Ethics without Religion

[Feeding Crows]

Based on the OT.

Period. Done. Don't argue it, because you will feel stupid. And don't get me started on the NT, and subsequent events, because this is a family board....

 

[buttercup]

You cannot have ethics, if you believe in any of the trilogy religions.

You thumbed down a post where I was talking about moral relativism. Now you're talking about something else.

I was making the point that moral relativism boils down to no one "morality" being better than any other. By definition! To be clear, I don't agree with it, I was simply showing how flawed moral relativism is.

By the way, did you recently change your screen name? You're reminding me of another anti-christian guy who posts just like you.

 

[Feeding Crows]

Ethics and morals are an evolutionary trait. Not religious...

 

[Feeding Crows]

Your religion only started maybe 2000 years ago.

But humans have been living with morals and ethics for 200,000 years, at least! Otherwise, we wouldn't be here talking about this.

 

[Feeding Crows]

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

 

[buttercup]

Sigh. I can see this is pointless. First you misunderstand my point, then you change the subject, then you fail to reply to anything I say, and then you spam the thread with your emotional one-liners.

By the way, was your screen name "Running With Scissors" on another forum?

 

[buttercup]

Your religion only started maybe 2000 years ago.

But humans have been living with morals and ethics for 200,000 years, at least! Otherwise, we wouldn't be here talking about this.

So? Who claimed that there were no morals before Christianity? No one claimed that.

True morals are timeless, they didn't "start" because they are rooted in God, who is eternal.

 

[Feeding Crows]

I understood your point. And I disagreed. And I gave you my reason for disagreeing.

Don't blame it on me that you couldn't keep up with the argument.

RWS is a very cool person!

 

[Feeding Crows]

So? Who claimed that there were no morals before Christianity? No one claimed that.

aren't you arguing that morals and ethics were created by religion?

 

[buttercup]

aren't you arguing that morals and ethics were created by religion?

No. I added to my post after you replied, so please re-read it. There's a difference between religion and God. What is important is the latter.

 

[buttercup]

I understood your point. And I disagreed. And I gave you my reason for disagreeing.

Don't blame it on me that you couldn't keep up with the argument.

RWS is a very cool person!

So you agree with moral relativism?

 

[Feeding Crows]

In the sense that religious morals are way worse than what the reality morals should be.

So yeah, morals are relative to the religion that brainwashes them.

 

[Feeding Crows]

There are human morals, and there are religious morals.

They're close, but not the same.

 

[Feeding Crows]

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.

 

[Laslow]

Atheists are as ethical as Christians but don't require an imaginary god to make us so.

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.

 

[Donald H]

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.

Take shot at my lack of belief in any of the gods.

Otherwise, I have as many beliefs as any believer in superstitious fantasies. And probably more belief in humanitarian issues than any Christian, due to the evil their bibles demand of them.

 

[Laslow]

There are human morals, and there are religious morals.

They're close, but not the same.

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.

 

[Laslow]

No reason to believe future values will bemuch different than current values. Perhaps less arbetrary and more logically supportable than the religious model.

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.

 

[Laslow]

What a twisted little mind you have. You think it takes belief in a god to recognize the difference between a human and a zoo animal. That's just goofy.

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?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Many casually declare you do not need God for people to have a sense of right and wrong, but without a religion, doesn't that give a government carte blanche to justify any act against its citizens in the name of societal responsibility?

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.