Godless Apostate

[troutman]

Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer.
- C. Hitchens

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by troutman

Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer.
- C. Hitchens

'In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash' hehe

[TopChed]

Originally Posted by troutman

Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer.
- C. Hitchens

This is exactly what came to mind when I read Dion's post.

[GirlySports]

People will do good without religion.

Religion shapes entire cultures to think falsely and especially treat women poorly.

[Hockey_Ninja]

I'm indifferent on religion but this made me laugh.

[GirlySports]

God doesn't allow abortion so women are stuck with a baby and God doesn't allow gays so gay guys have to pretend to marry women.

What could be more disastrous for a woman than having to have a baby when the dad is gone or to marry a gay guy and then they have to divorce when he comes out.

See? Religion sucks for women in all aspects of life!

[HotHotHeat]

[Dion]

Perhaps it’s always been trendy among a certain demographic of people to condemn religion for its violence and to claim that more harm has been done in its service than in anything else. Many people have expressed this sentiment to me in the last several months, in the wake of murders, attacks and suicide bombings – both here and abroad – done in the name of religion. They shake their heads and bemoan the tenacious saliency of religion in today’s modern world, and its inherent violence, concluding – at least as far as I can tell – that if we were somehow able to abolish religion, then we’d have no or very little violence in the world.

So, I don’t think the available data supports the notion that religion has done more harm than anything else. Moreover, even if it had – and we were able to somehow abolish religion from the hearts of people everywhere – I’m not sure we would have a reduction in world violence. Religion, like every other human cultural product (or, as a perfect revelation given by God but nevertheless managed and propagated in the world by limited, flawed human beings), does not exist as a freestanding force or entity in the world apart from its human “creators” or “caretakers.” In other words, religion qua religion doesn’t do a darn thing in the world. WE do it. When violence has been done in the name of religion, it’s not religion itself – as a separate force in the world – that has done it. WE have done it, through religion.

The alleged violence of religion is simply our own violence done in religion’s name. Without religion, we simply find other banners under which to continue our deadly plans. The violence of religion is not the problem; the real problem is the seemingly primal violence embedded in our own hearts. It is that violence which is most resistant to uprooting.

Ironically, religion is the tool we most commonly use to do just that.

http://blog.chron.com/talkingtoleran...arm-than-good/

[Minnie]

[Smartcar]

I'm not religious and not atheist either. I really don't know, so I'm agnostic and just live by the golden rule (do onto others as you would have them do onto you). It works for me.

[Dion]

Does Ethics Require Religion?

There is a spectrum of views about how religion and ethics are related—from the view that religion is the absolute bedrock of ethics to one that holds that ethics is based on humanistic assumptions justified mainly, and sometimes only, by appeals to reason. These two extremes tend to be argued in a way that offers little room for compromise or pragmatic solutions to real issues we face everyday.

Even though religious and secular ethics don’t derive their authority from the same source, we still must find a way to establish common ground between them; otherwise we’re condemning ourselves to live amidst social discord and division.

I believe we can accommodate the requirements of reason and religion by developing certain qualities that we would bring to our everyday ethical discussions. Aristotle said that cultivating qualities (he called them “virtues”) like prudence, reason, accommodation, compromise, moderation, wisdom, honesty, and truthfulness, among others, would enable us all to enter the discussions and conflicts between religion and ethics—where differences exist—with a measure of moderation and agreement. When ethics and religion collide, nobody wins; when religion and ethics find room for robust discussion and agreement, we maximize the prospects for constructive choices in our society.

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/arti...quire_religion

[Dion]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

People will do good without religion.

I don't think a believer would agrue with that.

Religion shapes entire cultures to think falsely and especially treat women poorly.

The assumption there is that every believer will treat women poorly or follow the Bible word for word.

[Dion]

There is no single position that could be called the Christian view of homosexuality. Virtually all Christians confirm the importance of accepting and welcoming homosexuals into their communities and protecting their civil rights. But with regard to homosexual orientation and behavior from a religious point of view, some Christians condemn homosexual acts as sinful while others regard it as a natural, acceptable alternative.

Views sometimes differ between Christian denominations but they are more commonly seen between liberal and conservative branches of each denomination. Recently, Christian disagreements about homosexuality have been at the forefront with regard to the controversial ordination of Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, as an Anglican bishop. This issue is threatening to cause a schism within the third largest Christian denomination.

As with most Christian debates on ethical issues, the problem centers on how the Bible ought to be interpreted in light of textual criticism (i.e., historical context, meaning of words, etc.), modern sensibilities and modern science.

The following article provides information on what the Bible says about homosexuality (which is usually central in debates over the issue), historical Christian views of homosexuality, and a list of modern Christian views on homosexuality.

http://www.religionfacts.com/homosex...ristianity.htm

[photon]

Originally Posted by Dion

I don't think a believer would agrue with that.

Many would argue that without god(s) there are no morals standards though. I read that all the time from religious people, "there is no good without God."

"Even though religious and secular ethics don’t derive their authority from the same source, we still must find a way to establish common ground between them;"

I think this would be far more difficult that appears, wouldn't believers basically have to give up their god(s) being the only source of morality? If their god(s) aren't the only source of morality, if moral truths can be discovered and not just given to you by the ultimate authority, then that implies something beyond their god(s)...

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Smartcar

I'm not religious and not atheist either. I really don't know, so I'm agnostic and just live by the golden rule (do onto others as you would have them do onto you). It works for me.

You can be an atheist and agnostic or a theist and agnostic.

Agnosticism deals with what is knowable. So an agnostic atheist is "I don't know, but I don't believe in a deity". Agnostic theist is "I don't know, but I believe in a deity".

It's binary; you're either an atheist or a theist (whether that is mono or polytheist is a whole different discussion), the 'agnostic' bit just tacks onto the front of it.

[Max Cow Disease]

The increasingly momentous surge of secularism and reason in much of the western world is encouraging to see, and I presume it will continue. Religious organizations and faith-based claims about the world have lost so much traction in the past century or so as to become almost entirely laughable to anyone who takes a moment to step outside the bubble of delusion and undertake a sober assessment. We now merely "tolerate" and "respect" religious belief, as opposed to living in fear of backlash for things like apostasy or genuine scientific inquiry. Hitchens said it best when he cautioned that we not forget how religion acted in times gone by, when it had real authority -before the ingratiating smirks and offense-taking.

Unfortunately there are places in the world where the stranglehold still exists, and people who are happy to see the grip only get tighter (even in parts of the west). Whether it's the presence of Islam in places like France, or hardcore Christian nuttery in the US, this sort of dogma needs to be criticized at every turn. Religious "moderates" make this difficult in certain ways, by creating a sort of veil behind which extremists can comfortably hide. As long as there are two religious people who don't advocate suicide bombing/homophobia for every one who does, it will be difficult in a climate of political correctness to call a spade a spade (I mean, bad ideas are, at the end of the day, still bad ideas).

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Dion

I don't think a believer would agrue with that.



The assumption there is that every believer will treat women poorly or follow the Bible word for word.

It's not an assumption.

JAMAICANS DON'T TAKE FOOD FROM WOMEN ON THEIR PERIOD!!!!!

I doubt they even read the bible. One man probably told another who told another passed down from one generation to another. They can't even explain why they believe it!

[Dion]

Originally Posted by photon

Many would argue that without god(s) there are no morals standards though. I read that all the time from religious people, "there is no good without God."

I heard that when I was church goer and still hear it today. It's something I never subscribed too. I think all people are capable of knowing what is right and wrong. Not everyone is a Theist but still has the capacity to formulate thier own morals and do good things.

I could be wrong but I think Theists of today are questioning what thier Bible says and how it should be interpreted. We see Denominations moving away from the teaching of homosexuality and more accepting of who they are. It's my belief that we will see more of the above as time goes on.

"Even though religious and secular ethics don’t derive their authority from the same source, we still must find a way to establish common ground between them;"

I think this would be far more difficult that appears, wouldn't believers basically have to give up their god(s) being the only source of morality? If their god(s) aren't the only source of morality, if moral truths can be discovered and not just given to you by the ultimate authority, then that implies something beyond their god(s)...

Many of the Theists I knew back in the day where of an open mind and were always questioning things. The problem I see is getting the heads of all the denominations and faiths to open thier minds to other possibilities.

[Max Cow Disease]

In the spirit of this thread, it's worth mentioning that it was the birthday of Copernicus only a week ago, whose ideas about the universe and our own solar system were outright dismissed and banned by the Church for hundreds of years. Science isn't always right, but it has a far better chance of getting there, and every time it takes a step forward, religion is forced to take another gigantic leap back.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

It's not an assumption.

JAMAICANS DON'T TAKE FOOD FROM WOMEN ON THEIR PERIOD!!!!!

I doubt they even read the bible. One man probably told another who told another passed down from one generation to another. They can't even explain why they believe it!

That's Jamacians, what about all the cultures in the world?