dangin

No, you haven't said that, in fact you just agreed with a whole litany of statements about morality having a natural explanation, or source. You have not demonstrated that religion has improved, or even changed the moral structure of any society. The studies that you posted do not have control groups, nor do they take into account other causes.

Sure people within an active religious community have a lower incidence of crime. But where is the study of secular families that invest the same amount of social interaction and sense of community in their children?

The fact (if it is a fact) that regular religious activity MAY lead to an increase in "social responsibility" does not mean that religion is the reason. Religion is the excuse for being social in this situation, nothing more. And it is not surprising that being socialized (in any context) makes one more social, and perhaps socially responsible.

So, you can use religion (and it's carrot and stick) as an excuse to make socially responsible people. Or you can educate your children, teach them social responsibility is in their interest. Teach them that social responsibility creates an easier path through life. Teach them that anti social behavior creates a harder path through life. Allow their self interest and intelligence to come to its own conclusion.

The only people who need religion for morality, are those too ignorant to figure this stuff out on their own.

There is nothing more simple to teach than self interest. Because it, unlike morality, is present from day one of life.

Epitome

brighid:Could you please provide some examples of this attempt to destroy society,

I said religion, not society. Show me a Secular Group that wants to work hand in hand with religion rather than replace it and I'll eat my words.

brighid: as well as the failure of secularist to pay little or no regard to the "positive" aspects, etc. of religion.

This thread has enough of that...

brighid:Obedience certainly is not the FIRST step toward morality,

It certainly is for children...

But yes, I agree... there is more to morality than obeying whatever someone says... as you have clearly described in your reply.

Epitome

dangin

Let's stop with the cultures. We know there are no secular cultures. There's really isn't a religious culture, and if there is one, I don't think you want it representing your argument. (Christian scientists letting kids die, the Taliban, any cult including Jim Jones and the kool-aid connection, Saudi Arabia and their little girl burning religious police) And even these (with the exception of the cults) are too diverse to be lumped under one religious umbrella.

Let's talk about individuals and their relationships with other individuals. Which is how morality impacts us in every day life.

How is an individual morally trained, and is religion necessary to make that person a moral member of society?

If they are stupid, poorly educated, or in a situation with no personal freedom, then yes, religion is required.

If they are free, operating at average intelligence or higher, and in possession of an education that has at least taught them critical thinking, and a love of reading (both types; for pleasure, and for content) then they should be able to figure this out for themselves.

brighid

That is really dependent on their stage of intellectual development, but obedience even in children has little to do with their morality or religions influence on morality. When a child has developed the cognitive ability to begin to examine consequences, actions and their moral implications they tend be less "obedient."

I know of no organized Secular Group that is out to "destroy religion." (I apologize for the type-o.) Look up the Freedom from Religion foundation and the UU Church - a bunch of atheists, agnostics and theists (in both) working together to promote human rights, tolerance and the honoring of different religious persuasions. Neither seek to DESTROY or permanently remove religion from the face of this Earth.

THIS forum doesn't seek that either, but we do seek the removal the scientifically unsound principles of Creationism from our public schools, the preservation of civil rights including Freedom OF and FROM religion, and the support of human rights for ALL people NOT just secular people.

I would say for you to explore Eudaimonism and the Fellowship of Reason. The problem secularists often confront is that religious groups are unwilling to work hand in hand with atheists, agnostics and members of other faiths in an attempt to unite under the common goal of human dignity. All too often we are confronted with the desire to dictate morality via a particular version of a religion, such as the thousands of different denominations of Christianity.

Theists fail to realize that the secular attempts (although also support by many religious groups) to keep public, government and matters of faith SEPARATE are done in order to protect the freedoms and liberties of ALL people. If one is not willing to extend identical freedom to those of different backgrounds, someday you too will fall prey to the tyranny of those who seek to control and oppress. Faith and religion should be a private matters, free from governmental interference but also without the support of the same government.

So, in our attempts to honor the Constitution and fight to keep everyone free to worship or NOT worship as they wish we are actually attempting to preserve your right and your faith. It is those who seek to demand that a specific God be worshipped, to censor differing thought, who call non-Christian people unpatriotic, or the notion of dissent as anti-American and desire the permanent entanglement of government and faith that you should be worried most about. It is those theists who will one day feel your version of Christ is heretical (and one most only look to history for support of that position) and wish to deny you basic human rights.

Brighid

[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

Epitome

dangin:Sure people within an active religious community have a lower incidence of crime. But where is the study of secular families that invest the same amount of social interaction and sense of community in their children?

That's one of my main points... there are no secularly sponsered social communities.

Why is that?

You certainly have a lot of confidence in theories where there is no real life evidence or proof of it working....


dangin:Let's stop with the cultures. We know there are no secular cultures. There's really isn't a religious culture

*L* nice side step...

If they are stupid, poorly educated, or in a situation with no personal freedom, then yes, religion is required.

If they are free, operating at average intelligence or higher, and in possession of an education that has at least taught them critical thinking, and a love of reading (both types; for pleasure, and for content) then they should be able to figure this out for themselves.

Being able to figure out what is moral and choosing to do what is moral are two seperate things. A very intelligent man may know what is right and wrong and still choose to do evil... or even not be able to help himself.

A persons level of intelligence does not determine if he will do good or evil, it only determines the greatness of the good or evil he is capable of doing.

What religion offers to many, smart and dumb is a sufficient reason and a context in which to choose good.

Granted, not all religions are equal and there are abuses... but for you to say the only reason religion is helping the people in the studies is because they aren't educated enough or smart enough is to reveal you have a complete misunderstanding of the human condition.

People don't just make moral decisions with their minds, their hearts are involved. If the heart is wounded it needs healing... for many people religion helps to heal their heart and enables them to move forward in what they know they should do.


Epitome

ImGod

It’s not the issue? Maybe you are referring to framework as a delivery method for morality, where I was considering it as a building block. Then you’re statements make more sense to me. However, I would argue that religion is not the best delivery method when compared to education. As for your anecdotal “facts”, I lived near an area of the Midwest that was rather wealthy. They had good schools, good roads, great services (police, fire, etc.) and extremely low crime. The local church I attended in the community was trying an outreach program to get people to attend because only 15% of the community went to church. Therefore, I would attribute the low crime in that area more to the education and employment levels than to religion.
Herein, lies the problem with your thought process. You claim that “religion” is based on the objective morality (created by god). There is no god created objective morality because there is no god. Morality is subjective. Each individual religious group creates their own temporary objective morality. And, as I have mentioned previously, the morality of religious groups change over time. Either the group accepts the new morality or they splinter to create new groups. Religion can’t be used as an effective framework (delivery method) because of the confusion caused by the thousand of different “objective moralities” (some rather intolerant) from which to choose. Education would provide a much more consistent moral basis for the many different groups in the U.S., but the individual religious groups don’t agree because it deviates from their position. Therefore, my suggestion is that moral teaching be left up to parents with societal laws sufficient to protect us from the people who deviate too far from the norm. That’s how it’s operated for many years in this country.

brighid

<a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org/societies/index.htm" target="_blank">http://www.secularhumanism.org/societies/index.htm</a>

Uh Epitome … the US is a secular society and it is because it is secular that it’s citizens have been able to enjoy a couple hundred years of freedom to worship any or no gods. How many theocratic nations that exist and have existed can you name that honor many faiths, or no faith at all?

Secular societies do not abhor religion, or disallow religion but they are not guided strictly by religion. The UK, France, Sweden …

Just a few examples … but I will have to cut it short as I am leaving for the weekend.

Brighid

dangin

Oh please. What cognitive abilities does your "heart" have? The only organ that man has for making decisions is the brain. Which is the source of the "soul", "consciousness", motor function, awareness, and problem solving. (Have I even scratched the surface of the brain?)

I don't know how you got neurons in your heart, but I'm starting to think you think with your ass as well.

If someone cannot help themself from doing "wrong" they need more personal responsibilty, not morality. Amazingly, faith based things like AA remove personal responsibility from individuals and give it to god. What a cop out. Stand on your own two feet and take responsibility for what you do.

You talk about "religion creating a context from which to do good". Groovy, does this include the "good" of the spanish inquisition, witch burnings, the crusades, 9/11/01, the riots in Nigeria last night, the catholic/protestant situation in Northern Ireland, Jim and Tammy Faye, Palestinian suicide bombers, The nazi final solution, the Ku Klux Klan, The USS Cole, the Night club in Bali, the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Parents praying for their dying children instead of driving them the five minutes to an ER for a bowel obstruction, Jehovah's witnesses dying and allowing family members to die rather than undergoing a blood transfusion, and, assasinating abortion doctors. To name a tiny fraction of the "good" that comes from the context of religion.

Epitome

brighid:[Q] That is really dependent on their stage of intellectual development, but obedience even in children has little to do with their morality or religions influence on morality. When a child has developed the cognitive ability to begin to examine consequences, actions and their moral implications they tend be less "obedient." [/b]

Do you have children? The reason I ask is because I have two and this has not been the case in my children.

Providing the consequences for bad behavior is teaching obedience AND morals.

When I teach my son not to say mean things or hit his younger brother, I provide immediate consequences- a time out, and explain future consequences- if he treats him poorly his brother will grow to dislike him and they won't be as close as they could be.

His obedience to me now is utmost important for him to learn to be moral on his own later...

If he doesn't learn to be obedient, to develop a habit of being kind to others, even when he doesn't feel like it, when he becomes an adult it will not be an easy task for him, no matter how much sense it makes.

I know of no organized Secular Group that is out to "destroy religion." (I apologize for the type-o.) Look up the Freedom from Religion foundation and the UU Church - a bunch of atheists, agnostics and theists (in both) working together to promote human rights, tolerance and the honoring of different religious persuasions. Neither seek to DESTROY or permanently remove religion from the face of this Earth.

THIS forum doesn't seek that either,

So you are telling me that the people in the Secular Humanist Society (who say in their proclamations that they 'deplore' anything but the belief in the natural) and the individuals in this forum and organizors of the internet infidels are supportive of Religion if it is helping the people in it be moral?

Perhaps you're right, but that is not how it comes across... as stated above by one of your fellows... religion is a carrot on a stick and for the stupid... educate people and you don't need it.

That type of attitude is typical of most secularists and atheists that I have met.

BrighidI would say for you to explore Eudaimonism and the Fellowship of Reason.

I have... A poster from another board introduced me. And it is the closest thing I've seen to a secular group built around a positive foundations of morality than a hostility towards religion.

And though I joined the yahoo group and have many questions for them, I have not yet posted because I'm not confident I wouldn't be too much of a disruption as soon as they learned I was Christian.

The problem secularists often confront is that religious groups are unwilling to work hand in hand with atheists, agnostics and members of other faiths in an attempt to unite under the common goal of human dignity. All too often we are confronted with the desire to dictate morality via a particular version of a religion, such as the thousands of different denominations of Christianity.

Can you give me an example of this? I'm honestly not doubting you at all, I'm just curious as to which atheists group has attempted to work with Christians and were turned away and for what reasons.

Theists fail to realize that the secular attempts (although also support by many religious groups) to keep public, government and matters of faith SEPARATE are done in order to protect the freedoms and liberties of ALL people.

I agree that many theists are hostile to atheists and afraid that they will limit our ability to worship. ANd there is a good reason that they think these things...

I am not for teacher led prayer... but the limitations on children expressing faith in school have stepped WAY over the line.

Children being told they are not allowed to bring their Bibles to school or pray before a game or sing religious songs at the school talent show... or not being allowed to refer to their God in their speaches at graduation, have all been brought on by atheists and agnostics going too far.

When things are carried too far on one side there is always going to be a back lash on the other.

My biggest concern is revisionism of history... where religionus reference is edited completely out of our history books, except to say they burned witches or other negative things...


Taking down the Ten Commandments because it offends someone who doesn't believe in the Christian God is as foolish as asking doctors to take down the hippocratic oath because it mentions the Greek god Apollo.

So, while I see your point, you seem to be ignoring the other side of this issue.

Epitome

brighid

Yes I do and my experience has been the opposite. Perhaps it's a difference in parenting styles.

Brighid