Nice write up as usual @johnydon22,I enjoyed reading it. Keep them coming
I am in broad agreement with you, though I have some objections which are too nuanced for me to properly convey in writing.
Maybe we shall meet in person someday and have these conversations.

HardMirror:

Let it out! Let all the vile hate out!

Vile?? Naa, I described you in what?? 2 sentences, and all you could type is "let all the vile out"?? It seems you wanna see this thread derailed, by all means, let's continue, shall we...

Poopy head.

HardMirror:

Let it out! Let all the vile hate out!

Seems you just sinned against God. Where is your christian morality?

Buhahahahaha, I laugh in mbaise, you think the "youve sinned against God" works for me?? Muhehehehehe, You're an olodo_( no offence)

dorox:
Nice write up as usual @johnydon22,I enjoyed reading it. Keep them coming

Thank you brother

I am in broad agreement with you, though I have some objections which are too nuanced for me to properly convey in writing.
Maybe we shall meet in person someday and have these conversations.

I'm always open to scintillating coversations and intellectual discussions

Haha. Don't be offended

Nice post by johnydon22. It seems as if everyone agrees with you. One big issue with religious morality is that it's based on outdated books.

johnydon22

this dude is always on point! One of the best intellectuals ive come across...

Seun:
Nice post by johnydon22. It seems as if everyone agrees with you. One big issue with religious morality is that it's based on outdated books.

and addresses a quite different timeline from now, its almost certainly impossible to reconcile both worlds.

These are levels we should be way above..

I'm in a big trouble! I was discussing some religious matter on fb with a girl next door and I seem to have disturbed her faith. She got angry and she might have goten the clue that am an atheist... Mehn! Maybe she will tell everyone tommorow, I'm in a deep soup. My Dad might give me some resounding slaps, sha I begged her not to tell anyone.

johnydon22 great points. you impressed me.

my opinion.

when humans formed alliance to work together, then "society" was created. morality was the code of conduct. morality as you have said is relative and it also evolves. society is bound by rules. these rules checkmate the true human nature, these rules are what various religions(culture) call "moral standard"

if you notice when religion takes over government(then Catholic, today Sharia) morality become laws which are enforced, these moral codes become rigid(like Sharia law since 7th century till this day) but when religion is separated from politics, morality becomes an individualistic course which brings about speedy change in morality. this speedy change is really hard for religious people to comprehend hence they label it "immoral"

Pretty good write-up, In my view morality is little more than a codex for order at particular points in time, for instance the Incas, like the Mayans and the Aztecs of old considered child sacrifice to placate certain gods as perfectly morally acceptable. We could not countenance such a thing today and for sure most of what is considered morally acceptable today will in say a hundred years from now likely be seen as morally reprehensible.

The battle for morality is simply a game of numbers and acceptability, order really is an imposition, anarchy is the natural state of things. I prefer the maxim of that famous man dubbed the "wickedest man in Britain" Aleister Crowley, "do what thou wilt"

Of course, in a society where we are all sufficiently evolved man would work for the greater good, it just goes to show that we should not underestimate ants.

so in essence, what I wrote up there is when humans gather to work together as a society(religion or no religion. culture or no culture) there must be agreed rules, standard. that determines morality.

the only difference is. with religion or cultural influence of law morality is imposed(rigid) but in a liberal society it's filtered(flexible)

Sarassin:
Pretty good write-up, In my view morality is little more than a codex for order at particular points in time, for instance the Incas, like the Mayans and the Aztecs of old considered child sacrifice to placate certain gods as perfectly morally acceptable. We could not countenance such a thing today and for sure most of what is considered morally acceptable today will in say a hundred years from now likely be seen as morally reprehensible.

The battle for morality is simply a game of numbers and acceptability, order really is an imposition, anarchy is the natural state of things. I prefer the maxim of that famous man dubbed the "wickedest man in Britain" Aleister Crowley, "do what thou wilt"

Of course, in a society where we are all sufficiently evolved man would work for the greater good, it just goes to show that we should not underestimate ants.

absolutely right. I was telling same thing with my bro who is a seminarian, though he agrees with me on some cos they read philosophy, psychology and theology. survival(anarchy) is the true nature of man. society is just a way of surviving with deception.

like someone stated.
humans are the only animals that do not live the way we are meant to live.

oh thanks to knowledge. pride. forbidden fruit(as religious folks say).

nice to meet you sir

Owliver:
absolutely right......

nice to meet you sir

Very nice to meet you too, thanks.

johnydon22:
There have been very wild questions on how morality can be derived without religion, this question though i find it shallow most times comes from a sincere mind and truly an attempt in dealing with that simplistic view of a human ethical wiring purely based on religious interface is vital.

Most people cannot distinguish between human morality and religion, they cannot understand the need for ethical behaviours without religious or external coercions but here is a simple truth human morality has no religious basis, as a matter of fact human morality precedes religious influences

Let me tell a tale of nature, a tale of the most simple of beings, a tale of humility and sacrificial oneness, a tale of enviable order, a tale of selflessness, a tale of the ants

One thing that the human ego has left us is Blind, Blind to the lives we deem lesser than our own, blind to the subtle lessons nature teaches in her ever eventful stage.

I want to tell a tale of the ants, a tale that can teach us what we so blindly cannot see except with a cracking whip of religious influence omniously on our back.

The ants live in holes virtually everywhere around us and each ant hole has a thriving society, A colony.

The colonies are divided into groups according to functions, all groups as important as the other.

Soldiers that protect the colony, queens, workers and many more but for our tale we will focus on the workers.

Every ant's action is gunned towards the good and continuation of the colony, remarkably the human society is a mutilated mimicry of the ant's society except that most human actions are towards "personal [selfish]" ends.

Ants had a well organized society millions of years before the first human crawled out of the caves.

So the ant workers, i have watched them on many occasions working as a single unit, they rarely leave an injured ant behind and there is almost certainly a remarkable care for both one another and the entire colony, they work for the good and continuation of their society.

Many might be wondering why i chose the ants, i wanted to use a life form as common to access as the every day human world, neglected, crude and primitive but still a better organizer than humans ever have been and with a very basic moral behaviour toward each other and their society devoid of the greed of "Afterlife" or the fear of a sinister torture chamber.

So now the question How are you moral without religion?

Human morality was never a religious construct - so how can a human not be moral outside religious influence?

-I doubt if any of us here need the Quran, Veda or the bible to tell us before we bring ourselves to love our parents.

-How many of us need religious coercions to love and care for our young?

So why have we so demeaned human moral and ethical positions to a pitiable shallow state that many cannot concieve "Goodness" without being threatened into it or promised a posthumous reward for it.

it is indeed shallow that many humans cannot see beyond the horizone of such sinister ideas to derive ethical behaviours towards others and the society at large.

A critical evaluation of the 'so called' moral codecs in these pravelent religious doctrines brings to light a bizarre and cruel aspect of 'authorative coercion and some times evil posed as good'.

We humans must break free from this shallow pool of 'selfish' drive to ethical lives and look inward towards our own basis - human morality and ethics have far better and profound basis like

-Love
-Empathy
-Sympathy
-Compassion
-pity
-Family
-Societal bonds
-concern for others and societal well being.

Personally i do not even believe that someone with compassion, empathy, love and is profoundly humane can believe such a bizarre evil disturbing concept as an eternal punishment let alone invoke it as a basis for human morality

There is a saying that "Good cannot come out of evil" how can we hope to achieve goodness through disturbing concepts aimed at our fears.

If you cannot find humane reasons to be good to others except only through religious influence or other external influences such as political ones, then you are operating on a shallow level of human behaviourial potentials.

As Albert Einstein once said "If we humans cannot be good to others unless for heaven or hell then we are a sorry lot indeed"

There also however i can pin point religion and politics has been of useful influence for human ethical shaping as well as many that can also be referred to as disturbing as well as sinister influence from these values.

I am not aiming at discouraging "A moral direction" through religious coercions, it has proved useful on many cases, i am only correcting the niave idea that human morality has a religious or supernatural foundation.

If you can only be good to others because of the promise of heaven or the threat of hell then it shows exactly how little you think of others.

Humanism should drive our ethical positions towards each other, we must derive geniune care and concern and not aim at arriving at selfish ends.

If there are God(s) it appeals to logic that there would appreciate geniune concern and empathy more than reluctant comformity through threat and reward themes.

To claim morality is a religious construct is as ridiculous as claiming that the Alphabets was invented by the English men. [there are in fact Greek]

Morality is neither Muslim, Christian or Hindu, it is a human thing and belongs to no ism, neither is it dependent on any book, doctrines, creed or supernatural for basis. It has a human basis.

As long as there are varying individuals living together on this cosmos of cruel "competitive existence" there must be both positive and negative behaviours in this boundless collision of fates but i think it doesn't take anything to be a nice person neither does it hurt to be less an asss_hole than most people are.

So just like the Ants in our tale, we can derive an ethical behaviour gunned towards personal and societal well being and continuation without the need of religious influence - it is necessary for our continuation.

By Johnydon22

Cc. LoJ, Seun, Dorox....

it's an open floor..... every idea is welcome

d ants live with Communist ideology

Nice one OP, as usual of course.

I don't even know what's moral about burning people in everlasting fire to start with, for religion to claim morality.

Nice post @ johnydon22 . in fact, I've used this exact example when discussing with theists on here but they still chose to argue blindly. Thanks for explaining it in clear terms.

johnydon22:


Yes Morality and ethics do evolve, because societies which defines these terms also evolve, needs evolve, expectations evolve... One look at the history of human civilization is enough to show this.

Before they were used by humans to pull selds, packs of wolves never had it in their 'moral code' to let the strongest wolves stay at the front and back and protect the weaker ones in the middle. Morality evolves, even animal morality, which has been influenced by human technology. Some of the new behaviours they exhibit are simply a defence to human technology but all in all, they do what's vest for their group (social animals).

Seun:
Nice post by johnydon22. It seems as if everyone agrees with you. One big issue with religious morality is that it's based on outdated books.

Only religious codes of morality encourage and stipulate for a selfless morality.

Johnydon22's analysis with ants is gravely flawed.

Behind the queen ant's action is deception, manipulation and selfishness no better or worse than man's.

He skillfully did selective analysis.

Without religious codes, man's motive becomes selfish and his theories are only as good or worse than another man's.

Only religious ethics puts man in a place of objective and selfless action,eg; "love your neighbour as yourself"

AlphaDex:
Only religious codes of morality encourages and stipulates for a selfless morality.

Starkly untrue and i will show how

Johnydon22's analysis with ants is gravely flawed.

Behind the queen ant's action is deception, manipulation and selfishness no better or worse than man's.
He skillfully did selective analysis.

From the post Soldiers that protect the colony, queens, workers and many more [size=20]but for our tale we will focus on the workers.[/size]

It was obvious that the 'Ant analogy' was based on the workers, behaviourial tendencies and collective approach.

Without religious codes, man's motive become selfish and his theories are only as good or worse than another man's.
Only religious ethics puts man in a place of objective and selfless action,eg; "love your neighbour as yourself"

Religious basis for morality presents the very apex of selfish propulsion for ethical actions, it subtly proposes an ethical position gunned towards posthumous reward [Paradise] or evasion of posthumous torture [hell].

The actions of the individual is severed from the "need" for ethical actions towards individuals or the society but rather as a greedy means to secure a posthumous end.

That is the height of greed, selfishness and cannot ever be considerately equated with anything near "selflessness".

Here is another tale.

Mr A is in need of Bread, he calls John and asks him to buy a bread for him but John is unwilling to undertake the tasks, he may directly reject or have an indifferent approach towards the request.

Mr A calls John again, brings out a #100 note and promises to give John the money as a reward if he carries out the task, John immediately agrees to the task.
In this scenario, John was not motivated into helping Mr A because he wanted to but for the selfish end of getting a #100 note

Mr A calls John on a second instance, brings out his whip and promises John 100 strokes if he refuses to carry out his request, John also fearfully carries out the task
this scenario also show cases a selfish motive behind John's action, he didn't go because he wanted to, he did so because he was afraid of Mr A's wrath therefore wanted only to save his skin

On a last instance Mr B calls Seun and request he helps him get some bread, Seun carries out the task.
seun unlike John had no reward or punishment option roped around the request, he did Mr B the favour sorely because he wanted to and not because of a "reward" or evasion of a "punishment" as an end

This sorely represents the position of religious moral influence

There are many moral philosophies but to add a nudge towards comformity to these moral lines of action religion proposes a selfish end

Heaven and hell, reward and punishment.

Just like John from the analogy up there, A religiously influenced moral tilt is not fueld by selflessness as you want to argue - but rather a basic means to a selfish end "securing heaven or evading hell"

It is in fact a reluctant approach towards ethical actions that needs 'selfish' nudges in order to be exhibited.

It shows most ethical behaviours as a result of Religious influences in essense cannot be equated as selfless goodness but only a selfish means of gaining a personal goal, take away these "reward and punishment" idea and such a person's moral inclination is severed.

The religious influence of morality makes morality a coercive project - the average religious person does not do 'good' or follow the certain line of moral positions tendered by such a religion because h wants to, he does that only because he wants to Gain a paradise or escape a hell

Here is a first hand example

malvisguy212:
if you find it hard to forgive your enemy, why not look for a gun and kill him, no God will hold you accountable for your sin .

Here is Malvisguy who holds the idea that you need a God who'd hold you "accountable" before you try not to be a complete sicko serial killer.

A basis for morality based on such not only "selfish" ends but also 'disturbing' concepts are in themselves 'immoral'

Human ethical behaviours should be above such shallow infleunces.

Nice piece, this should be on front page.

johnydon22:


Starkly untrue and i will show how



From the post Soldiers that protect the colony, queens, workers and many more [size=20]but for our tale we will focus on the workers.[/size]

It was obvious that the 'Ant analogy' was based on the workers, behaviourial tendencies and collective approach.



Religious basis for morality presents the very apex of selfish propulsion for ethical actions, it subtly proposes an ethical position gunned towards posthumous reward [Paradise] or evasion of posthumous torture [hell].

The actions of the individual is severed from the "need" for ethical actions towards individuals or the society but rather as a greedy means to secure a posthumous end.

That is the height of greed, selfishness and cannot ever be considerately equated with anything near "selflessness".

Here is another tale.

Mr A is in need of Bread, he calls John and asks him to buy a bread for him but John is unwilling to undertake the tasks, he may directly reject or have an indifferent approach towards the request.

Mr A calls John again, brings out a #100 note and promises to give John the money as a reward if he carries out the task, John immediately agrees to the task.
In this scenario, John was not motivated into helping Mr A because he wanted to but for the selfish end of getting a #100 note

Mr A calls John on a second instance, brings out his whip and promises John 100 strokes if he refuses to carry out his request, John also fearfully carries out the task
this scenario also show cases a selfish motive behind John's action, he didn't go because he wanted to, he did so because he was afraid of Mr A's wrath therefore wanted only to save his skin

On a last instance Mr B calls Seun and request he helps him get some bread, Seun carries out the task.
seun unlike John had no reward or punishment option roped around the request, he did Mr B the favour sorely because he wanted to and not because of a "reward" or evasion of a "punishment" as an end

This sorely represents the position of religious moral influence

There are many moral philosophies but to add a nudge towards comformity to these moral lines of action religion proposes a selfish end

Heaven and hell, reward and punishment.

Just like John from the analogy up there, A religiously influenced moral tilt is not fueld by selflessness as you want to argue - but rather a basic means to a selfish end "securing heaven or evading hell"

It is in fact a reluctant approach towards ethical actions that needs 'selfish' nudges in order to be exhibited.

It shows most ethical behaviours as a result of Religious influences in essense cannot be equated as selfless goodness but only a selfish means of gaining a personal goal, take away these "reward and punishment" idea and such a person's moral inclination is severed.

The religious influence of morality makes morality a coercive project - the average religious person does not do 'good' or follow the certain line of moral positions tendered by such a religion because h wants to, he does that only because he wants to Gain a paradise or escape a hell

Here is a first hand example

Here is Malvisguy who holds the idea that you need a God who'd hold you "accountable" before you try not to be a complete sicko serial killer.

A basis for morality based on such not only "selfish" ends but also 'disturbing' concepts are in themselves 'immoral'

Human ethical behaviours should be above such shallow infleunces.

Hmn, what long narrative! You're still employing selective and evasive narration?

Why are you limiting your argument to the actions of soldier ants? Aren't their motive, intent and thought process necessary? Isn't that the crux of morality?

The soldier ants select productive queens to channel their resources towards and the ant queens releases chemical substances in manipulating these soldier ants into loyalty as they won't be totally loyal to an unproductive queen!

Did I see a slelfish motive in soldier ants there? Yes I did.

Even the queen ant will sacrifice her colony to retain throne.

Please allow me burst your selfless soldier ant theory;
All of the workers and soldiers are sisters as with the queen! The ultimate motivation is to secure the gene line by protecting the queen who's the only one to reproduce and carry on their genes to the next generation!

So there's a selfish motivation of looking out only for their own and future.

Religion advocates empathy for all irrespective of differences.

Your heaven/hell theory doesn't hold because not all religion has a metaphysical reward of eternity.

And even those that do, eg, Christianity and Islam look at the motive and purity of heart and not actions.

So if one does good acts to escape hell and make heaven but conceive evil , he will be denied the reward!

Bottom line, your ant analogy doesn't work.

Johnydon22. Can you kindly tell me what the Bible say in Proverbs 6 verse 6?

AlphaDex:
Without religious codes, man's motive becomes selfish

What? That's not true. Many of the world's richest individuals, who don't follow any religious codes, have pledged their entire wealth to charity.

and his theories are only as good or worse than another man's.

Theories can be tested. The ones that stand up to scrutiny should be adopted. That's how science works. That's how modern courts work.

Only religious ethics puts man in a place of objective and selfless action,eg; "love your neighbour as yourself"

Loving your neighbour as yourself is a bad idea. You should love yourself most, followed by your family & friends, then all other human beings.