• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are secular societies prone to moral decay?

Agondonter

Active Member
This thread is an amazing display of empty-headed chin music.

Without exception and without realizing it, those making moral judgments against religion — and Christianity in particular — are basing their judgment on inherited (and evolving) Christian ideals.
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
This thread is an amazing display of empty-headed chin music.

Without exception and without realizing it, those making moral judgments against religion — and Christianity in particular — are basing their judgment on inherited (and evolving) Christian ideals.

So much for unchanging and objective morality emanating from God.

Ciao

- viole
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
I'm not sure myself. I ask because I read a couple of articles lately written by Christians. They were trying to make the case that secularism believes morality is relative and without the never changing "Word of God", morality is subject to the whims of the people. Eventually, this secular society will morally decay.

Right? Wrong?

Wrong, unless not going to church and tithing every Sunday are actually moral issues. And then look at all the evil in the Bible presented as good things, with divine consent being silent or otherwise, like genocide, human sacrifice (including Jesus'), being executed for gathering sticks on the sabbath or prostitution or fornication, worshiping a building or hum an (Jesus) while saying idolatry is wrong, and Paul saying we don't have to try to be good, only believe in "Christ" (which may be the most evil theology of all. And look at all the evil that's been committed in the name of religion. It's the prime impetus for the separation of church and state.

Morality, in itself, is not a rigid construct. It fluctuates from society to society. From a Christian perspective, I can see their point. Their foothold on the moral high horse has been slipping for awhile now.

True morality is a rigid construct and is very simple when you strip away all the sin that's been added to aid the religion in controlling it's congregants. True morality is honoring the EQUAL rights of ALL to life, liberty, property and self-defense, to be free from violation by force or fraud. It's that simple. The root of ALL evil isn't money, power, fame or sex, it's a moral/legal double standard-- be it rationalized on a personal level or a political one.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
This thread is an amazing display of empty-headed chin music.

Without exception and without realizing it, those making moral judgments against religion — and Christianity in particular — are basing their judgment on inherited (and evolving) Christian ideals.

So which Christian ideals are you talking about, the inherited ones or the evolved ones--and to whom were which "revealed". Revealed religion is based on acceptance of revelation via blind faith in pure hearsay.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
This thread is an amazing display of empty-headed chin music.

Without exception and without realizing it, those making moral judgments against religion — and Christianity in particular — are basing their judgment on inherited (and evolving) Christian ideals.
Could you explain this comment? Are you saying morality did not exist before Christianity? What was Socrates, Aristotle, Confucius etc. were talking about then? Can I make a moral judgement against religion using moral philosophical ideas laid down by the Greek thinkers?
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
I'm not sure myself. I ask because I read a couple of articles lately written by Christians. They were trying to make the case that secularism believes morality is relative and without the never changing "Word of God", morality is subject to the whims of the people. Eventually, this secular society will morally decay.

Right? Wrong?
The secular countries actually have great morale and lowering crime in Europe.

If it were true that when belief in God weakens, societal well-being diminishes, then we should see abundant evidence for this. But we don't. In fact, we find just the opposite: Those societies today that are the most religious — where faith in God is strong and religious participation is high — tend to have the highest violent crime rates, while those societies in which faith and church attendance are the weakest — the most secular societies — tend to have the lowest.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1101-zuckerman-violence-secularism-20151101-story.html
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Morality does not really benefit from codes, particularly if they are rigid. It is not even too big of a reach to say that it is diminished by those.

Morality is about responsibility, courage and ability to predict and deal with the consequences of actions. Like so much else, it has a place for learning better as circunstances change, as well as for flexibility and experimentation.
This aspect you point out about being able to predict and deal with consequences I think is important. Just having faith that something will be morally acceptable is not enough, there has to be reason and "cause my religion said so" is not sufficient.
 

Agondonter

Active Member
Could you explain this comment? Are you saying morality did not exist before Christianity? What was Socrates, Aristotle, Confucius etc. were talking about then? Can I make a moral judgement against religion using moral philosophical ideas laid down by the Greek thinkers?
Another amazing display of empty-headed chin music. I do wish people would investigate before spouting nonsense.

14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, they, not having the law, are a law unto themselves,

15 which shows the work of the law written in their hearts,their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts between accusing and excusing one another. (Rom 2:14-15, KJ21)
Religion is first and foremost the pursuit of values which is then followed by a system of interpretative beliefs. Values for religion are concrete, they are real; not mere abstractions to be discussed and politicized like we see with secularism.

Jesus' teachings are a universal call to do good rather than merely refrain from doing evil. It was a radical departure from the morality of his day. However, any moron can see how such a call to action can be perverted for selfish and political ends, and that's just what skeptics have been focusing on--that and how wonderful secularized Europe is now that it's impotent in dealing with the changing conditions in the world.
 
Last edited:

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Another amazing display of empty-headed chin music. I do wish people would investigate before spouting nonsense.
Empty aggressive rhetoric devoid of any substantial points.

14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, they, not having the law, are a law unto themselves,

15 which shows the work of the law written in their hearts,their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts between accusing and excusing one another. (Rom 2:14-15, KJ21)
That's paul's rhetoric. It appears to me however, that both theoretical and applied ethics in Roman and Greek societies were far more advanced and Christians simply copied from them. Indeed there are only two sentences that are cited in this so called revolutionary ethics. One is love your neighbor and the poor, which was a widely acknowledged and applied much much before Jesus ever said anything about it; and love your enemies which is completely unworkable and has never been applied before or since.
Religion is first and foremost the pursuit of values which is then followed by a system of interpretative beliefs. Values for religion are concrete, they are real; not mere abstractions to be discussed and politicized like we see with secularism.
Secular ethics was never an abstraction, and was actually practiced by people. And political sphere is the most important sphere where ethics can be applied in a concrete manner. As writings of Seneca or Marcus Aurelius amply demonstrate. Aristotle made the greatest single contribution ethical thought from antiquity which far exceeds anything any Christian writer has ever been able to come up with. In Greek as well as Chinese society (500 schools and Han era), philosophy was not an academic discipline but a practical profession that was learnt by citizens and officials in their (however imperfect) effort to apply such principles in society. Virtue is a value and Aristotle's virtue ethics is a pursuit of values of virtue in personal and public life of individuals in society. So was Stoicism in classical Roman era. So was Ren in Han Confucian thought.

Jesus' teachings were a universal call that we should do good rather than merely refrain from doing evil. It was a radical departure from the morality of his day.
False on both counts
1) Every classical ethical systems also focus on what we should do along with refraining from doing evil. Have you actually read anything apart from what Christians say about these things?
2) I find no radical departure at all. Please enlighten me.

However, any moron can see how such a call to action can be perverted for selfish and political ends,
But apparently non-Christian ethical systems do not get such a pass do they? Hypocrisy much?

and that's just what skeptics have been focusing on--that and how wonderful secular Europe is now that it's impotent in dealing with the changing conditions in the world.
I note that it is religious countries of Europe (Spain, Italy, Greece etc.) that are the center of all economic woes and corruption that is dragging the European Union down. It is also difficult to see how secular ethics can be made responsible for terrorist attacks by a fundamentalist wing of a rigidly monotheistic religion. I also note how happy you appear to be when some of the closest friends of your nation and people of your ancestral continent and culture are struggling with having to live in the proximity of demagogues (Russia) and migration issues from war torn regions that you can safely avoid due to the presence of the Atlantic Ocean. You can't even love your friends apparently.
 

McBell

Unbound
:::sigh:::
I know right?
[sarcasm]
I mean it must really really suck to be so far advanced in knowledge and understanding of everyone else's religious beliefs that you are completely incapable of communicating said super highly advanced understanding in a manner comprehensible to us mere lowly ignoramuses.
[/sarcasm]
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
I think the proof is in the pudding here, before Christianity the most advanced civilizations considered watching people die horribly the height of sophisticated entertainment. Less wealthy cultures ate each other.
They did not perceive this as immoral

I think we take for granted how Christianity transformed what we perceive as 'normal morality' in the world

ALL of the religions of Abraham have also done this.

Christians went around the world torturing, and killing, and destroying, ancient cultures and their knowledge.

Christians even spent hundreds of years torturing and killing each other over which Christian denomination they belonged to.

I actually think we would have a better world today, if religious dogma wasn't in it, or they at least minded their own business, and left people in peace to make their own decisions.

*
 

Agondonter

Active Member
I know right?
[sarcasm]
I mean it must really really suck to be so far advanced in knowledge and understanding of everyone else's religious beliefs that you are completely incapable of communicating said super highly advanced understanding in a manner comprehensible to us mere lowly ignoramuses.
[/sarcasm]
Absolutely....pearls before swine and all that.
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure myself. I ask because I read a couple of articles lately written by Christians. They were trying to make the case that secularism believes morality is relative and without the never changing "Word of God", morality is subject to the whims of the people. Eventually, this secular society will morally decay.

Right? Wrong?
It's a ridiculous claim. The first thing Christianity did after becoming legal was to kill others and torch buildings and books. That there are tons of denominations prove that Christianity is just as much about "whims" as anything else.

During that same time when morality was defined by how much of your shameful body you discovered, there was a rampant domestic violence problem that went largely unreported. It was simply seen as controlling your family if you beat on your wife and kids. It wasn't until the 1970s when domestic violence was even considered a crime.
When you watch the remake movie of Lost in Space, people were claiming that it was turning the show into a typical 90s thing. "waaah waaah my parents work and don't love me"

The funny thing is, I had tapes or dvds or something of the first season. That's EXACTLY what happened in the first few episodes. The difference is that we are to take the kid's side today and the dad's side in the 60s.

I think the proof is in the pudding here, before Christianity the most advanced civilizations considered watching people die horribly the height of sophisticated entertainment. Less wealthy cultures ate each other.
They did not perceive this as immoral
Reality TV. 'Nuff said.

What on earth is "moral decay?!"
When the self-made bouncers for God complain He's being nice to the bad guys again.

The inherent weakness of secularism is that it discards ethics and religion for politics and power.
I repeat:
The first thing Christianity did after becoming legal was to kill others and torch buildings and books. That there are tons of denominations prove that Christianity is just as much about "whims" as anything else.

700 years ago? Unfortunately public torture, beheadings, genocide still remain today, and Christians are often the target.
Not in the US. In the US, Christians are the most dangerous people out there. I'm from the south and I'm a woman. I had much more to fear from redneck Christians than I ever did from ANYONE ELSE.

That is a value-judgment. On what basis is it made? Religious or secular?
In the US, the "Bible Belt" has the highest levels of poverty, teen pregnancies, drug use, porn use, etc.

Sometimes after being met with default violence from native inhabitants
Why would they have reason to be ticked off? Strange people coming in, armed, forcing them from their homes? Killing their families?

We have southerners today who think the "ebil guvmint" gonna get 'em. Per your logic, the government is right to take the lands and property of these angry people who default at violence.
 

Agondonter

Active Member
Secular ethics was never an abstraction, and was actually practiced by people. And political sphere is the most important sphere where ethics can be applied in a concrete manner. As writings of Seneca or Marcus Aurelius amply demonstrate. Aristotle made the greatest single contribution ethical thought from antiquity which far exceeds anything any Christian writer has ever been able to come up with. In Greek as well as Chinese society (500 schools and Han era), philosophy was not an academic discipline but a practical profession that was learnt by citizens and officials in their (however imperfect) effort to apply such principles in society. Virtue is a value and Aristotle's virtue ethics is a pursuit of values of virtue in personal and public life of individuals in society. So was Stoicism in classical Roman era. So was Ren in Han Confucian thought.
And you see no contradiction here?

I have already stated that religion is first and primarily a pursuit of values followed by interpretative beliefs. (Read what Paul said again.) Those beliefs may or may not include a personal God—that depends entirely on how the spark relates flame. What you call “secular ethics” is the institutionalization of religious values and ethics abstracted from collective and applied in a concrete manner to society as a whole.
 
Last edited:

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
And you see no contradiction here?

I have already stated that religion is first and primarily a pursuit of values followed by interpretative beliefs. (Read what Paul said again.) Those beliefs may or may not include a personal God—that depends entirely on how the spark relates flame. What you call “secular ethics” is the institutionalization of religious values and ethics abstracted from collective and applied in a concrete manner to society as a whole.

I have read Paul from top to bottom, and Paul thinks nothing of that kind. He is trying to show that the Gentiles are also culpable under God's judgement even though they do not have the Law by stating that their God given conscience convicts them. He has to tell such a story, because otherwise why would the Gentiles believe that they are damned according to the Law of a Jewish God who has never ever sent any Law codes or prophet to them? It is abundantly clear from Paul that he, at least, believes that only the complete acceptance of Jesus as the Savior can prove sufficient to wash the sin of Adam present in all men, and only that is religion; pursuit of virtue or works or philosophy are all in vain. In fact no Christian (or not many theists for that matter) has ever thought pursuit of value is somehow the primary task of religion. Its the pursuit of God or Gods.
Religion has to do with relation of human beings with transcendent realm and deities and has no necessary connection with human values at all. I many places religions are primarily associated with rituals and worship to please the Gods for earthly or heavenly rewards and human moral behavior is nothing to do with those religions. These are, in fact, some of the earliest religions, and these societies view virtues and ethics as primarily human affairs on which the Gods have very little to say. Many of the most established ethical systems (Greece, China, Buddhist India) have clear separation of the ethical world of the "good" and the transcendent world of the "holy" from the very beginning. Buddhist ethics relies on no God, Epicureans do not believe in God at all, Aristotle believes that gods are transcendent beings who have had no role in human affairs whatsoever, while all of Chinese philosophy believes that human ethics is based on how to make human society and human beings harmonious . Confucious also deals with the harmony and order of this world, with very little talk of Gods. That is why these are all called secular philsophies or worldviews (Buddhism becomes a religion much later when Buddha becomes a God ) as opposed to religious worldviews like Zoroastrianism, Egyptian religions, Greek and Roman Polytheism, Vedic Hinduism, Judaism etc. You are redefining religion to suit your purposes . How convenient! Sorry to disappoint you, but worldviews where virtues and values do not stem from God of Gods are secular.

I
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
@Guy Threepwood

Your arguments are really hilarious, considering what Christian Europeans were into for centuries. Christianity worships before the image of a bloodied, tortured corpse, has very violently graphic and gory images of saints, celebrates death to the point of memorializing the saints on the day of their death (much like we would celebrate someone's Birthday), Christian ascetics would whip themselves (and each other) bloody, lick the sores of lepers, castrate themselves to keep the demons of the flesh at bay, starve themselves to near-death, the central ritual of Christianity (the Eucharist) is a cannibalistic feast, parishes have rotting corpses within in them, altars have body parts embedded in them, saints would be dismembered at death and their body parts shipped all over the place (which formed a black market in such things, with many cons being carried out), you have images and devotions that praise and obsess over the wounds and tortures of Christ - including drinking his blood and bathing in it, etc.

Christian Europeans were a filthy, primitive, superstitious, stupid people for almost the whole of the period that Europe was staunchly Christian. They lived in complete filth - rarely, if ever, bathing or changing their clothes, throwing their urine and feces into the street (and often onto those passing by below) which turned the streets into open sewers, they wore wigs to cover up their lice infestations (that's what those powdered wigs were really about), etc. This was quite a contrast to the classical Hellenic cultures which promoted daily bathing and general hygiene, having many public baths and even flushing toilets for the populace to make use of ("Cleanliness is next to Godliness", as the saying goes). Many other peoples that Europeans came into contact with during this time were abhorred at how filthy and uncivilized the Europeans were, including Asians (Arabs, Indians and East Asians, especially; these are cultures that always placed a high value on cleanliness) and various other indigenous peoples throughout the world. Even the pre-Christian Norse peoples were more attentive to their hygiene during this point.

They were also very sadistic in their choice of pastimes, as well - mass cat burnings, bear baiting, dog baiting, monkey baiting, etc. - all very sick and cruel activities. Then there were the very horrific, yet imaginative, tortures and methods of execution that Christian Europeans came up with - hanging, drawing and quartering, the rack, the Catherine wheel, the pear (which was inserted and expanded in pretty much every orifice), the iron maiden, the scold's bridle (primarily used on disobedient women), placing hot coals in or on people, flaying people alive, wearing heavy iron masks (sometimes heated to the point that the flesh melted and fused to it), putting people in metal cages and letting them slowly die of starvation and leaving their rotting corpses on display, putting a metal cage with rats in it on top of someone's body and heating it so that the rats would tear into and burrow into the person to escape the intense heat, the various displays of cruel and painful public humiliation (including wearing masks, bridles, being held in a stockade, being made to wear hats and clothing with mocking and degrading symbolism, etc.). Etc.

We also have rather pathological sexual tortures due to certain interpretations of "Christian virtue", including wearing heavy, torturous chastity devices (both for males and females), infant circumcision, placing acid on the clitoris, etc.

The Conquistadors, for example, would throw native people to dogs to be ripped apart and eaten. They reduced them to the level of chattel slavery and are responsible for quite possibly the biggest genocide in human history. I've read that Columbus himself may have had 12 or 13 natives hanged as a sacrifice in the name of Christ and the Apostles. The lurid tales of human sacrifice and cannibalism you are spouting off in this thread are called atrocity propaganda that was written by the Europeans to paint the indigenous people in a bad light. The Romans did the same with the Druids, as they committed genocide against them. It is a way of rationalizing abuses for posterity.

After all, these cultures, and many times the people themselves, have been mostly completely destroyed, so their side of the story is largely missing from our records. We only really have the records of the conquerors to go by. However, sometimes the chroniclers let the other side of the story slip through in their writings (especially the ones where the authors were disgusted at the treatment of the indigenous peoples by their fellow Christian Europeans and experienced deep regret at it), and it shows their cultures in a completely different light from how the conquerors wish us to remember them. They were not primitive savages. Many of these pre-Christian cultures were quite urbane and advanced, possessing knowledge and technologies that the Europeans didn't have at the time. In many cases, they were much more egalitarian, with many rights afforded to women and children. They had art, philosophy, medicine, various sciences, centers of learning, etc. Aztec knowledge and cosmology alone was extremely complex and sophisticated, one of the most sophisticated systems of thought in the world.

So Christianity is a very violent, sadomasochistic, necrophilic religion. It has a tendency to produce major psychosexual disorders and delusions as well as a tendency to shun reason and basic decency. Nowadays we as a society tend to disdain such things, but that's not necessarily because we're more adept at practicing "Christian morality". :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Top