Ethics without Religion

[jasong]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

Perhaps this fits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

Damnit, it didn't re-quote the quote.

Here we go:

It posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently evil or innately good, nor does it present humans as being superior to nature. Rather, the humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy. Many Humanists derive their moral codes from a philosophy of utilitarianism, ethical naturalism or evolutionary ethics, and some advocate a science of morality.

I've always thought of religion as whatever one believes is absolute. I, personally, don't want to a lot of time around people who believe in no absolutes whatsoever in terms of morality. So even when I meet atheists, I prefer at least a little bit of religion.

Also, a little off-topic, but we have plenty of secular humanists, they're called liberals. I'm not saying Republicans are 100% correct, but the further left someone goes in their politics, the more likely I am to think they're crazy.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by jasong

Also, a little off-topic, but we have plenty of secular humanists, they're called liberals. I'm not saying Republicans are 100% correct, but the further left someone goes in their politics, the more likely I am to think they're crazy.

So says the person who has publicly admitted (here) that they have sexually deviant thoughts, accepts payments from the Government because they're "too sick to work", and still lives with their parents (have you had your AC checked recently?).

Hmmm....

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by chalsall

So says the person who has publicly admitted (here) that they have sexually deviant thoughts, accepts payments from the Government because they're "too sick to work", and still lives with their parents (have you had your AC checked recently?).

Hmmm....

Pity... I thought you were stronger at debate than this, Chris. Perhaps you're having an "off day". By the way, I think Jason was almost incredibly courageous to tell us what he did about himself. He took a huge risk.

Originally Posted by jasong

I've always thought of religion as whatever one believes is absolute. I, personally, don't want to a lot of time around people who believe in no absolutes whatsoever in terms of morality. So even when I meet atheists, I prefer at least a little bit of religion.

Also, a little off-topic, but we have plenty of secular humanists, they're called liberals. I'm not saying Republicans are 100% correct, but the further left someone goes in their politics, the more likely I am to think they're crazy.

You seem to equate morality with religion, but to me they're different concepts. Many people take at least some of their moral values from what their religion prescribes, but the relationship stops there. I can assure you that my moral values, which were incidentally involved when I expressed distaste for what chalsall wrote above, are strong despite the fact that I do not follow or believe in any particular religion. Secular humanism, as in the link given by Xyzzy, is a powerful framework for moral values.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Pity... I thought you were stronger at debate than this, Chris. Perhaps you're having an "off day". By the way, I think Jason was almost incredibly courageous to tell us what he did about himself. He took a huge risk.

My apologies to Jason, you, and this forum. I was indeed having a very "off day"....

[kladner]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

<snip>Secular humanism, as in the link given by Xyzzy, is a powerful framework for moral values.

Hear Hear!

[davar55]

Separating ethics/morality from religion is and was an important and
difficult undertaking. Religion has long had a monopoly or at least a
prime role in defining ethics, and systems like ethical secular humanism
go a long way to proving that this dependancy is not absolute.

Respecting the OP of this thread, perhaps a discussson of secular-
based morality could be started in another thread? I'm way too
opinionated on this issue to start, I couldn't come up with a
balanced title. But something like "ethics without religion" sounds
close.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by davar55

Respecting the OP of this thread, perhaps a discussson of secular-based morality could be started in another thread? I'm way too opinionated on this issue to start, I couldn't come up with a balanced title. But something like "ethics without religion" sounds close.

Second this motion.

[Brian-E]

The above posts were originally written in the thread "Atheism for the Pedantic".

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

The above posts were originally written in the thread "Atheism for the Pedantic".

But I would argue that when someone screws up (as I did (again!)), one should be comfortable admitting it.

To put on the table, I am exceedingly intolerant of those who try to place upon others what they themselves are unwilling to endure. Or, reciprocally, trying to say that some are "welfare queens" when they themselves benefit from welfare.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by chalsall

But I would argue that when someone screws up (as I did (again!)), one should be comfortable admitting it.

Just to be absolutely clear: the new thread had nothing to do with you "screwing up" - and by the way I admire your apology! - but because, as davar55 implied and you seconded, this is a rather different subject than what the atheism thread is about.

[chalsall]

The Mandelbrot set.