Ethics without Religion

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Only one party throws around the term 'theocracy' on a regular basis and thinks you need to get rid of Christmas parties in schools because they feel it is indoctrination. Democrats seem to fear religion.

This is a lie.

The great majority of Democrats are Christian – an even greater majority are persons of faith.

And Democrats’ reference to theocracy is perfectly appropriate and warranted – conservative jurists, Republican politicians, and the religious right all seek to conjoin church and state and to codify errant religious dogma in secular law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Of course people are capable of having their own morality. I mentioned before that I don't view morality in a subjective or relative way. What happens when everybody is walking around with their own personal morality. Doesn't this beg for people to see ethics in a relative way? A society needs a shared sense of right and wrong, and religion was helpful in this respect. Without it, the government would surely come into play. In a previous post someone brought up the Golden Rule, and said it did not need a religious origin. He was absolutely right, but can you picture a society where everyone has their own versions of morality. This seems to be a quick trip to relative ethics and the powerful picking what is good by whatever suits them.

Wrong.

A society is perfectly capable of having a shared sense of right and wrong absent a ‘god’ and religious dogma.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I didn't specifically mention Christianity. I think they all serve a useful purpose in their respective societies. It is easy for you to take shots at specific religions, but as an Atheist, you don't have any particular set of beliefs to be seen as good or bad. I can't take a shot at you, because there is literally nothing there.

Also wrong.

Those free form religion have the same set of beliefs as theists; again, theists don’t have a monopoly on morals and ethics.

Moreover, a set of beliefs, morals, and ethics have always been part of the human condition; humans possessed beliefs, morals, and ethics long before the advent of religion and ‘god.’

As religious dogma was later created and evolved, moral and ethical codes that preexisted religion were appropriated and incorporated into that religious dogma.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I would argue that the system created by a religious model became the model for a free and fair society.

Your argument is devoid of merit – in fact it’s backwards.

The model for a free and fair society is one where religion plays no role in sound, responsible governance, where citizens are not subject to religious dogma through force of law, and where citizens are safeguarded from the harm caused by religion – the fear, ignorance, bigotry, racism, and hate that religion often foments.

 

[Laslow]

It wasn't until religion that we all started killing each other for no reason other than what we believe!

Haven't we killed each other since the beginning? Groups of people have been wiping each other out since the beginning.

 

[Laslow]

Your argument is devoid of merit – in fact it’s backwards.

The model for a free and fair society is one where religion plays no role in sound, responsible governance, where citizens are not subject to religious dogma through force of law, and where citizens are safeguarded from the harm caused by religion – the fear, ignorance, bigotry, racism, and hate that religion often foments.

Do you disagree that the US was created according to Christine Doctrine? A higher power is mentioned often. We are no theocracy, but clearly our society was based on Christianity. The framework is Christian, and it doesn't force people to become Christian. Are you not curious what happens when a new framework is introduced?

 

[BULLDOG]

The religious model brought a form of government where people were inherently the same. The people who were not free at the beginning became free using the amendments. Society was becoming more free. I would argue that the system created by a religious model became the model for a free and fair society. It seems the new political model for society is to have a ruling class and an under class. It seems much like a dog and its owner. The owner gives the dog food and shelter, and the dog is considered lucky. Our expanding government seems much the same, the ruling class decides to get rid of gas or get people shots, and the dogs just wag their tail.

Nice tinfoil hat you got there buddy.

 

[BULLDOG]

You have to admit that without a rulebook, it is much easier for the powerful to take advantage of the weak. What is the Athiest rulebook? Whatever a person in power finds useful?

You think the Bible with all it's incest, rape, genocide, slavery, alcohol, murder, torture and body mutilation would be a better rulebook? Have you ever actually read the Bible?

 

[Laslow]

Your argument is devoid of merit – in fact it’s backwards.

The model for a free and fair society is one where religion plays no role in sound, responsible governance, where citizens are not subject to religious dogma through force of law, and where citizens are safeguarded from the harm caused by religion – the fear, ignorance, bigotry, racism, and hate that religion often foments.

Religious dogma is not the only thing that can be forced through law. When Christianity is gone, what is the framework for our society? Will people have a common value system, will it be relative where everyone goes their own way? Will the powerful take advantage more or less than they are now? We are at the point where we have birth people and chest feeding. We are not even supposed to say mother.

 

[Feeding Crows]

If you would, what do you believe the differences to be? What are human morals? Sorry, I was going back through the thread in order. The golden rule is a religious moral, and it does not say to go to war with anyone. Someone mentioned that the golden rule is accepted outside of religion, and Kant proves that it makes sense in a purely logical sense. There have been many wars over religion, and there have been many wars outside of religion. I do not think it is a differentiating factor between religious and secular codes of conduct.

I understand. But I already replied to that question. No worries, there's a lot of posts that go on in this type of thread... I'll paste it here again.

Religious morals say that it's perfectly ok to wipe out entire societies, murder, torture, and rape. Because God said so...

Human morals, not so much... we're just worried about food

 

[Gregory A]

Wrong.

A society is perfectly capable of having a shared sense of right and wrong absent a ‘god’ and religious dogma.

Decline in religion's influence correlates with a decay of society masked mostly by an increase in affluence. The average marriage in the US lasts eight years for example. Religion kept marriages together resulting in better-adjusted children. Single parenting is taking over from 'family', atheism and another head of the Hydra that is the Left, feminism, working together as a tag-team to eliminate the adult male from relationships. The realities contrasting completely with what you say above,

 

[Donald H]

The more valid question now has become whether there can be ethical behaviour with religious influence?

It's already being proven that upholding religious dogma is consistent with promotion of fascism. The religious right is quite content in squandering away their rights and freedoms in the name of religion.

Maintaining those particular rights and freedoms has become the fight of the political divide's two sides.

We can begin with taking away a woman's right to choose. Or the increase of racism which is a main tenet of fascism that eliminates practically all rights and freedoms at the whim of the future dictator.

 

[alexa]

You can suggest whatever you want, but in this case you would be absolutely wrong. In all of American history there has never been a war that we started or got involved in for religious reasons. And the idea that Christianity is responsible for the American culture of war and killing is preposterous.

Also, the claim that America is more religious that other democracies is questionable.

Really? You want to suggest one that you believe is more religious than the US or even as. I can't think of any myself.

 

[alexa]

I'm sorry, let's be honest. You're just trying to promote your religion.

You say a few things that make me twinge.

Religion does not believe in ethics. It has never rolled that way, and you're just wishing that it will in the future.

To have a government based on religion, is a death sentence to the citizens, the believers, and the rest of the world.


C'mon seriously! What the freak are you promoting? More of the same shite?!?

I am not suggesting any government ruled by a religion but I believe you are wrong to infer that no religion believes in ethics. I spent some time practising Buddhism and I found ethics to be deeply ingrained in it.

 

[task0778]

Really? You want to suggest one that you believe is more religious than the US or even as. I can't think of any myself.

I would suggest that the Islamic countries are quite a bit more religious than the US is. Ditto for India and much of Southeast Asia and the Middle East. And I think that many Latin and South American countries are more religious these days than we are, as well as some countries in Europe. Recent studies and surveys indicate the number of Americans who claim to be religious is dropping significantly, which I think is not the case in a lot of other places around the world.

 

[Gregory A]

Wrong.

A society is perfectly capable of having a shared sense of right and wrong absent a ‘god’ and religious dogma.

Right!

Communist Russia, Nazi Germany and Red China are good examples of what you say.

The reality is you don't have a theory with that as much. Every culture that has arisen has its gods. And organized belief in gods (religion) goes back thousands of years so how can it be that any modern society is so outside of that influence now that they can be put forward as being evidence of what it is you're saying.

The above examples of godless societies are real, what are the hypotheticals?

 

[Gregory A]

You have to admit that without a rulebook, it is much easier for the powerful to take advantage of the weak. What is the Athiest rulebook? Whatever a person in power finds useful?

No.

There is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists; religion, ‘god,’ and ethics are all creations of man.

Ethics and morals are neither ‘god given’ nor the sole purview of religion – indeed, religion is often devoid of ethics and the source of great harm and suffering.

In fact, religion is often used give a government carte blanche to justify any act against its citizens in the name of religious conformity and righteousness.

 

[Gregory A]

No.

There is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists; religion, ‘god,’ and ethics are all creations of man.

Ethics and morals are neither ‘god given’ nor the sole purview of religion – indeed, religion is often devoid of ethics and the source of great harm and suffering.

In fact, religion is often used give a government carte blanche to justify any act against its citizens in the name of religious conformity and righteousness.

What you say is completely true, well, that is if you completely ignore history.

Communism, fascism and secular democracies, as godless regimes, have been responsible for more bloodshed (internal and external) than any other systems of government in history.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams, Founding Father and 2nd President

 

[Votto]

Atheists, they can make you laugh but that is about all they are good for.