sibling marriages in very very early days...from Adam time.

Think about pardah/veil.

Think about Muta'.

Think about slavery.

Think about namaz.

Bible talks about father-daughter relationship (incest) I am not sure if it is in negative way -Need to check.

If nothing else then why in Quran it is said 'We have now completed your deen".

Bottom line: Just as morality has been ever changing, religious teachings were too.

Well, only thing we can say now since last messenger, religious teachings should be considered final.

Basic things like murder, theft, adultery have been similar in morality based societies however small they would be.

To the question: Yes and No.

If you strictly talk about religion, morality now is to based on religion.

Morality says, please others as well as yourself.
Religion says, please God.

If you are a non believer, then morality meaning will continue to change. Granted, basic tenets may still remain same even in strictly morality based society or personal life.

P.S. I just have reservations about hinduism. For some reason its sense of morality is very very different in some ways.

[righteous]

Re: Is Morality Driven From Religion Only

All humans are created by God. He has sent Prophets on each nation and guided them and given them a sense of morality.

The fundamental universal truth is a constant and does not change over time, however, what is acceptable or not does change over time.

So if everything in this world has come from the Almighty, then it is a pointless debate.

[SindSagar]

A lot of people beleive that morality is taken from religion. I personally believ that it is not true. Moral principles don't necessarily have to have a religious doctrine behind them.

Whats your view?

Yes Iconoclast it may be hard to proove that Morality is taken from religion........

But on the other hand.............when it comes to Immorality.....

every one is 100% certain it's source is from religious teachings............after committing an immoral act the usual explanation is...........

"The Devil made me do it!"......................:D

[ravage]

Re: Is Morality Driven From Religion Only

‘only’ is too strong a word. theres quite a lot of moral behaviour that has nothing to do with religion.

says sportsman spirit. you have a definite idea of whats right and wrong on the field, and you get social censure if you deviate from that (even feel shame if you deviate from it) with no real religious imperative about the matter.

another interesting example is evolutionary game theory, where the idea is to pit lots of behaviour strategies against each other (“Always selfish”, “Sometimes cooperate” etc etc) in an evolutionary scenario (more successful strategies get more chance to breed) and over time, the dominating strategy was “Do unto others as others do unto you”. Certain forms of moral behaviour can be explain in these terms.

Thats not to say ofcourse that a sizable component originates from religion.