[The Big Red Button]

I was brought up by very devout Catholic parents, who go to mass every Sunday, and are very involved in the church (as regards doing readings, etc.)

I'm atheist, as are most of my siblings, though we were raised as Catholics.

We were all brought up to be moral, respectful, polite human beings. My parents always emphasised the importance of caring for others, for treating others as we wish to be treated, to do good when we can.

And this is the way I continue to behave. I'd never purposely hurt another person. I'm honest. I regularly buy meals for homeless people, and sit down, and have a good chat, and eat with them (did this just today, as it happens, but it's not an infrequent thing for me.)

Any positive attributes that I may have as a person, are a credit to my parents, and them alone.

I hate the idea that ethics are somehow intrinsically linked with religion. It's absolute bull.

My parents still love all of their children, even though we haven't followed their spiritual path. If we ever do good, it's not through Christianity - it's through being raised well, and through being a decent good person (i.e. not having been born an asshole.)

I see my parents as being true Catholics. It's not for me, and it's not a path I'd ever go down. But I think that they understand some of the aspects of their faith - such as acceptance. Despite their own beliefs, they would never ever criticise their children for our beliefs (or lack thereof.) I understand that this must be very difficult for them. So I really do respect them for it.

But I think there's something really wrong with people if they need religious dictation to act in an ethical manner.

I read an article today about the singer Andreas Bocelli. I can't remember the exact quote, but it was to the effect of "With life, you experience, sadness, serious illness, death ... this is not fun to endure without religion." Well, to be honest, while I see how religion could be a wonderful crutch in such circumstances ... I respect those who can face such experiences alone, without needing religion.

I don't need religion. I aim to do well, and act like a decent person, and treat others well, at all times. If I can do myself proud in life, and my family proud, without hurting anyone along the way, well then I'll be happy.

[qrrgprgua]

Originally Posted by chatterpillar

I was brought up by very devout Catholic parents, who go to mass every Sunday, and are very involved in the church (as regards doing readings, etc.)

My parents still love all of their children, even though we haven't followed their spiritual path. If we ever do good, it's not through Christianity - it's through being raised well, and through being a decent good person (i.e. not having been born an asshole.)

While I believe that all men an innately good. And that we don't need religion to tell us what is right and wrong, we know what to be right and wrong. Do not kill is a religious commandment but its also a human instinct. But if your parents had been immoral irreligious people who did not care about your education then you would not be the person you are today. The morals you have from your parents are a reflection on who they are as good moral people, who also happen to have faith.

Different religions have varying degrees of morality and Ethics. Catholicism has many aspects that are pulled from Greek Philosophers. Thomas Aquinas married many paths of thought with Christian Teaching.


Who will teach us ethics... Take a look at Russia after they tried to kill off religion.. Yes we can have a Good Ethical society built on secular principles.. but sometimes these principles get derailed from what is right. In the UK 80% plus Downs Syndrome pregnancies are aborted.. Its legal.. Is it morally right to discriminate against those disabled? Or who might be disabled? etc..etc..

Religion tends to have Moral principles that haven't changed over time. Have sex only with your wife or husband. There is nothing wrong teaching this.. if you followed this principle you might be happier than a person who sleeps around or someone who gets aids or gets dumped once the boyfriend gets tired and moves onto the next girl.

No one religion has it all when it comes to Morals and Ethics. But to discount religion totally is wrong.

[The Big Red Button]

Originally Posted by qrrgprgua

if your parents had been immoral irreligious people who did not care about your education then you would not be the person you are today. The morals you have from your parents are a reflection on who they are as good moral people, who also happen to have faith.

Unlike my parents, I am atheist, but I will teach my children (if I have any) to be good moral people. I will most certainly care about their education. I will not raise them to be religious; that is their choice and theirs alone.

Originally Posted by qrrgprgua

No one religion has it all when it comes to Morals and Ethics. But to discount religion totally is wrong.

I won't shield my children from religion, and I won't judge them if they choose to follow that path.

Certainly, religion is not something to be ignored, as it's a major influence in the world, and any educated person should be aware of its existence and power. So, in that sense, it would be irresponsible to discount it, yes.

[b318isp]

Originally Posted by RussellTuring

What was said about the morality of suicide?

Areas that were covered were:

- the finality of suicide as a solution to temporary problems
- the effects on those who have to deal with it
- guidance on not glorifying or reflecting on the details, but accepting the emotions
- identifying that problems are usual transient and are better tackled by seeking help and assistance

[recedite]

Originally Posted by chatterpillar

We were all brought up to be moral, respectful, polite human beings. My parents always emphasised the importance of caring for others, for treating others as we wish to be treated, to do good when we can.

And this is the way I continue to behave. I'd never purposely hurt another person. I'm honest. I regularly buy meals for homeless people, and sit down, and have a good chat, and eat with them (did this just today, as it happens, but it's not an infrequent thing for me.)

I'd suggest that both you and your parents would be ethical people with or without religion. Understanding that leads to the realisation that religious laws and morals (at least the good ones anyway) are all based on ethics, and not the other way round.
And then there is the whole "nature versus nurture" argument, and the possibility that someone having a similar upbringing to yours might react differently to the homeless people.
The best we can do as a society is to teach secular ethics to all kids and hope people turn out well. But if they don't, we send them to prison, not confession.

[MrPudding]

Originally Posted by vibe666

i think i have just developed a new found respect for derren brown.

Check out his website. He has some very interesting blog entries.

MrP

[Valmont]

Originally Posted by Gbear

In a "perfect" democracy the state would be only a tool to enforce the will of the people rather than a discrete identity.

I don't follow you here. If it's the 'will of the people' why would it need enforcing? Is this not an argument for the ethics of mob rule?

[Dades]

Originally Posted by qrrgprgua

Religion tends to have Moral principles that haven't changed over time.

You say that like it's a good thing. Religious morality is man-made morality from 1000's of years ago. Societies change. Would you suggest we apply Old Testament rules today?

Originally Posted by qrrgprgua

Have sex only with your wife or husband. There is nothing wrong teaching this.. if you followed this principle you might be happier than a person who sleeps around or someone who gets aids or gets dumped once the boyfriend gets tired and moves onto the next girl.

You might. Or you might be content to not have to repress your natural urges on the basis of some notion of chastity. Either way it's all down to personal choice.

[Valmont]

Originally Posted by Dades

You might. Or you might be content to not have to repress your natural urges on the basis of some notion of chastity. Either way it's all down to personal choice.

I agree, but how should we know when our personal choices are harming (vague, I know) people?

[Dades]

Originally Posted by Valmont

I agree, but how should we know when our personal choices are harming (vague, I know) people?

How should we know? Don't we use our brains to reason and deduce whether our actions are likely to cause harm every day?

It not the not knowing what might harm someone that's humanity's problem - it's ignoring that knowledge and doing it anyway. Holy book or no holy book.

[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by qrrgprgua

Religion tends to have Moral principles that haven't changed over time. Have sex only with your wife or husband. There is nothing wrong teaching this..

Your religion also teaches that it is immoral to have sex without being married. No one really seems to still believes this, not even most "Catholics". They might think it is not what the Church says you should do, but few truly believe it is bad or immoral.

Which highlights the difficulty with what you mention in the first sentence of the quote above. The moral principles of these religions hasn't changed in thousands of years. Since they considered the moral opinion of an unchanging deity they can't and still have people believe they are the moral opinion of an unchanging deity.

When people came up with these principles they had reasons that no longer apply. It was a completely different world they found themselves in. Your religion restricted sex to married couples probably in order so that a man could ensure that any children in his relationship were his. This was very important in a society that hereditary was considered very important and without science to determine these things. This was so important that the punishment used to be death if this principle was broken.

This is not a requirement of modern living, nor is it something that people view as morally important. Again Christians only hold to it because you believe it is the word of God, it is not something that is seen as moral in of itself. It would have been abandoned a long time ago out of irrelevance if it didn't have "The Lord said to Moses..." in front of it.

Religion divorces the understanding and justification from the moral principles. That is a reason in of itself to abandon religion. Without understanding why we should follow a moral principle (beyond "God says..") we are unable to apply the ideas behind the principle in any sort of intelligent contextual way.

[Valmont]

Originally Posted by Dades

How should we know? Don't we use our brains to reason and deduce whether our actions are likely to cause harm every day?

It not the not knowing what might harm someone that's humanity's problem - it's ignoring that knowledge and doing it anyway. Holy book or no holy book.

I disagree entirely. If we are to talk of humanity's problem, I would look more towards competing theories of what constitutes harm and the various groups behind each system genuinely believing that they are working for the benefit of others. For example, religious zealots believing God will really save us all if we run society along the lines of x; however you have said above that this isn't humanity's problem, which I find a strange position to take from an atheist!

[Northclare]

I agree with Dades when he says it's a personal choice.
If that personal choice has a negative consequence it's up to the individual to keep up that behavior and suffer the consequences of guilt or anxiety.

It's very hard to abstain from our natural desires and that abstinence can be drive people to anger,confusion,fear etc

I have my own bottom line set out.
I can be capable of moving the goal posts to suit me now and again but it took me years to get some kind of balance for myself.
I try not to hurt anyone or myself on a daily basis life is to be enjoyed not endured

It's amazing the way the Catholic Church is all about living a good life but yet they put the fear of living into people's thoughts minds and actions.

Yes ethics is an individual choice.

[robindch]

Originally Posted by Northclare

It's amazing the way the Catholic Church is all about living a good life [...]

Uh, the catholic church's only interest is the catholic church

[Dades]

Originally Posted by Valmont

I disagree entirely. If we are to talk of humanity's problem, I would look more towards competing theories of what constitutes harm and the various groups behind each system genuinely believing that they are working for the benefit of others. For example, religious zealots believing God will really save us all if we run society along the lines of x; however you have said above that this isn't humanity's problem, which I find a strange position to take from an atheist!

You're talking about a world where humanities biggest problem is religious zealots imposing their worldview. In that world, the definition of what is harmful to people would be key. And no doubt parts of the world have that problem.

But for life within most societies - the issue is not people knowing, or disagreeing with the *rules*, it people ignoring choosing to ignore the rules.

It's why there's no difference in reality between Christians and atheists. Neither are better people than the other. Leaving aside a few dubious teachings - in theory the religious majority should be better people than the non-religious minority. But that's clearly not true. Why? Because in life all people act contrary to how they know they should act. Prisons are full of Christians.

For the most part, people who murder, rape, steal, bully cheat in real life know they are harming other people. They choose to do it anyway.

I guess that's why religions have vengeful gods, heavens and hells. Because they know that the rules themselves aren't enough to have people follow them.