Today some people argue that there are thousands of people who act morally and ethically and that is not part religious practices.** I believe that religion taught humankind morality **so they act morally and ethically even today. Today you may claim that people act morally and ethically without being religious but all this is because religion has/had been teaching human being morality for years.
Before you claim that morality was/is possible without religion, answer the following statement. You pass by a small child drowning in a shallow pond and you are the only one around. If you pick up the child, she will survive and your pants will be ruined.
Religion defines morality for it's adherents. Those without religion use other axiomatic beliefs. There is no universal consensus on what is or is not moral. What is moral to one may well be immoral to another.
Religion defines morality for it's adherents. Those without religion use other axiomatic beliefs. There is no universal consensus on what is or is not moral. What is moral to one may well be immoral to another.
Not every religion defines morality for it's adherents only, there are religions that preach morality to all mankind as well.
Most probably your or your ancestors have been religious; my claim is people believe in morality because of religious teachings. And see you used words axiomatic beliefs, the moment you have belief you become a believer, a follower of some religion.
It is debatable that we have no universal consensus on moral values. Morality itself is common to all human being, it is upto us we find it common or not. As few other people say that there is no real standards and consensus on moral values, let me add more to the point. You need to understand the difference between being moral and being free to have pleasure on all worldly things. To justify and legitimate the pleasure on everything and liberty to do anything has nothing to do with morality. What religion declares immoral is not moral for non-believers as most of the times, it is a matter of worldly pleasures. For example, to commit adultery is immoral according to religion, but for non-believers it should not be a matter of morality but matter getting pleasure and liberty to do anything for the same.
You are yet to answer the question said above, I have few more, but I would like you first explain the axiomatic belief.
Another question, if someone do wrong to you, why would you forgive him?
Before you claim that morality was/is possible without religion, answer the following statement.
You pass by a small child drowning in a shallow pond and you are the only one around. If you pick up the child, she will survive and your pants will be ruined.
If you choose to save that child, justify why?
p.s. Answer to the point.
because human life is more valuable than pants and I love children
because human life is more valuable than pants and I love children
:)
why life of some other human is more valueable to you then your own pants?
who taught you this or made you think like that?
answer the "why" and "who" part.
:)
why life of some other human is more valueable to you then your own pants?
who taught you this or made you think like that?
answer the "why" and "who" part.
It may be due to general human conscience, because sometimes in reported history religion could not restrict a person from killing other. Even. religion was used as an excuse for such actions.
It may be due to general human conscience, because sometimes in reported history religion could not restrict a person from killing other. Even. religion was used as an excuse for such actions.
what you said in post earlier , almost every religion teaches same.
Religion does not create excuses for wrong action of humans. We are going off-topic.
Religion could not restrict a preson from killing other is subjective, nevetheless, if so, it does not contradict with morality. it only contradicts with morality when you say that religion made people kill each other in absolute term.
intrinsically it might be possible that someone save child as random act. But there would be many others that would choose not to save that child. But justification part is yet to be clarified.
intrinsically it might be possible that someone save child as random act. But there would be many others those would choose not to save that child. But justification part is yet to be clarified.
If your conscience is active, you will opt to save, if not you would chose not to do so, irrespective of your being religious or not. There are many acts and feelings which develop in human psyche irrespective of their religious background.
religions do provide moral codes, but there are other sources like culture, etc which form the basis of a particular act of a person.
If your conscience is active, you will opt to save, if not you would chose not to do so, irrespective of your being religious or not. There are many acts and feelings which develop in human psyche irrespective of their religious background.
religions do provide moral codes, but there are other sources like culture, etc which form the basis of a particular act of a person.
Before you claim that morality was/is possible without religion, answer the following statement.
You pass by a small child drowning in a shallow pond and you are the only one around. If you pick up the child, she will survive and your pants will be ruined.
Peace ajazali,
Why I'll try to save that child? Why shall I ruin my dress? What is the relation of that child with me anyway? If that child is drowning then I'll call security person and leave saving job on them. On the other hand if there is a adult instead of the child even than I'll do the same mean I'll wait for happening of something like miracle that save save child/adult.
Honestly speaking, thoughts like above doesn't come in our mind in such emergency/rescue situation, we just do it. After saving a child/adult we pass our comments that we saved b'coz of this and that.
Religion teach that 'saving a life of any person is like saving all human kind', so if some1 ask me why I saved, I'll probably give reason that Almighty Allah created me and that person and HE loves us both. So for the sake of Almighty Allah, I saved him and that is how our religion teaches us morality.
Its not randomness, because natural instincts are in-built. Only certain things may polish or deteriorate such instincts.
So you are equating natural instincts with morality?
For the sake of argument I agree that to act kindly and to act not kindly are natural instincts, but again this is randomness bro!
I know its going to be circular logic.
you just give me the reason, why a non-beleiver will save that child.
if you say that it depends on natural instincts then i must say it is not morality.
Today some people argue that there are thousands of people who act morally and ethically and that is not part religious practices.** I believe that religion taught humankind morality **so they act morally and ethically even today. Today you may claim that people act morally and ethically without being religious but all this is because religion has/had been teaching human being morality for years.
Before you claim that morality was/is possible without religion, answer the following statement.
You pass by a small child drowning in a shallow pond and you are the only one around. If you pick up the child, she will survive and your pants will be ruined.
If you choose to save that child, justify why?
p.s. Answer to the point.
I don't understand the connection between Religion and Morality. Some here appear to be Religious. But they have opined homosexuals are like animals. That is being disrespectful and hurtful to a fellow human being. Not to mention insensitive. Hence immoral.
