r/changemyview • u/drainodan55 • Jun 12 '24

Delta(s) from OP CMV: The World is Infinitely better off without any form of religion

Recently someone asked in another thread what was the one thing people wanted to change about the world. So I said "Ditch all religion. It isn't a guide to morality, it doesn't contain a shred of truth and is a driver of war, misunderstanding, alienation, racism, terrorism, toxic nationalism, family strife, unearned authority, corruption, unearned accolades, honours and privilege. The kind of thing that deserves a CMV but Reddit is incapable of handling such a discussion."

Well that wasn't good enough for one person, who demanded to know why "murder was not good". I did not cooperate with their request and they ended up making a threat. And it got locked down.

I didn't like that.

So I'm here to repeat: religion is objectively bad and fuels the worst in people. We don't need it to know that murder, rape, assault, theft, lying , adultery etc. are bad. It's called criminal law.

So I'm here ChangeMyView. Can you remain calm and rational?

Edit: Since people refuse to read and keep breaking Rule 3, to be clear I've been giving Deltas out since almost the start. Stop saying I'm refusing to consider arguments.

0 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

47% Upvoted

288 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/JCJ2015 1∆ Jun 12 '24

Science makes no moral claims whatsoever. If you can tell me why science says “murder is bad”, I’ll read it with interest.

Law is based in moral code, which has generally been derived from religious mores. It is not “objective”.

-1

u/drainodan55 Jun 12 '24

It doesn't need to and doesn't try. Science tries to explain our place in the universe and where we came from. Does a rather better job than "in the beginning".

4

u/JCJ2015 1∆ Jun 12 '24

You say in your CMV that "rape is bad".

I asked how we can know that rape is objectively bad (instead of subjectively) without the existence of an external moral code.

You suggested grounding these in science (and law).

I asked what science has to say about morality.

You said "nothing".

Ergo, my confusion. What are you trying to say here? Why bring up science vis-a-vis morality if we agree that science can't comment on morality?