Religion and Ethics - The topic of this USMB Discussion is an "oxymoron"

[ding]

ding, I have already proven that your quotes are not real, disprove your argument, or otherwise talk about a different subject (fake news).

Your input here, is not welcome anymore. You are a fanatic. There is no talking reason into you.

Honestly, you should shut up and listen and learn from these other people, who express things in much more rational ways.

And maybe we can have an honest discussion, without cussin and name-calling. So stay out.

I don't believe you have proven anything of the sort which is why I will keep making the winning argument.

 

[ding]

The Khmer Rouge abolished all religion and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practice their customs. These policies had been implemented in less severe forms for many years prior to the Khmer Rouge's taking power.

 

[ding]

"It is especially easy for us to observe socialism's hostility to religion, for this is inherent, with few exceptions, in all contemporary socialist states and doctrines. Only rarely is the abolition of religion legislated, as it was in Albania. But the actions of other socialist states leave no doubt that they are all governed by this very principle and that only external difficulties have prevented its complete implementation. This same principle has been repeatedly proclaimed in socialist doctrines, beginning with the end of the seventeenth century. Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century doctrines are imbued with cold skeptical and ironic attitudes toward religion. If not consciously, then "objectively," they prepared humanity for the convergence of socialist ideology and militant atheism that took place at the end of the seventeenth century and during the course of the eighteenth. The heretical movements of the Middle Ages were religious in character, but those in which socialist tendencies were especially pronounced were the ones that were irrevocably opposed to the actual religion professed by the majority at the time. Calls to assassinate the Pope and to annihilate all monks and priests run like a red thread through the history of these movements. Their hatred for the basic symbols of Christianity--the cross and the church--is very striking. We encounter the burning of crosses and the profanation of churches from the first centuries of Christianity right up to the present day."

The Socialist Phenomenon, by Igor Shafarevich

 

[RWS]

I have quit checking your quotes anymore. Lies and malware always follow. 6 or 7 times proven wrong should be enough...

It's time for you to shut up and learn. And stop trying to get the last word to promote your evil ways.

 

[ding]

I have quit checking your quotes anymore. Lies and malware always follow. 6 or 7 times proven wrong should be enough...

It's time for you to shut up and learn. And stop trying to get the last word to promote your evil ways.

Malware? That is too funny. So you never use google?

"...As humanism in its development was becoming more and more materialistic, it also increasingly allowed concepts to be used first by socialism and then by communism, so that Karl Marx was able to say, in 1844, that "communism is naturalized humanism."

This statement has proved to be not entirely unreasonable. One does not see the same stones in the foundations of an eroded humanism and of any type of socialism: boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism's rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development..."

Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn -- A World Split Apart — Commencement Address Delivered At Harvard University, June 8, 1978

 

[ding]

I have quit checking your quotes anymore. Lies and malware always follow. 6 or 7 times proven wrong should be enough...

It's time for you to shut up and learn. And stop trying to get the last word to promote your evil ways.

Evil ways? I didn't think you believed in evil. What is your basis for believing in evil?

 

[cnelsen]

But I will tell you right now that ethics is way more important than belief in an imaginary god.

Believing in an imaginary god doesn't make you religious. It just makes you wrong. Moreover, religion and ethics occupy the same realm--how we treat one another--and are therefore appropriately included under the same forum.

Ques: what does that mean "follow your morals"? Do you mean something like "go with your gut" or "act on impulse"?

I agree with your first two sentences. However, the third is the issue at hand. They do not occupy the same realm. They are opposites of each other.

You cannot have a religion that has not heavily disregarded ethics and morals. Because the only reason they are still a religion is that they killed, raped, and/or enslaved non-believers. They forced people into believing their religion, by threat of death or torture.

To me, that is not ethical or moral...

I believe it is a mistake to tar religion with the sins of the priests in the same way it would be a mistake to tar politics with the crimes of tyrants. Religion is not responsible for the Inquisition any more than Science is responsible for Hiroshima or Art is responsible for Bolshevism.

 

[Boss]

Religion and Ethics....

You can have one, but not both.

You're either on the side of religions, which advocate very unethical things...

Or you're on the side of ethics and morals, which makes you doubt religions and the evil things they want and do...

It's an oxymoron... Which is why we're pitted here in endless arguments.

But I will tell you right now that ethics is way more important than belief in an imaginary god. And you don't need people to tell you how to follow your ethics or morals either. They are part of you. Anybody trying to tell you they're not, is selling something.

If you still need someone to tell you how to follow your morals in this day and age of knowledge and enlightenment, then you are ripe to be taken advantage of, and part of the problem in this world.

What you said it's not always true RWS
Religions can offers many kind and wise moral teachings. You can find in almost all religions.
Christianity, Buddhism, Induism and many other religions have something useful and good to teach
Even Islam has its own wise men (sufis)

I surmise that what we understand as human morality is derived from human spirituality or spiritual awareness. The reason for my summation is simple. The oldest remains of human civilizations we've ever unearthed display clear signs of human spiritual beliefs. We can understand that morals and ethics are vital to forming civilized societies in general. And since every old civilization we've discovered shows there was some form of spirituality, it stands to reason the spirituality was an important aspect of developing these moral and ethical civilizations among humans.

That's not necessarily an argument for religion or God, but I believe human spiritual belief preceded human civilizations. Indeed, it was the catalyst for civilization. Through whatever crude spiritual conception there was, humankind developed a set of basic fundamental ethics which were shared with others who were also, shall we say, "spiritually enlightened."

Of course, the God-deniers will reject this but there simply has to be a "first cause" argument for origins of trust which, in turn, enable morality and ethics. Without that first impetus of trust, nothing else is possible and civilizations couldn't have formed. The deniers will argue, oh, but man simply realized it was more beneficial to work together and cooperate... really? How did they come to realize this? At some point, one cave man had to trust another cave man not to kill him in the middle of the night and take his stuff. The realization that something greater than themselves would've sufficed to bolster this "first trust" between men.

The oldest remains of human civilization we've ever unearthed say the exact opposite.

Subsequent texts like the OT 2000 years later, completely changed the original Sumerian texts, while still drawing their stories from it. They changed the many gods (or Anunnaki) into one single monotheistic, schizophrenic, "god" that most people still follow today. There's a reason why the biblical "god" was willing to smite us in one paragraph, yet loves us in the next.

You're wrong. The oldest remains of human civilization show evidence of ritual ceremonial burial using red ocher. Ritualistic ceremonial burials with red ocher can ONLY mean spirituality. I don't care if you want to deny this, remain ignorant... suits me fine. Anyone who wants to research it can.

I'm not going to address arguments regarding religions which emerged tens-of-thousands of years later. Religions are simply evidence that humans are strongly spiritual. You want to turn the argument into religion because you know that you're going to fail on my argument regarding spirituality and the oldest human civilizations. Nice try--doesn't work with me.

 

[RWS]

But I will tell you right now that ethics is way more important than belief in an imaginary god.

Believing in an imaginary god doesn't make you religious. It just makes you wrong. Moreover, religion and ethics occupy the same realm--how we treat one another--and are therefore appropriately included under the same forum.

Ques: what does that mean "follow your morals"? Do you mean something like "go with your gut" or "act on impulse"?

I agree with your first two sentences. However, the third is the issue at hand. They do not occupy the same realm. They are opposites of each other.

You cannot have a religion that has not heavily disregarded ethics and morals. Because the only reason they are still a religion is that they killed, raped, and/or enslaved non-believers. They forced people into believing their religion, by threat of death or torture.

To me, that is not ethical or moral...

I believe it is a mistake to tar religion with the sins of the priests in the same way it would be a mistake to tar politics with the crimes of tyrants. Religion is not responsible for the Inquisition any more than Science is responsible for Hiroshima or Art is responsible for Bolshevism.

Religion was directly responsible for the Inquisition. It was the reason why it was done.

Science was not directly responsible for any act of aggression. It gave people means to be aggressive, but that could be discovering copper, bronze, iron, steel, gunpowder, etc...

But it was the religions that made people use these materials, that came through science, against other people and other religions...

Science never said, "Hey, let's use what we discovered to kill all the non-scientists!"

It was religion(s) that used science for their "spiritual" advancement. And they only used it so they could make and use those weapons to kill everybody that disagreed with them, and then get get rich and powerful.

"God" does not need swords or guns or aggression to show people the truth.

But religions definitely do.

And therefore they need science to keep building better weapons to defeat the weapons that the other religions are making.

It's disgusting...

 

[RWS]

Religion and Ethics....

You can have one, but not both.

You're either on the side of religions, which advocate very unethical things...

Or you're on the side of ethics and morals, which makes you doubt religions and the evil things they want and do...

It's an oxymoron... Which is why we're pitted here in endless arguments.

But I will tell you right now that ethics is way more important than belief in an imaginary god. And you don't need people to tell you how to follow your ethics or morals either. They are part of you. Anybody trying to tell you they're not, is selling something.

If you still need someone to tell you how to follow your morals in this day and age of knowledge and enlightenment, then you are ripe to be taken advantage of, and part of the problem in this world.

What you said it's not always true RWS
Religions can offers many kind and wise moral teachings. You can find in almost all religions.
Christianity, Buddhism, Induism and many other religions have something useful and good to teach
Even Islam has its own wise men (sufis)

I surmise that what we understand as human morality is derived from human spirituality or spiritual awareness. The reason for my summation is simple. The oldest remains of human civilizations we've ever unearthed display clear signs of human spiritual beliefs. We can understand that morals and ethics are vital to forming civilized societies in general. And since every old civilization we've discovered shows there was some form of spirituality, it stands to reason the spirituality was an important aspect of developing these moral and ethical civilizations among humans.

That's not necessarily an argument for religion or God, but I believe human spiritual belief preceded human civilizations. Indeed, it was the catalyst for civilization. Through whatever crude spiritual conception there was, humankind developed a set of basic fundamental ethics which were shared with others who were also, shall we say, "spiritually enlightened."

Of course, the God-deniers will reject this but there simply has to be a "first cause" argument for origins of trust which, in turn, enable morality and ethics. Without that first impetus of trust, nothing else is possible and civilizations couldn't have formed. The deniers will argue, oh, but man simply realized it was more beneficial to work together and cooperate... really? How did they come to realize this? At some point, one cave man had to trust another cave man not to kill him in the middle of the night and take his stuff. The realization that something greater than themselves would've sufficed to bolster this "first trust" between men.

The oldest remains of human civilization we've ever unearthed say the exact opposite.

Subsequent texts like the OT 2000 years later, completely changed the original Sumerian texts, while still drawing their stories from it. They changed the many gods (or Anunnaki) into one single monotheistic, schizophrenic, "god" that most people still follow today. There's a reason why the biblical "god" was willing to smite us in one paragraph, yet loves us in the next.

You're wrong. The oldest remains of human civilization show evidence of ritual ceremonial burial using red ocher. Ritualistic ceremonial burials with red ocher can ONLY mean spirituality. I don't care if you want to deny this, remain ignorant... suits me fine. Anyone who wants to research it can.

I'm not going to address arguments regarding religions which emerged tens-of-thousands of years later. Religions are simply evidence that humans are strongly spiritual. You want to turn the argument into religion because you know that you're going to fail on my argument regarding spirituality and the oldest human civilizations. Nice try--doesn't work with me.

Well, I'm definitely not going to argue about red ocher then! If that helps. Don't even try, because I don't wanna know... make a new thread...

The topic is about religion and ethics. And how each side lacks the other...

 

[Boss]

The topic is about religion and ethics. And how each side lacks the other...

Okay, let's try this...

Give me three examples of "ethical" things that have absolutely no basis in any religious teachings? If there is no correlation, that should be easy for you.

 

[RWS]

Ok, you shouldn't kill without need.

You shouldn't harm without need.

And you should help others that need.

No basis in religious teachings at all....

It is the way of animal life. Humans just chose to make a profit out of it by making religions stating the obvious, and claiming natural ethics as their own holy creation, and make people violate those principles for the religious ruler's benefit...

 

[Boss]

Religion was directly responsible for the Inquisition. It was the reason why it was done.

It was, but probably not in the way you think. It was actually a response to radical Islam as were the Crusades. Religions have been behind many wars. Most wars, as a matter of fact. Does that mean all religions are bad because all wars are bad?

I'm not your huckleberry if you want someone to defend organized religions. To me, they are simply evidence that humans make spiritual connection with something greater beyond themselves. But man-made religions are flawed because man is flawed. Far from being an oxymoron, religions do good and bad things. I could list some of the ethical things religions do on a daily basis but it would be too lengthy. I could go down a list of social reforms that would have never happened if not for religious intervention on behalf of ethics.

 

[RWS]

Religions = War

That's the only way they can form and sustain themselves.

You tell me, are religions ethical?

And if so, which ones?

 

[Boss]

Ok, you shouldn't kill without need.

You shouldn't harm without need.

And you should help others that need.

No basis in religious teachings at all....

It is the way of animal life. Humans just chose to make a profit out of it by making religions stating the obvious, and claiming natural ethics as their own holy creation, and make people violate those principles for the religious ruler's benefit...

Ok, you shouldn't kill without need.
You shouldn't harm without need.
This is a self-serving moral philosophy which has no ethical value. You define your own "need" and you are accountable to only yourself.

And you should help others that need.
This is a religiously-taught moral philosophy and ethic.
Probably one of the more familiar and universal ones, to be honest.

You're going to have to try harder.

Let me help you out... you're not going to find an example.

All our ethics and morals are rooted in their foundations with religious teaching of someone. There is no such thing as "natural" ethics. Non-human animals have instinct and primal behaviors. Ethics are a uniquely human invention.

 

[RWS]

You shouldn't kill or harm without need.

That means that you shouldn't go around and hurt/kill others based on gaining wealth or power. Defying that is the hallmark of religions.

Helping others that need help, happens in many other life forms outside of humans, who follow no religion. Religion is not necessary to follow a mode of conduct that is conducive to the betterment of the life form.

Those 3 principles are key to evolution, and are not something that God told humans to do.

The truth is that religions try to teach us about those ethics and morals, but they're just repeating the obvious. What they actually do is promote the opposite.

And that's my argument here.

No major religion can exist, if they haven't violated the principles of ethics and morals. And anybody who defends that religion cannot dismiss what got them there.

That's like saying a mass murderer can be forgiven later on in time, because he/she was just trying to get others to think the same way as him/her.

 

[Boss]

You tell me, are religions ethical?

And if so, which ones?

Okay... You believe in the abolition of slavery, right? You'll agree that's a good thing for society, that we freed the slaves and eventually gave black people civil rights.... that's good, that's ethical, right???

The abolition movement began with Quaker ministers in Pennsylvania, speaking out publicly on the issue, many were killed for their beliefs in the early 19th century. Without their initial spark to ignite the fire for abolition, it would have never been a movement. Now, other religions indeed had come to justify slavery, after all, there were slaves in the Bible.

Another Southern Evangelical minister from the South would come along a century after abolition and push a nation on the path to an official Act of Congress to enact civil and voting rights for black Americans. Was that not an ethical thing?

How about when the big tsunami hit... I think it was Thailand? The Mormon's Helping Hands dispatched 10,000 volunteers who were there within hours doing search and rescue, providing first aid and triage, helping set up disaster relief from other agencies and governments. No Charge.... They do this.... it's their work. Is that "unethical" to you?

Okay... so it's Christmas Eve night, 10 below zero, snowing and windy... an old man shivers under a piece of cardboard. Suddenly, he feels a warm hand on his shoulder. It's the Salvation Army guy, he will take this man in to a warm place and give him food and shelter. They do this for thousands every year.

I can keep on citing examples, there are millions and millions. But instead, I would be more interested in hearing about Atheist charity organizations, or Nihilists, Agnostic, whatever you want to call yourselves. Let's see some examples of your ethics and humanity at work?

 

[Boss]

That means that you shouldn't go around and hurt/kill others based on gaining wealth or power. Defying that is the hallmark of religions.

No, that's pretty much the hallmark of all religions. I don't know of an example of religion that promotes war for power and wealth. Most of the one's I'm familiar with don't care about power and wealth at all.

You seem to have a real beef with religion but you're being vague. You're making these wild incendiary statements but not really fleshing anything out in specific. I find that problematic because I feel I am debating with Gilbert Godfrey. If you just want to make senseless rants and say nothing, be my guest.

 

[Boss]

Those 3 principles are key to evolution, and are not something that God told humans to do.

I disagree and you have no basis of proof for this conjecture.

As I said, you described two self-serving moral philosophies that have no ethical value. The third is a nearly-universal religious tenet.

Selfless acts of human sacrifice for the sake of humanity and helping others is unique to our species. It is NOT found in nature.... anywhere! Many species will do what they can to preserve the pack, to protect it's members or nurse them back to health. This is not selflessness, they get a benefit from their pack-mate getting better.

 

[Mudda]

I don't know of an example of religion that promotes war for power and wealth. Most of the one's I'm familiar with don't care about power and wealth at all.

Islam and Christianity, to name just two.