Religion v Ethics

[Wootah]

It is said that religion is the opiate of the masses.

How does ethics avoid a similar attack?

[JP Cusick]

The problem with your idea is obvious, theists on average, are not any more moral than atheists.

My point was and remains that God and the Bible are morally and ethically sound.

If you only want to damn the people - then yes I agree = the people continuously do wrong.

It is absurd to view Atheism as better (or even as equal) based on it excluding God and the scriptures - because Atheism has the same sinful people as does religion.

The Atheism simply gives the same people a new improved justification to do wrong and to be immoral.

Both God and the Bible (and the force of Police) are the only true restraints for ignorant humanity.

[Bust Nak]

My point was and remains that God and the Bible are morally and ethically sound.

If you only want to damn the people - then yes I agree = the people continuously do wrong.

It is absurd to view Atheism as better (or even as equal) based on it excluding God and the scriptures - because Atheism has the same sinful people as does religion.

The Atheism simply gives the same people a new improved justification to do wrong and to be immoral.

Both God and the Bible (and the force of Police) are the only true restraints for ignorant humanity.

And my counter point is, it's a compliment to atheists given that we are not less moral than theists, all without this "one true restraints for ignorant humanity."

[William]

[Replying to post 48 by Bust Nak]

Some people don't need unethical ideas of GOD in order to justify their unethical behavior.

Granted. But the problem is, far more people justify their unethical behavior with unethical ideas of GOD, than there are people who need ethical ideas of GOD in order to justify their ethical behavior. It's a net loss.

The net loss is in the shortage of ethical people compared with non ethical then, regardless of what sectors the unethical are drawn from.

Btw...where did you get your figures from - as to 'the problem.'?

What makes you think people need ethical ideas of GOD in order to be ethical?

What makes you think ethical behavior needs to be justified?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 53 by William]
Steven Weinberg says it better:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

[JP Cusick]

And my counter point is, it's a compliment to atheists given that we are not less moral than theists, ...

That is a baseless claim.

An Atheist could possibly be morally strong, but that is not the basis of Atheism.

To deny God is in itself an immoral act, and the terminology is super important.

As like an Executioner decides not to execute a prisoner so he just acted morally superior - but his job as an executioner is immoral.

So too an Atheist being moral is an opposite as in an oxymoron.

[William]

[Replying to post 49 by JP Cusick]

The problem with your reasoning is that the same kind of reasoning has been used historical by people calling themselves theists, in order to act unethically against those who are not believers in the same idea of GOD.
Granted, there might be some atheists who 'get past that barrier of having the God telling them right from wrong' but atheism isn't about that. Anti-theism might be about that, but that is one subset of atheism. What you are saying implies all atheists are atheists for that reason.

If GOD is the aspect of human experience which tells us right from wrong, then GOD is the conscience.

[William]

[Replying to post 53 by William]
Steven Weinberg says it better:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

And if religion is the invention of politics...we get the picture.

[Bust Nak]

An Atheist could possibly be morally strong, but that is not the basis of Atheism.

That right there, is the compliment I was talking about. We are morally strong, even without the crutch of theism. You are doing yourself a disserve with this line of reasoning.

To deny God is in itself an immoral act, and the terminology is super important...

There we go again, with the insult to human dignity.

And if religion is the invention of politics...we get the picture.

I am not sure I do get the picture. What are you saying?

[JP Cusick]

The problem with your reasoning is that the same kind of reasoning has been used historical by people calling themselves theists, in order to act unethically against those who are not believers in the same idea of GOD.

A problem with the people yes - but not a problem with my reasoning.

Atheism is simply taking the wrong doing to the next lower level.

Those people who were compelled to use God in their wrong doing - can now do their wrongs without any reference to God.

Now they no longer have to pretend to be Theist.

Granted, there might be some atheists who 'get past that barrier of having the God telling them right from wrong' but atheism isn't about that. Anti-theism might be about that, but that is one subset of atheism. What you are saying implies all atheists are atheists for that reason.

I do not know of any Atheist who is not anti-God.

The point of putting the "A" in from of Theist (A-Theist) is a negativity, as in saying anti God, and or anti Theist.

Being anti Theist is an affront to people, which is much worse than being anti God.

If GOD is the aspect of human experience which tells us right from wrong, then GOD is the conscience.

I do see God in our conscience, and God speaks through our conscience.

But that is not the entirety because God is much more than that.



-------------------------------------------

An Atheist could possibly be morally strong, but that is not the basis of Atheism.

That right there, is the compliment I was talking about. We are morally strong, even without the crutch of theism. You are doing yourself a disserve with this line of reasoning.

I do not see the morally strong, and you certainly are not giving any example.

To toot your own horn is not a moral high ground.

What I see all around is the morally weak and morally bankrupt and I see Atheism adding fuel to the depravity of society.

I do concede that religion has failed, but the thing called God is still actively ongoing and that factor is not to be ignored.

[William]

[Replying to post 59 by JP Cusick]

A problem with the people yes - but not a problem with my reasoning.

Atheism is simply taking the wrong doing to the next lower level.

Those people who were compelled to use God in their wrong doing - can now do their wrongs without any reference to God.

Now they no longer have to pretend to be Theist.

So you are saying that theists who did this (do this) were/are really atheists pretending to be theists?

I do not know of any Atheist who is not anti-God.

I do. Many of them are anti the particular idea of GOD being pushed by the particular organised religion.
In my mind, there is a universe of difference in being anti-GOD and being anti particular ideas of GOD.

The point of putting the "A" in from of Theist (A-Theist) is a negativity, as in saying anti God, and or anti Theist.

See my point above.

I see nothing wrong with people being anti anything which promotes unethical negativity.

Being anti Theist is an affront to people, which is much worse than being anti God.

Again - it depends on what 'the people' are doing with their religion and their particular idea of GOD. It may be perceived as an affront' by those people, but is it really?