[RobertWhite]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
What if someone said to you: "You don't agree with murder? Fine, don't murder. But don't enforce that view on others." Or "You don't agree with necrophilia? Fine, don't do it. But don't enforce that view on others"? Would you agree with them, or would you say there's something wrong with this argument?

Clearly this sort of argument can't apply to everything. If everyone were allowed to decide for themselves what rules to follow and what not to follow, there would be no such thing as law, and anarchy would prevail. How exactly are you distinguishing between actions where it is okay to enforce your view upon others (e.g. that murder is wrong, or whatever else you think should be illegal) and actions where you let people decide for themselves?

Clearly it doesn't but humans do seem to have some kind of moral compass. Most humans know murder is wrong and if they think it's right it's usually culture that influenced it. Many moral laws such as euthanasia and abortion are ambiguous and require interpretation and this is the point religion seems to have a substantial influence.

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by RobertWhite)
Clearly it doesn't but humans do seem to have some kind of moral compass. Most humans know murder is wrong and if they think it's right it's usually culture that influenced it. Many moral laws such as euthanasia and abortion are ambiguous and require interpretation and this is the point religion seems to have a substantial influence.

Some laws might be ambiguous to you, or be innately ingrained into your moral compass. But how would you know whether or not this is true for anyone else? Someone else could easily say that they think abortion is wrong according to their moral compass - anyone who thinks otherwise is probably influenced by culture. Or they might say that necrophilia is ambiguous, but general perception that it is wrong is due to substantial influence from religion more than anything. There's no reason to assume that everyone's innate morality will be the same.

It's still not clear what objective basis you're using to decide upon which issues we should impose our views on others, and on which issues we should just say "each to their own".

[Spaz Man]

Would you allow necrophilia or beastiality even if you didn't agree with it; after all it is a victimless crime apparently?

It's a question of morality which in secular democracies is shaped by people making decisions for themselves on everything.

Religious people believe that some of those decisions have already been made for them for their own and humanity's benefit and therefore it is right for humanity as a whole to follow these rules as their creator wants them to.

[Hylean]

(Original post by RobertWhite)
Clearly it doesn't but humans do seem to have some kind of moral compass. Most humans know murder is wrong and if they think it's right it's usually culture that influenced it. Many moral laws such as euthanasia and abortion are ambiguous and require interpretation and this is the point religion seems to have a substantial influence.

Do they? What's your evidence for this?

(Original post by Dandaman1)
When society is telling you what to do based on unfounded superstition, then it's a different story. This could range from mild inconveniences (e.g. not being allowed to buy alcohol on Sundays), to moderate (e.g. dress, diet) to big life-changers (gay marriage, abortion, freedom of speech). There are many of these religious rules and regulations that have little to no benefit for society at all, no grounding in reality or practical sociology, and are entirely unnecessary, therefore an individual has every right to complain.

There are many rules and regulations in general which have no or little benefit for society. For example, why is it a social taboo for men to wear skirts or make up? And apparently blue is a boy's colour. What's that all about? And of course, there are those atheists who are right wing, homophobic, racist, etc. so all those "big life-changers" aren't the sole domain of religion.

The simple fact is religion is but one of many ways in which people impart the values they wish to. Like how your parents raised you not to kill or steal, etc. despite those actions having no inherent moral value, negative or positive. You have every right to complain, but to suggest that "religious values" are enforced on us as if they are somehow different from any other value out there just isn't true.

Let's also forget that many of the positive values enstilled in our society actually trace themselves back to Christianity.

[S-man10]

(Original post by Hylean)
The simple fact is religion is but one of many ways in which people impart the values they wish to. Like how your parents raised you not to kill or steal, etc. despite those actions having no inherent moral value, negative or positive. You have every right to complain, but to suggest that "religious values" are enforced on us as if they are somehow different from any other value out there just isn't true.

Let's also forget that many of the positive values enstilled in our society actually trace themselves back to Christianity.

There is a key point here that seems to be missing. The problem isn't "we think about something like this", the problem is "we think about something like his and so must you"

Whilst there might be a power structure in society to channel our thoughts to a particular way of thinking, suggesting that the way we think about gravity is the same as religious moral is an invalid example.

[Dalek1099]

(Original post by RobertWhite)
I respect people's view if they believe in a religion, but what I find intolerable is people believing their personal beliefs should be inflicted upon everyone else; this is especially a problem in the USA. For example, if you don't believe abortion is right, then fine, don't have one, but why should that view be enforced upon someone else?

OR

You don't agree in gay marriage? Fine, don't have one. But if gay people want to, why shouldn't they? Yes, people argue it's a religious thing and God doesn't agree with gay people (an extremely antiquated view in my opinion), but it's still a view, an opinion, and marriage isn't just a religious thing any more.


This can be said for a countless number of other things, such as euthanasia. So, are these views influenced by religion or would they still exist without it? Thoughts?



-I'm aware this is a much larger problem in other countries. I'm talking about Christian ones in this thread.

I really don't like how prejudice religious people/religious believers are and yet they always tell off people for being racist against them.There are many religious schools-prejudice against atheists/different religions and even my primary school,a normal primary school,has prayers to the lord in every assembly-this is prejudice against atheist because it is claiming their views are incorrect and yes its OK to believe in your religion but you shouldn't be allowed to influence other people and this includes parenting,through taking young people to church and getting them to prayer-this is very evil and immoral prejudice against atheists/different religions.The length some religious schools go is atrocious because some even don't teach evolution,which has a lit more evidence than their religion.

[apatch3]

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
How on Earth can you be 'not in favour of homosexuality'? That's inane, surely?

Marriage is not a 'largely religious' institution. There has always been the joining of partners, it wasn't until the second century CE when Christianity got themselves mixed up in it.

Humans are not a naturally monogamous species. The word 'marriage' is inherently devoid of meaning, outside of the union of two people who love one another for life; why do you restrict that from two people of the same gender?

If you think that 'civil partnership' is an exact equivalent to 'marriage', then why not change? You're just enforcing discrimination against a group which has struggled enough.

Don't misunderstand me I'm perfectly in favour of allowing them to marry, I think semantic arguments are stupid, I was just speculating about the reasons behind them. Yes perhaps marriage was at one point devoid of religious significance but the fact remains that the common use of the word today denotes a heterosexual union, but slowly this may come to change.

It is not inane that I am not enthralled with the idea of homosexuality, it is quite pertinent because it shows that a belief in liberalism takes precedence over one's personal prejudices.

Perhaps you could enlighten me though? What exactly are the differences between a civil partnership and a marriage?

[aljolson]

(Original post by RobertWhite)
I respect people's view if they believe in a religion, but what I find intolerable is people believing their personal beliefs should be inflicted upon everyone else; this is especially a problem in the USA. For example, if you don't believe abortion is right, then fine, don't have one, but why should that view be enforced upon someone else?

OR

You don't agree in gay marriage? Fine, don't have one. But if gay people want to, why shouldn't they? Yes, people argue it's a religious thing and God doesn't agree with gay people (an extremely antiquated view in my opinion), but it's still a view, an opinion, and marriage isn't just a religious thing any more.


This can be said for a countless number of other things, such as euthanasia. So, are these views influenced by religion or would they still exist without it? Thoughts?



-I'm aware this is a much larger problem in other countries. I'm talking about Christian ones in this thread.

In Britain a lot of our laws were introduced by Victorian values, and religious views were a great consideration. On a personal level and as an atheist, I have no problem with gay marriage, I dont agree with abortion though, but I would not deny abortion to anyone else, I just wish people would be more careful, however regarding euthenasia, I am against it totally, not that I wish anyone to die in agony, I just think it is a dangerous option to give unto the legal profession, eventually some smart assed lawyer will make it government policy for certain groups, as happened under the Nazi's with the disabled.

[ApresAlkan]

(Original post by apatch3)
Don't misunderstand me I'm perfectly in favour of allowing them to marry, I think semantic arguments are stupid, I was just speculating about the reasons behind them. Yes perhaps marriage was at one point devoid of religious significance but the fact remains that the common use of the word today denotes a heterosexual union, but slowly this may come to change.

It is not inane that I am not enthralled with the idea of homosexuality, it is quite pertinent because it shows that a belief in liberalism takes precedence over one's personal prejudices.

Perhaps you could enlighten me though? What exactly are the differences between a civil partnership and a marriage?

It doesn't in some US states, the Netherlands or the Nordic states.

I didn't say that you had to be enthralled by the idea of homosexuality, but disapproval towards it seems very strange to me.

The differences are just words, but the difference of these words is a pertinent one, which implies differences between homo- and hetero-sexual unions beyond what they are.

[Hylean]

(Original post by S-man10)
There is a key point here that seems to be missing. The problem isn't "we think about something like this", the problem is "we think about something like his and so must you"

Whilst there might be a power structure in society to channel our thoughts to a particular way of thinking, suggesting that the way we think about gravity is the same as religious moral is an invalid example.

It wasn't my example. I said it was similar, because it is.

The best example is theft or killing, etc. We are taught from a very young age that we have to think in certain ways or we are ostracised from society. Religion is a small part in this and currently atheists of Dawkins' type are attempting to change society's thinking so that it is theists who are ostracised because they do not think the way "they should". It's all about power.

[concubine]

Religion is forced upon millions of people each year.


This is an indisputable fact.


What's funny is when you get 'moderate' (lal) religious folk claiming that it isn't, when real believers are quite happy to admit that it is the reality of things.

[R.P.Everything.]

(Original post by Hylean)
It wasn't my example. I said it was similar, because it is.

The best example is theft or killing, etc. We are taught from a very young age that we have to think in certain ways or we are ostracised from society. Religion is a small part in this and currently atheists of Dawkins' type are attempting to change society's thinking so that it is theists who are ostracised because they do not think the way "they should". It's all about power.

The difference is, religion advocates policy based on authority and absolutism, whereas people like Dawkins advocate policy based on reason and consequentialism. If anything, the secular 'new atheism' movement is calling for a radical decentralisation of power, so that we can form a set of moral rules based on logic and reason, rather than the authority of scripture and religion.

[Dandaman1]

(Original post by Hylean)
Do they? What's your evidence for this?




There are many rules and regulations in general which have no or little benefit for society. For example, why is it a social taboo for men to wear skirts or make up? And apparently blue is a boy's colour. What's that all about? And of course, there are those atheists who are right wing, homophobic, racist, etc. so all those "big life-changers" aren't the sole domain of religion.

The simple fact is religion is but one of many ways in which people impart the values they wish to. Like how your parents raised you not to kill or steal, etc. despite those actions having no inherent moral value, negative or positive. You have every right to complain, but to suggest that "religious values" are enforced on us as if they are somehow different from any other value out there just isn't true.

Let's also forget that many of the positive values enstilled in our society actually trace themselves back to Christianity.

It is not illegal for men to wear skirts or make-up.

"Like how your parents raised you not to kill or steal, etc. despite those actions having no inherent moral value..."

Bigotry and idiocy are of course not the sole domain of religion, but are a domain of religion. If people are going to make homosexuality illegal on the grounds that they believe an invisible magic man in the sky thinks it's wrong, then this is certainly something a healthy society shouldn't have. It's not just what is being banned but why. Religion is one more reason for pointless rules, bigotry and idiocy that mankind can do without.

Many of the positives that Christianity teach neither originated from Christianity nor are they unique to it. Rules such as 'don't kill', 'don't steal', existed prior to Christianity and in other cultures. Christianity just happened to be the basis for their legal implementation in medieval European society (along with many other not so positive values, might I add).

[Hylean]

(Original post by Dandaman1)
It is not illegal for men to wear skirts or make-up.

Never said they were.

(Original post by Dandaman1)
"Like how your parents raised you not to kill or steal, etc. despite those actions having no inherent moral value..."

Not sure what that face is for...

(Original post by Dandaman1)
Bigotry and idiocy are of course not the sole domain of religion, but are a domain of religion. If people are going to make homosexuality illegal on the grounds that they believe an invisible magic man in the sky thinks it's wrong, then this is certainly something a healthy society shouldn't have. It's not just what is being banned but why. Religion is one more reason for pointless rules, bigotry and idiocy that mankind can do without.

If they are a domain of religion, then they are a domain of atheism as well. Atheists try to use science to prove racist and homophobic theories.

More interestingly is how or why such bigotry became a part of certain religions. For example, The Bible was not homophobic until King James ordered his translation. Anti-anal sex, yes, but not homophobic. Was he anti-homosexuality, specifically male homosexuality in this case, because of his religion or was he just a homophobe who used his position in society to sanction his viewpoint? Admittedly, this then became the dominant view of Christianity for quite a while, but people generally believe what they are told by someone who is viewed as better than them. Not only through religion, but from the government, schools, friends, etc.

Same with racism. Were those people just racists using The Bible to justify their treatment? I'd hazard a "yes" given Jesus was very much against racism.

Oh, and let's not ignore the various religions which preach tolerance and open-mindedness.

Which is my point. Religion is just one of a number of ways that we teach people how society wants them to act, etc. It's no different from a parent telling a child that theft is wrong, or right, etc. Society tells us that blue is a "male" colour and so boys wear blue. Boys who wear pink, a "female" colour, are ridiculed. Rationally, that's just bull****. Logically, it makes no sense. There are other examples that I could take to show this. So, if religion "enforces its values onto us" then so does society.

(Original post by Dandaman1)
Many of the positives that Christianity teach neither originated from Christianity nor are they unique to it. Rules such as 'don't kill', 'don't steal', existed prior to Christianity and in other cultures. Christianity just happened to be the basis for their legal implementation in medieval European society (along with many other not so positive values, might I add).

Never said they did. But in regards to European, and thus Western, morality, it all traces back to Christianity, as you rightly point out.

European paganism took a different view on killing, theft, etc. There are even some cultures, for example, which praise theft and a person's skill at thieving.

[RobertWhite]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Some laws might be ambiguous to you, or be innately ingrained into your moral compass. But how would you know whether or not this is true for anyone else? Someone else could easily say that they think abortion is wrong according to their moral compass - anyone who thinks otherwise is probably influenced by culture. Or they might say that necrophilia is ambiguous, but general perception that it is wrong is due to substantial influence from religion more than anything. There's no reason to assume that everyone's innate morality will be the same.

It's still not clear what objective basis you're using to decide upon which issues we should impose our views on others, and on which issues we should just say "each to their own".

My general rule of thumb is it's wrong if it involves hurting another person. Necrophilia and abortion are ambiguous matters in this sense. However, if the act does not involve harming anyone but yourself or consensual persons then it should be their choice.

[RobertWhite]

(Original post by Hylean)
Do they? What's your evidence for this?

Murder is not legal anywhere. However, laws such as abortion and euthanasia vary massively across the world. If humans did not have innate morals then we would expect laws such as murder to vary. As they don't we can assume humans do have a moral compass. Of course there is no evidence to support this but it is a reasonable conclusion.

[AspiringGenius]

(Original post by apatch3)
The basis of liberal society is that if something does not harm you then there is no reason why another should not allowed to practice it, and in return you expect the same treatment. The issue of abortion is a complex one, because technically if somebody does choose to kill their unborn child you are technically not being harmed BUT

In the United Kingdom we recognise the right to life it follows that if somebody were to take your life, murder you etc they will be held criminally and tortuously liable. The argument against abortion is simply, If we as human beings have a right to life, then surely a foetus that has developed and is conscious (after a certain number of weeks) should share the same right. I.e it is more of a principled argument than a religious one - (although you could perhaps trace our respect for LIFE back to religion but I would rather trace it to shared humanist values).

Moving on to Gay Marriage, Homosexual people can already enter civil partnerships and enjoy the benefits of what is essentially married life. I believe the issue of recognising gay marriage is more of a semantic one, marriage being a largely religious institution defines itself in a certain way and has done for a long time, people feel that if you were to start using the term marriage to describe Gay civil partnerships you would in essence be robbing the word marriage of its meaning. I personally am not in favour of homosexuality but I believe Gay people should have the same rights as everybody else.

Religious values are not enforced on you, but absolute freedom is impossible to achieve after all you must live among people who are religious and do believe in some of the values put forward by religion, to live among them is to tolerate their views and it is no secret that people will like you better if you share the same values as them. Hence as an atheist agnostic etc whatever you are confined to a society where a number of beliefs prevail and you must at times make accommodations for these beliefs. Similarly they live among you and they must make similar accommodations.

So in a nutshell - Is religious influence still rife? Most certainly so, is religion being forced on you? No not really you can believe what you want, you just have to make sure you can live in harmony with others.

How can you be not in favour of homosexuality? It's like saying you're not in favour of black people. Ridiculous statement.

For the record, Marriage is not a religious institution, in fact marriage has been documented to as early as 3000BCE so if jesus was real, Christianity is a newer concept to us than marriage was to him.

In cavorting over marriage as Christian's possession, that itself defies the true meaning of marriage.

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by RobertWhite)
My general rule of thumb is it's wrong if it involves hurting another person. Necrophilia and abortion are ambiguous matters in this sense. However, if the act does not involve harming anyone but yourself or consensual persons then it should be their choice.

It's quite a vague rule of thumb though, isn't it?

For example, if a person engages in necrophilia with the consent of the deceased, are they harming anyone else?
If a person goes round saying "That restaurant's really horrible, don't eat there" - they are harming someone, namely the owner. Does that make it wrong? Does the owner have a right not to be harmed in this way?
If I pick the lock of someone's house while they're on holiday, squat there for a week and leave the house exactly as it was - am I harming anyone? Is it not wrong/illegal?
If a woman has an abortion, is she not harming someone else - namely the child, and potentially the father of the child? Does she have the right to harm these people in such a way?
If a person agrees to euthanasia - could they not be harming other family members who wish for them to remain alive? Do they have a right to harm the family members in this way?


Note also some conflict in the issues of euthanasia and necrophilia. In society you find many people objecting to even consensual necrophilia, on the basis that it may disturb family members. Yet on the other hand, family members' wishes don't hold that kind of weight in the issue of euthanasia. The person in question consents to it, so family members cannot intervene.


If this is your criteria, then pretty much anything can be considered ambiguous, due to the ambiguity of issues like: What constitutes "harming"? In what cases do I still have the right to perform an action, even though it may "harm" someone else, or they may not like it? And in particular with the case of abortion - at what point do you consider a foetus to be "someone", whom should not be harmed?

[rac1]

Do you believe religious values are enforced on us?

Atheists=Yes
Theists=No

Sweeping generalisations, but you know

[NuclearFusion]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
What if someone said to you: "You don't agree with murder? Fine, don't murder. But don't enforce that view on others." Or "You don't agree with necrophilia? Fine, don't do it. But don't enforce that view on others"? Would you agree with them, or would you say there's something wrong with this argument?

Clearly this sort of argument can't apply to everything. If everyone were allowed to decide for themselves what rules to follow and what not to follow, there would be no such thing as law, and anarchy would prevail. How exactly are you distinguishing between actions where it is okay to enforce your view upon others (e.g. that murder is wrong, or whatever else you think should be illegal) and actions where you let people decide for themselves?

I think the point is that people should be free to do things, provided that those things do not have a negative impact on other people. Which is why murder is wrong, because obviously is has a negative impact on the victim and their family. Whereas things like gay marriage, gay adoption, mixed race marriage (yes, a republican senator proposed that mixed race marriages should be illegal) etc. have no such negative impact on others. Abortion is a little bit more in the middle, because it could be argued that it does in fact have a negative impact on the baby, but as for the other things I mentioned, this is not true.

As a side note, I do actually support abortion, because if a child is born unwanted, it is very unlikely to have a good standard of life, it will likely grow up being resented by its mother. The mother is unlikely to be capable of raising a child as well, hence why they would want an adoption. So for me, life itself isn't enough by itself to justify an unhappy existence for both the mother (or parents) and the child. However, I can see why people might be against it, however, there are no such rational arguments against things like mixed race marriages etc.
\