I don’t mind when someone’s religious but the second they use that religion to justify discriminatory practices I no longer feel beholden to pretend they’re not just engaging in delusions that are now becoming the rest of the worlds problem

61

Comment Deleted

0

I don’t approve of when people advocate for laws that stem from their religious beliefs.

29

All in the name of a God that they can’t prove either. I’m perfectly content with whatever you want to believe (general you) but don’t make it my problem.

16

Comment Deleted

0

Secular and logical/semi-democratic reasoning

27

Comment Deleted

0

No you’re fine! I’m happy to explain. There are objective/factual consequences to actions we take against others. I can shoot someone and that results in harm or a decline in quality of life. Concepts of universalism aren’t exclusive to christianity. Biological processes like sympathy and empathy set us up to be socially cooperative innately. Those foundational principles do not necessarily need to stem from a religious belief

31

So it would be a lot of dialogue, a LOT of dialogue.

18

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

It’s not, it’s an innate trait of homosapiens. Early humans did it as well, the homoerectus found it beneficial to engage in “accommodation behavior” The idea that we concede or sacrifice things for the sake of our species/longevity. Other animals practice this too. You see moms give their babies food at the expense of their own hunger, shelters well, etc. The difference between those animals and these cases are we can articulate the accommodations into long term goals

32

The law doesn’t generally tell us that either. Take killing for example. The law doesn’t say killing is wrong. Killing isn’t illegal. Murder is.

15

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

I’m talking biology in reference to the traits and accommodating behaviors

4

Do you think the law says killing is bad or good?

9

Yeah man, because separation of church and state. Its an insanely easy concept. Religion is for YOU to practice, not to FORCE onto others against their will.

18

Anonymous #2 34w

Totally fair

7

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #2 34w

What health and safety exactly? 😭 I can tell you’ve done a lot of thinking about this.

-3

Killing isn’t illegal. You’re perfectly allowed to kill in self defense, to protect your property (in the state of Texas), as a sentence for a crime/the death penalty. Killing is not illegal, murder is.

7

Anonymous #6 34w

Happy to hear it honestly :)

7

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #5 34w

Access to medication and surgery being restricted for Queer and Disabled folks and anyone who can become pregnant, access to support services and diagnoses being underfunded or gutted because Neurodivergent people can just “pray it away”, the entire anti-vaccination resurgence— all of it ties back to christian-nationalism.

29

Comment Deleted

0

And it’s shitty all around.

8

your point stands, how?

4

Anonymous #7 34w

Peculiar isn’t it

8

Comment Deleted

0

Murder is illegal because it’s not the correct (legally speaking) way to kill. Is self defense illegal? and why/why not?

1

Comment Deleted

0

Well I’d love an answer before I answer yours.

1

Comment Deleted

0

Okay, so killing isn’t wrong as long as there are exceptions or justifications for why you can kill. You’re acknowledging that there are cases where killing isn’t wrong. Which implies that killing, the act of taking a life isn’t inherently immoral. And we recognize that through our legislative process

1

Comment Deleted

0

I didn’t say the word good in any of that paragraph. I said we don’t recognize the act of taking a life as something inherently immoral.

1

Comment Deleted

0

Yeah culturally we recognize it in most cases to be harmful, which is why killing isn’t actually illegal. Murder is. There are cases where killing doesn’t benefit society or the people in question

1

Comment Deleted

0

No. The original topic was specifically what I posted

1

Comment Deleted

0

Then sure yeah

1

I mean I don’t agree with the premise but I’m just trying not to be difficult so yes

1

Comment Deleted

0

I’d say for the sake of discussion: I don’t agree that law and morality are innately linked

1

Your religion doesn’t dictate my life, it dictates yours. No religious based laws should be passed

6

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

Because a mythical sky daddy shouldn’t have a say in tangible real life issues, are you fr?

1

Religion ≠ moral/ethics, if anything religion as proven itself as immoral and unethical time and time again, your fake ass God doesn’t dictate law in a country that has a constitutional right to freedom of religion, you force laws of religion, it’s no longer freedom of religion

1

Comment Deleted

0

Social contracts and pure selfishness, I don’t want to be murdered so I shouldn’t murder other people, therefore murder should be illegal, and the fast majority of individuals agree which is why socially murder is wrong. Hints the social contract part, The idea that there is no morals without religion is just blatantly wrong.

1

Comment Deleted

0

You guys are still here?

6

Because ascribing behaviors to ensure survival or safety is not innately a moral imperative. It’s an instinctual one. You have no moral reaction to me saying “do not eat poisonous berries that cause you great pain and suffering ” because that is something (generally speaking) that you would not do anyways. It’s just a regulatory system designed to ensure long term success and survival

1

Anonymous #9 34w

I agree, it’s gross the republicans can’t just leave people alone!

1

Comment Deleted

0

Not with religion.

6

Religion if anything is immoral.

13

Anonymous #8 34w

The amount of harm that was just swept away because “GoD sAiD sO” is abysmal.

8

Emotional responses to information, a framework for acceptable behavior and ethical choices ultimately to determine whether or not the action was appropriate for the context

1

Comment Deleted

0

No not necessarily. But let me ask, I assume you’re christian and or you adhere to objective morality?

1

Comment Deleted

0

That’s part of the issue.

8

Okay, so let’s take an example of something objectively immoral. Can we agree, on some terms first. Objective in this context means true regardless of who commits the act (it’s wrong if you do it or I) you can agree to that?

6

Comment Deleted

0

Great, so let’s take another example. If I were to kill a baby, who’s committed no immoral act, i.e stabbing, beating, drowning, etc it doesn’t matter. That to you would be an objectively immoral act? You’d recognize that to be wrong

3

Comment Deleted

0

Probably, I don’t doubt it. Objective means true regardless in this context, you agreed. So God does this during the flood, is it objectively immoral for him to have drowned a baby who’s committed no immoral act in the (Noah) flood story?

4

Comment Deleted

0

Okay so then there are exceptions to the standard of “wrong no matter who does it” which contests what the definition of what you agreed with.

5

Comment Deleted

0

Okay, that’s also not objective then. If the standard is not equal across the board because some entities have a different one that supersedes others, that is authoritative

4

Comment Deleted

0

If an act is immoral, objectively speaking. The acts moral implications do not change regardless of who does it. The implication of someone being able to do something that is “objectively immoral” without having that same moral responsibility means there’s differing levels of their ability to commit im(moral) acts

6

Comment Deleted

0

So you agree that Gods immune from this standard due to his authority?

2

Comment Deleted

0

Is God capable and or has he ever done anything objectively immoral?

6

Comment Deleted

0

Okay so then he is immune. Whether that immunity is conscious or not he is removed from that standard. Do you believe that God is good in anything and everything he does, so for example, that drowned child. Was it good that he drowned a baby?

6

Comment Deleted

0

Okay, well then substantiate for me, why it’s morally good to drown a baby by filling its lungs with water. I understand that he has the authority in your mind to do so. But explain why the act itself becomes moral without having to reexplain that he simply just has the authority.

6

Comment Deleted

0

I understand you think he’s the source of life, that he’s able to choose etc etc. but that’s still asserting that he’s allowed to just cause he’s allowed to. why does the ACT become moral, explain why the act is moral in this context. Explain how the act of drowning a baby is a moral one.

7

Comment Deleted

0

I don’t feel as though you’re understanding my question and or you’re not being direct with it which is why I’m holding off I promise I will answer. The act of drowning a baby, does it become moral once God does it, you say yes, so I’m asking you now, to tell me why drowning a baby (that act) is moral.

3

Comment Deleted

0

He caused the flood waters in Noah’s story. This wasn’t something that naturally happened as the flood was global. Do you understand my prompt/question? Can you repeat what I’m asking back to you?

6

Comment Deleted

0

That’s not what I’m asking. I’m asking you to substantiate the act morally.

4

The act itself.

3

Comment Deleted

0

Explain why it’s good to drown a baby: That is the most simple way I can prompt it as of right now. I will think of other ways though since maybe I’m not making myself clear.

7

Comment Deleted

0

You’ve definitely done a good job at asserting why God has the authority. But can you just make it simple for me, in 1-10steps however many you need, bullet point it, explain why it’s good to drown babies

7

Comment Deleted

0

I’m not asking why it was okay for God to do that. I’m asking why is it good to do that at all.

6

Comment Deleted

0

Without saying the word God, explain how the act of drowning a baby becomes good in reference to his specific case, what actions make it good?

6

Comment Deleted

0

That’s not explaining the specific actions that make drowning a baby morally become good.

4

Comment Deleted

0

Sure, I’ll just agree that for now it’s a concession to that point. What was your question?

6

Comment Deleted

0

I can yes, and I’m making both.

4

Comment Deleted

0

Are you asking me to explain how it’s wrong or just asking me to explain the process in which I came to that conclusion? And yes I am.

5

Comment Deleted

0

Yeah definitely, so starting with the drowning one. It’s wrong to drown a baby who done nothing immoral for a lot of reasons but mainly due to the loss of life at an unnecessary expense. It serves nobody physically, emotionally, or mentally to harm someone who’s broken no social contract

4

Comment Deleted

0

No, that’s a common misconception among other moral systems. There are levels to moral acts. All (conscious for a lack of a better term) living things recognize this. If you step on a dogs foot that causes a negative reaction but odds are it won’t feel the need to fight to the death over it. If you kill its offspring, it may.

7

Comment Deleted

0

Yes

3

Comment Deleted

0

No, every moral system is equally as subjective. Valid means something is logically sound or factually based

4

Comment Deleted

0

No, it’s equally as subjective. Meaning that their moral system exists to them but not all moral systems are sound. So the act wouldn’t be sound.

3

Comment Deleted

0

the conclusion that logically follows from the premises) and based on true (factual for clarity) premises.

4

Comment Deleted

0

This is an example I want to preface I don’t believe these things lol. Hitler saw that jewish people committed immoral acts, all of that group commits moral acts, them committing immoral acts threatens “my” way of life, they need to be gone if I want to preserve my way of life. The premise is built upon the notion that all people of one group are a threat, rather than associating the threat with the individuals in question and not attributing it to the whole group

5

Comment Deleted

0

Nature, I assume you’re talking about the natural world?

6

Just like what we see in nature I mean

3

Comment Deleted

0

Why do you mean by nature?

2

Comment Deleted

0

Oh I see what you mean. No I wouldn’t agree with that.

6

Comment Deleted

0

Humans are, that is not a moral claim. Killing is good, is.

5

Comment Deleted

0

By building premises using biological, social, and tangible processes and then applying that to a case where that claim was being justified. Do you think subjective morality, my view of it, is flawed logically?

3

Anonymous OP 34w

It’s pretty bad that this “omniscient, all-powerful, all-loving” “god” refuses to eliminate evil, constantly makes harm happen, and doesn’t know everything. 😂

2

Comment Deleted

0

Those are tangible. Those are malleable enough to be contextualized with nuance. Do you think my position leads me to conclusion that are “dead ends” like do you think me having subjective morality leads to a conclusion where the moral claim doesn’t sound justified or rational?

6

Comment Deleted

0

Because they are tangible and when deciding what to use as a standard, logically speaking the things we can measure are things that are more reliable. Okay, I assumed you’d say that. This is going to be extreme, I really want you to work with me here. But if God at any point had said that, rape is moral, would you agree with him? I’m not saying he would or ever did. I’m just asking in this hypothetical, if he said rape was morally good, would you side with him on that? Everything else is the s

5

Comment Deleted

0

I answered, but I’ll ask, what do you think my answer should be or will be? To that first question you asked. It also may be, but if today God said rape was good, you’d agree?

6

Comment Deleted

0

Your own fairytale has your ‘god’ going back and forth all the time. 😂

9

I think I did, so I’m confused as to why you’re not seeing it as one. No, I’m not asking if you thought he said this. If God right now said that rape is moral, if that happened, would you agree?

5

You’re actually sick and delusional, get checked for psychosis

10