Seb_Maya

If Atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a form of sexual intercourse.
If Atheism is a religion, then sanity is a form of mental illness.

Fiach
-------------------------------------

Fiach was arguing against atheism as a religion,
but in doing so Fiach seemed to be connoting that Religion is something negative and that atheism is not. Personally I think that religion can give a better framework of morality than atheism. I would hastily point out that I'm not affiliated to a religion(I'm not a rabid theist). It seems to me that the youth of today at least in England are lacking spiritual values, because they are not taught them at school. They seem to lack a sense of moral direction. I'm of the opinion that religion can offer a strong paradigm of morality.
I think that there is a risk that too many children grow up to be adults that are far to interested in material wealth.

Comments and opinions welcomed
Seb_Maya

dangin

Morality stems from being social. We have been a social species for scores of millenia longer than any religion has existed.

The writers of religious texts, raised in social environments, are able to look around and discover what "seems" right. From this come religious morality.

The source of religious morality, and actual morality is the "social contract".

When you argue morality exists only because of religion you exclude millions of years of social interaction among our own, and several other species.

It's so goddamned obvious I grow weary of explaining it to the short sighted.

Agricola Senior

Why do you equate spirituality and religion ?
Organized religion is the graveyard of spirituality.

brighid

Perhaps you could point out some moral principles that you believe religion teaches and secularism doesn’t. Please remember that atheism is ONLY and I repeat ONLY a lack of belief in Gods. Atheism is NOT a moral system, and therefore a lack of belief in Gods holds no bearing on whether or not a person adopts any moral system. There are many moral systems an atheist may choose from. One such example is Secular Humanism. If you were to ask atheists, agnostics, humanists, eudamonists, and many variety of theists to detail the moral principles they adhere to I think you would find many more similarities then you would find discrepancies. The most glaring difference is the non-believer does not place their moral compass dependent of the threat of a deity punishing them with heaven or damning them to hell. The non-believer is often guided by doing what is right for nothing more then the sake of rightness without divine bribery or threat.

I look to the world and see so much turmoil. I feel very fortunate I was not born during another time, or in another place (despite the shortcomings of America.) I certainly would not want to live in a country that is run by religious clerics and adhere strictly to religious laws – such as under the Taliban in Afghanistan, under the theocracy of Iran, Saudi Arabia, or in many African countries. I certainly would not to have lived in Europe during the Dark Ages when Christianity ruled the land, repressed intellectual and scientific growth and committed all manner of atrocities in the name of God. I think a very strong argument can be made that historically religion has not elevated man from the shackles of slavery, superstition, crime, or immorality but in fact inflicted these things upon humanity in order to appease a variety of Gods. The Age of Enlightenment brought us the ideas of equality, ubiquitous human rights, etc.

If you would like to present a detailed argument regarding the failings of secular moral systems vs. that of religiously held moral systems please do so.



Brighid

Vesica

I see the problem not as a lack of religious influence in social values or morals but in a blanket rejection of too much of what people of certain religious persuasions just happen to support. While we should no force religion down anyones throat, it seems that the idea of teach personal responsibility and integrity got thrown out when we rejected the X-ian proposition that all have sinnned.

As for how we instill some of these values without the religious overtones, I don't know. A few things pop to mind as lacking in the current social climate: Personal responsibility for actions, a lack of ties to any group including family or employer stemming from our rabid idividualism, any sense that needs and wants are different, etc.

Jamie_L

Most people are programmed with moral sensibilities through their youth, and they modify and build on these in adulthood. It's been my experience that a lot of people don't derive their morality from their religion, even though they claim to. Rather, they have a morality that is all their own, and they find things in their religion to justify their morality. Parts of their religion that go against their personal morality, they discard or ignore. (Any Christians still stoning their daughters to death for pre-marital sex?)

So, really, I don't think religion is as big a factor in the practical morality people use in everyday life. Morality is something nurtured into people as they grow up, and future atheists and future theists (with atheist and/or theist parents) tend to go through the exact same process.

Jamie

[ November 20, 2002: Message edited by: Jamie_L ]</p>

luvluv

I believe religion does have a lot to do with morality.

Firstly, everyone could be said to have a "first cause" or as a wise man once put it, an "Ultimate Concern". Everyone has a notion of what really counts, what life's purpose is, what gives them (as persons) meaning and value.

Now, depending on what one's "ultimate concern" is, one's morality will differ.

If a person's ultimate concern is "success" or "fame" or "romantic love" then their morality will be filtered through that. (And incidentally, I hold that a person can actually be a theist and yet really hold "success" or "fame" as their real ultimate concern. They can have false idols, in other words.) So a person's morality will be affected, severely, by their what they hold to be most important, or to put it another way, by their religon.

ImGod

Then comes the $24,000 question.

Which religion would we chose as the base for teaching children morality in the public school system? What is defined as moral in one religion is not necessarily defined as moral by everyone.

References to "spirituality" are hocus pocus with no substance. It leaves everyone feeling happy because they can define the concept of spirituality as being their own religion. Then once everyone agrees to have a spiritual based morality taught, they can work on shaping it to match their religion's moral code. A large group will probably be offended at the result because it doesn't match their One True Religion's teachings.

I vote for leaving morality to the parents and setting acceptable standards for behavior in school.

Silent Acorns

I don't see how one can interpret Fiach's quote as "connoting that Religion is something negative and that atheism is not", unless you believe that sexual intercourse is a bad thing. If Fiach had only used the "mental illness" line, then I would be inclined to agree. But he (she?) didn't.

As for religion being a framework for morality ... I'm with dangin ...

Stephen T-B

You put a somewhat idiosyncratic interpretation upon “religion,” Luvluv.
"Success" or "fame" or "romantic love" are not examples of religious belief, and the behaviour which they might induce in someone who makes them central to his life might be logical, but cannot be defined as moral or immoral on that basis alone.

Seb_Maya is, I think, confusing religious influence with authoritarian influence.
He is harking back to a period in English social history when a ubiquitous Religious influence coincided with a deeply-embedded respect for authority.
Both were cultural things, and in the last 50 years our culture has changed at an accelerating speed.
It has, in fact, been changing gradually for centuries (every generation complains that things in “this day and age” are worse than they ever were before) but in the aftermath of the last World War it has speeded up.
In the 60s, it began to be acceptable to question everything, from government to the Monarchy. This had nothing do with a religious decline. It was a “democratising” process which gave equal rights to everyone. And it could lead in only one direction - it lead, in fact, to what we see today.
As adults, we don’t respect doctors, teachers, judges, politicians, police, aristocracy, monarchy or clergy simply on the basis that they are what they are. So why should we expect our children to?
Society is indisciplined because it prefers indiscipline to discipline.
Religion has nothing whatsoever to do with it.