You don't have to be religious to be a good person.

The answer (once again) is 'Secular Ethics'.

Let me explain it for everyone:
You don't have to be religious to be a good person.

Lets say the bible says 'Do unto others...'.
Ask yourself 'What is the non-religious equivalent of that statement?'
- 'Treat others how you'd like to be treated' right?

Congratulations, you've just learned ethics without need for religion.

And with 'Ethics' You now have a baseline with which you can judge the quality and content OF A RELIGION.
- Religion holds NO AUTHORITY over Ethics 'in its own right' -

Lets put this into a context, and we'll see how 'decent' all you people really are, ok?

Lets go over to the Anti Vaxx Activists thread.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8658&page=0

Most of the people supported the vaccinations without any reservation.
But runner and I both voiced caution and legitimate concerns.

Do Unto Others / Treat Others The Way You'd Like To Be Treated.

How many of you people here would like to have uncontrollable fits and piss yourselves constantly?
To live as a retard in a semi-vegetative state?
Anyone dare to put their hand up and volunteer?
Is there NOT ANYONE?

- But you all supported the vaccinations without any reservation, DID YOU NOT? -
Why won't any of you Pro-Vaxxers volunteer?

Think of this family and pretend it's yours.
After already having their child's life ruined (as well as their own) and the guilt they have to live with, they can't even speak out without being vilified because of everyone else's blind support (and ignorance).

If you people were actually 'decent', you'd understand 'Treat others the way you'd like to be treated' and you'd put yourself in that familys shoes and voice caution and concern in regards to the vaccines - but most of you don't.

To Paul and Armchair Critic.

There's more to religion then just being good. Take any religion and you can see a philosophy and a way of life. A culture of being so to speak, along with a purpose usually put in there as well.

Regarding Buddhism as a better path then monotheism, I stand by my statements Paul. Talking about Buddhism as a better path almost equates it as a replacement path to the religions that believe in God (monotheism). It is to that point that I disagree. If a person wants to try to integrate some of the meditative principles of Buddhism into their lives without giving up their own religion or other philosophies then that's a little different. That sounds like a person taking up a yoga exercise routine without having to adopt Hinduism that the exercises came out from. If a person practices a Buddhist meditation without giving up their religion or their atheism, then they aren't really turning to a different path.

On the other hand there are the perspectives of whether such people are corrupting the path they are taking by either taking elements of a different religion (for those in a religion), or taking elements of any religion (for those who are atheist), those arguments are out there too. I've heard of people wanting to be pure in their own religion and not take on yoga exercises or Buddhist traditions; as well as heard of atheists who want to strip out of their lives any element or tradition that came from a religion just to make a point of not being part of it. That can be it's own argument and who knows, there might be something true to that stance. I don't know, and I'm not going to argue for or against that kind of philosophy.

My point is that Buddhism compared to Christianity might be similar in some aspects, but Christianity still looks to God. That makes it a better path.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Regarding secular ethics. I agree that I've seen many people with good morals without being part of a religion. I've also seen people with a better stance on generosity and kindness then those who study ethics (regardless of it being religious or secular based). The point of being a good person usually comes down to applying what you believe instead of just stating it's part of your beliefs. Then to apply it generously instead of just to people you think deserve it. If a person can do this in their personal life, their working life, and their social life, without having to change rules depending on the situations, then that marks a strong sense of their ethics and following through with it.

Religion though is more then just ethics and rules. It is teachings, traditions, and a community to help strengthen people in their path of that religion (including the moral and ethical parts). That aspect helps in weaker parts of a person's life. So that they can find strength or hope in the harder times, or to stay true to their morals and ethics when they are tempted to do something against their ethical standards. For me I can't say that a secular ethical model is a better path, because I've seen in my life when I needed more then a sense of right and wrong. And in some of those times God was there answering or just responding to my prayers. He was the hope to look to and to strive for, as well as the teacher and guide to being a better person then I was before. Just as today, He is the teacher and guide to being a petter person then I am today.

To Armchair Critic.

Regarding vaccinations, I gave my thoughts in the thread that discussion is in. I was hesitant to place it because I've seen how the debate sometimes goes on a witch hunt, so it's not like my stance would make a difference. In fact watch, it might go down hill because another voice that isn't completely pro vaccination is also from someone who voices and defends their religious stance.

Hope not, but I've just seen this happen in other discussions.

To Yuyutsu. You said earlier:

<<Because introducing the concept of God within the particular culture and period in which Buddha worked, was deemed to be unhelpful and likely to send his students on an unwholesome tangent. Teachers ought to be mindful of their audience.>>

<<At the epicentre of Buddhism and every other religion, is God.
Our mind is an obstacle, so Buddhism focuses on its removal. Once the mind no longer obstructs, God will easily be revealed, regardless how you name Him (if at all).>>

I disagree with both points. Seeking God is good for everyone. There is no audience that isn't benefited by finding and knowing God. And finding God isn't a result of clearing the mind. Nor is finding God a means of escaping pain or suffering. Some who are put in horrible conditions are those who are persecuted for their beliefs in God, regardless if they hold a mindfulness attitude. Look into the history of martyrs to see my point more clearly. Or if you want, I can point to prophets in the old testament that were on a point of suffering that was not sidestepped because they knew God and preached His words.

IF we had no God, would we still hate one another? would we still have racism
No be honest, some hate the very people Christ told us are his chosen people, because some of them killed him
Why so many Gods
Could mankind live without a God, some could not, increasing numbers in the west are
A day will come, as it must, that a new God is invented, by the brilliant minds that invented every one that ever existed
Mans mind, he/she will be the one God, for all of humanity, and bring new rules to live by, in time as is the case now, we will forget we invented him/her and worship as one humanity

Paul America was founded by Christians seeking a new world. Benjamin Franklin was a man of faith http://www.increasinglearning.com/franklin-conversion.html Exploration and the establishment of colonies, and later a republic in North America, also gave impetus to political and social change.

Thomas Jefferson was a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral teacher.

Thomas Paine Belief in Self. Though Paine was a self-proclaimed monotheist (believing in one God), he disdained virtually all organized religion, proclaiming that his only church was his own mind. They were instrumental in the new age of the American Enlightenment. Which still holds true today
The early work of English philosopher Francis Bacon (1561-1626) Religious beliefs.

Bacon was a devout Anglican. He believed that philosophy and the natural world must be studied inductively, but argued that we can only study arguments for the existence of God. Later the work of a contemporary of Bacon's, John Locke (1632-1704) Religious beliefs. Some scholars have seen Locke's political convictions as being based from his religious beliefs.

Locke's religious trajectory began in Calvinist trinitarianism, but by the time of the Reflections (1695) Locke was advocating not just Socinian views on tolerance but also Socinian Christology. These men did more than any to bring about a change in conciseness.

Thanks Paul for identifying their influence from Christianity and their monotheistic faith as the basis of the Modern age.