The idea that there can be no ethics without belief in gods is preposterous. Sam Harris "The end of faith" writes very well about this. The ideas of many philosophers and religious figures, including words attributed to Jesus by the authors of the bible, include the "golden rule": do no harm to others, or treat others as you'd wish to be treated. Harris and others also question religion-based ethics when it leads to burning witches, denying condoms to AIDS patients, or starting holy wars. It also seems from several studies that countries with low levels of religiosity have the best records for looking after their citizens and for decent compassionate behavior.

'Anyone out there care to try to pigeon-hole me?' Confused!
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 1:28:17 PM

Hmmm Runner. Don't know exactly how to reply to that. I thought it was fairly self explanatory. I guess what I'm asking/saying is that mankind always seems to find a special little hole that some one will fit into. A "pigeon hole" and I suppose I was trying to preempt someone who will suggest something like....... "If you're not religious, then you must therefore be an atheist," or something of the kind.

Back to you Runner. Do you have a "pigeon-hole" for me to fit into?

Religions have their own versions of ethics.

Consider the following topics –

Abortion, capital punishment ,contraception ,euthanasia, circumcision (male and female), forced marriage, honour crimes, slavery, torture and war - and how their interpretation varies between cultures and belief systems, and even over time.

Ethics does not actually exist in religion and religion is NOT the cause of morality.

Doing good for it’s own sake is different from doing good only because of the threat of punishment or the promise of reward.

Religion depends on the illusion of forced morality based on the carrot-and-stick approach. Do/don't do, or suffer the consequences.

If murder is the most mortal of sins, then how does a religious person reconcile the idea that they are prepared kill other members of the same religion on behalf of their sectarian nation over political matters?

What ethics are at work there I wonder? Personal gain? Immediate reward?

There have been countless wars fought because of religion but I can’t name a single war that was stopped by it. If that's the case, what's the point of it?

Personal belief is fine but when it gets hijacked and organised, it becomes something else entirely. The 11th commandment should be "thy shalt keep thy religion to thyself".

If you really want to market a religion on the basis that it creates a more ethical or moral society, you may as well include the claim that it helps you lose weight as well.

Well said, David.
Those readers who may wish to thoughtfully pursue some of the points made would do well to read 'The End of Faith' by Sam Harris. The abandonment of nonsensical ancient superstitions is the first and essential step to establishing a fundamental naturalistic ethic which, in my view, is the way forward for the forthcoming millenium if there is any hope at all for the human race and all the many species that depend upon us, to survive and to live in happiness and peace. Religion based conflict is a far greater threat to us all than global warming can ever be.

My concern with this piece relates to the fact that it appeared in the "religion" section of OLO in the first place.

The term "atheism" has a formal definition which justifies its use - but it has become more of a label than a definition. By using this label, we are defining ourselves within the religious paradigm - which only gives religion more oxygen.

I guess this is understandable where many atheists feel that they must fight against dogma and superstition built up over thousands of years - instead of just treating it with the disdain it deserves. Unfortunately, we can't just ignore religions which have such a great impact on society. But for those of us who like to live by the old doctrine of "I don't care what type of fairy tales you belive in, as long as you keep it to yourself", it would be nice if we could just ignore religon instead of having to engage with it.

Let's face it, if your neighbour told you he had just witnessed a person rising from the dead (or pick your favourite alternative religious story), you just wouldn't take him seriously. And if he was in a position of power in society, he certainly wouldn't be able to rely on such a story to justify making decisions which impacted on how the rest of us live. But religion has thousands of years' worth of story telling and social pressure to nourish it, so I guess I can understand why many athiests become so vocal in their opposition.

That said, the fact remains that engaging religion people in these forums often only encourages all this "my religion is better than yours" nonsense. It becomes a case of "I will defend my system of superstitious beliefs that I call a religion by saying that you simply follow a different religion (witness the derisive reference by one poster to "the first 2 secular humanist manifestos").

When of course the reality is that athiesm is not a religion just as baldness is not a hair colour.

i'm an atheist, but this article leaves me queasy. the author is just a little too pleased with himself. i agree with the rational superiority of atheism, but i'm far from convinced that this leads in practice to any ethical superiority. i don't have time to check the articles cited, or grey's citations in response. i definitely don't take the citations either way on face value.