Does it even make sense to think of something as inherently right or inherently wrong? I can tell you that I think something is inherently wrong, but I cannot easily think of a way to apply it to the universe.
If there is no God, everything, from any interpretation, to any definition or moral is completely in existence because those who are in charge wish it to be so. If a group has the belief that their sole purpose was to kill, what is wrong with what they are doing? We may say their acts are illogical, but aren't all acts? What is it about theft or murder that makes them inherently wrong or right? Or is there nothing? Are the social inhibitions just a logical conclusion? If so what makes people turn against great odds to try to save others at great risk to themselves or maybe a larger group of people? Human "nature?"
The majority?
How about the Christian Deity?
Said deity never condemned slavery (even in the New Testament)
Said deity even (via "inspiration") told slaves how to behave.
Thus, slavery is not immoral, correct?
Slavery is another word which has a negative connotation. Let's take a quote from wikipedia, which does nothing more to share with us the common view: "
Slavery is the systematic exploitation of labour." I am not condoning it, however if the situation is one where slavery is the most logical set-up, "moral atheists" would be forced to support it too. If one is to be a slave then shouldn't they rise to their best too? I know this might not be appreciated in a world that values its false freedom.
I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly. Are you saying that if an atheist is part of a group of some kind, then that group becomes the atheist's religion?
If an Atheist is part of a group of some kind that either tells the group the nature of the universe and its set-up and/or how one should live, the group is a religion. It is my conjecture that one does not even have to be aware of such a set up. How many people believe that there is no God, a person must rely on his or herself for anything in life, the universe is unknowable and that one should be a "good person?" These are the beginning of a religion.
Consider omnitheism... is it not a religion? There may not be nearly any structure in it, books or many communities... But they most likely share many major common indicators on the nature of the universe and humanity.
(Waiting for some Christian to come along and tell me how much I dont understand the "Amalekite" situation, or how the slaves weren't "really" slaves, and how the purposefull killing of the firstborn sons was an act of Love, and how the taking of the women, along with the "taking" of them was TOTALLY appreciated by said women......gotta love how modern day morality is applied to the Bible as "fact")
If an Atheistic society (such as if the world was 100% atheist) created a similar system of morals, on their interpretation of what is "best" for everyone, who may question them? In a world with no absolute truth, isn't everyone right?
The definition of 'religion' that you've chosen to use doesn't go deep enough into what is generally thought of when discussing religion. As it is commonly used, 'religion' is best defined by the first 3, but mostly the 1st and 3rd, examples below.
You may define religion however you would like. The majority of the definitions of religion, to be completely impartial, say "Esp. Higher power" or something of the like. These would imply that religion can exist without the need for a higher power. If we are to use the connotation of words, why don't we all support the suggestion to use the "devil's dictionary?" Does anyone else love the irony of how much agreeing upon a religion is like agreeing upon morals? The only measure of what is correct or not we have without a God or higher power is what the majority believes.
"... ecular humanism is necessarily non-religious. This doesn't mean that secular humanists are anti-religious -- there is a difference between non-religion and anti-religion. Although secular humanists are certainly critical of religion in its various guises, the central point of being non-religious simply means that it has nothing to do with spiritual, religious, or ecclesiastical doctrines, beliefs, or power structures."
Secular humanism would necessarily like to consider itself non-religious and align itself with "science." Here I would also like to mention the irony that if you were to hold your mouse up to many users of CC you would read "Faith: Atheist" or "Faith: Humanist."
I, personally, believe (and I admit my bias up front) that the Rules of CF, while much stricter than my personal ethics, are enforced by the Mods in Society to a logical and beneficial extent.
I think that occasional Thread closure often allows a debate that is getting irrationally emotional and heated to cool off for a while. I have rarely seen threads in E&M closed without there being a logical reason for it. And many good threads have been only closed temporarily for clean up.
I think that we just need to agree to disagree. *offers hand to shake*
*grin*
If we just all agreed to disagree, there would be no discussion. And with no discussion there would be no progress. Things have frankly changed quite recently. The past was not so wonderful.
Well it depends, some would actually say tobacco should be illegal. Then some would argue that it is the individuals choice whether they wish to smoke, since it doesn't really directly effect others (okay there is passive smoking, but smoking is already illegal in most places where I live). Things like murder and stealing really do have a direct effect on others. I think a secular country can quite easily make these decisions for themselves.
The effects allow people to quicken their demise. They can also harm others, property, and some addicts spend money on cigs instead of food. Wasn't it said earlier that an Atheist would chose a logical system? Isn't it logical for a society to not allow members of its group to cause harm to the group by hurting themselves? What's this? Individual freedom? How would this work with the dynamics of the rights of a group as a whole? Realize too that such "rights" only exist through the agreement of the larger society.
Practically everything meets your definition.
A definition is only made or met by agreement. To have a discussion a group would have to agree on a definition for nearly everything. This would logically assume the definitions would have to be near perfect. Obviously this is impossible. What would meet a definition is only decided by a group. Or are you suggesting there is something inherently correct or incorrect about a certain definition?
Indeed. Apparently, my school's rules were a religion.
I feel very sorry for you, communist school must have been terrible. Oh, that kind of school! I didn't realize they were back. Let's don our kanagroo court justice and self-righteousness and prepare some good ol' hemlock tea.