The Original Messages of Religion

[Zidneya]

[Celestine]

[Minimalist]

Minamalist can not show me anything I haven't seen before.

Minimalist (watch your spelling) does not think you are worth showing much of anything.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

You know what the Bible says about religion: Psalm 31:6 (MSG) = "I hate all this silly religion but you, God, I trust."

[genkaus]

The list you provided only had a few groups dealing with ethics, and I don't think any of those ethic groups focus on the development of ethics but rather the focus of acting on their morals for good. What I am proposing is a group which would help others become more ethical while at the same time being ethical in their daily lives.

If you are looking for development of ethics, then look to philosophy not religion. Philosophy provides a rational and comprehensive process for developing ethical systems rather than relying on authoritative dictates.

If you are looking for a group to help people become more moral, then look to educational institutes. Morality shouldn't be regulated or enforced but it should be taught and taught correctly.

What I expected from an Atheist forum was NOT an anti-theist forum.

And now that you know what to expect....?

I am not saying to be religious, I am only saying to view it objectively.

Looking at it objectively tells me that religion is useless when it comes to being moral.

[Celestine]

If you are looking for development of ethics, then look to philosophy not religion. Philosophy provides a rational and comprehensive process for developing ethical systems rather than relying on authoritative dictates.

If you are looking for a group to help people become more moral, then look to educational institutes. Morality shouldn't be regulated or enforced but it should be taught and taught correctly.

Looking at it objectively tells me that religion is useless when it comes to being moral.

You act as though religion has had no bearing on philosophy, or that philosophy has had no bearing on religion. Were archaeologists to just look for weapons they would throw out all the important pieces of archeology. Asking me to only look at secular philosophy is like asking an archaeologist to pick only one item from an excavation that produced hundreds of times and only research that one item.

In the history of philosophy religion has played a very important role whether you like it or not and whether you think you can distinguish these as philosophies despite your own bias does not effect the fact that religion is a part of the history of philosophy.

Epicurus' philosophy had a major effect on me becoming an atheist and that's over 2,000 years old! Why then should I discount these philosophies because of their age or their entanglement with religion? You can't seem to look past the fact that I'm not interested in these religions so much as the philosophy that resides in them. Were I Christian and ignored Epicurus' philosophy just because it had to do with atheism I would have come to the conclusion of atheism at a much later date. Yet I was unbiased about it, and then afterwards for years I was like you and held a strong prejudice against religion because it was what all the cool kids were doing. Now I am over myself, and I seek to observe again that which I once did but this time with a secular opinion, is that so much of a grievance to you that you think I should abandon this expedition and that all future expeditions by others should be abandoned?

[The Grand Nudger]

No ones disputing that religion has played a role. It's just that the role religion has played seems to be the foil. A long litany of things -not to do-, a never-ending list of -poor justifications-. This is a point which you yourself have helped to drive home with your examples. You're interested in what you can -cut out- of religious philosophies. What we're telling you - is that there's no need to do so. You can find what you need without the use of scissors, without any reference to religion.

[Celestine]

No ones disputing that religion has played a role. It's just that the role religion has played seems to be the foil. A long litany of things -not to do-, a never-ending list of -poor justifications-. This is a point which you yourself have helped to drive home with your examples. You're interested in what you can -cut out- of religious philosophies. What we're telling you - is that there's no need to do so. You can find what you need without the use of scissors, without any reference to religion.

The philosophies that belong to Epicurus are his alone, and no others.

[The Grand Nudger]

Blue is my favorite ice cream flavor!
(how'd I do?)

[genkaus]

You act as though religion has had no bearing on philosophy, or that philosophy has had no bearing on religion.

On the contrary - I'd say that religion has had no positive bearing on philosophy and the bearing of philosophy on religion is not relevant here.

Were archaeologists to just look for weapons they would throw out all the important pieces of archeology. Asking me to only look at secular philosophy is like asking an archaeologist to pick only one item from an excavation that produced hundreds of times and only research that one item.

If the question under consideration is "what did those people use to fight?" then looking at excavated pots and pans is irrelevant. Looking at the weapons excavated is what matters. That those pots could've also been used to bash someone is a nonsensical argument.

In the history of philosophy religion has played a very important role whether you like it or not and whether you think you can distinguish these as philosophies despite your own bias does not effect the fact that religion is a part of the history of philosophy.

Yes, a very negative role.

Epicurus' philosophy had a major effect on me becoming an atheist and that's over 2,000 years old! Why then should I discount these philosophies because of their age or their entanglement with religion?

You shouldn't - instead you should try to disentangle it from religion.

You can't seem to look past the fact that I'm not interested in these religions so much as the philosophy that resides in them.

Really? I thought you were looking for robust ethical systems. But if you are looking for philosophies within religion then go right ahead - I doubt if you'd find any good ones there.

Were I Christian and ignored Epicurus' philosophy just because it had to do with atheism I would have come to the conclusion of atheism at a much later date.

Sounds like you considered the philosophy despite your religion - not because of it.

Yet I was unbiased about it, and then afterwards for years I was like you and held a strong prejudice against religion because it was what all the cool kids were doing. Now I am over myself, and I seek to observe again that which I once did but this time with a secular opinion, is that so much of a grievance to you that you think I should abandon this expedition and that all future expeditions by others should be abandoned?

If you want to understand how a religion develops and spreads and changes over time, then by all means, go ahead and study it.

If, on the other hand, you are looking for robust ethical systems then don't look to religion - you'll find none there.