Yeah, but is there any reason besides the practicality or efficacy issue?

True, other people have morals and ethics, definitely. I'm just interested where they come from and on what basis people decide which ethic is more correct than another ethic.

Plus, some people actually like to do as their God says, not purely because it's a fear of the consequences. Since it's what I'm most familiar with, I'll talk about the Bible - which says 'if you love me, you'll obey me'. Not even the most cynical of observers could say that not one Christian around the world loves God enough to obey him.

What is common sense? What is religious dogma? It sounds good in theory, but apply it to a case study, if you will, and see what happens. Abortion, anyone? Homosexuality? There's hardly any way that you can make laws, one way or the other, without imposing on someone's religious/moral views.

That's what laws do, they impose rules upon people and as long as those laws are not rooted from a religous belief (e.g. anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage laws) that's fine. Just because a large group believes in one thing does not mean that they can impose their beliefs upon others.


Now back on topic, I think that, yes maybe in his studies the secular societies may be better off right now but we must remember how these nation rose to greatness. Religion has had a very significant role in the shaping of nations throughout history. It has unified and divided people throughout time, and we all know that to be succesful people need to be united together, and the easiest way to do that is through a common religion, this is why I believe the three major religion have spread so much over time.Think, if you took religion out of the equation in history, how much different would our world be today, we might all be speaking Latin right now and America certainly would not be the same, the Meso and Native Americans may still be around and who knows what else.

My belief is that many people need religion, simply for something to believe in, a reason to keep on living, and for comfort during difficult times.

Whether it truly effects the social health of a nation as opposed to secular society, I dont know, but I am sure it's not going anywhere anytime soon.

Well, there are human emotions such as compassion, but why exactly we have those feelings (apart from what I mentioned in my previous post) is definitely open for debate...

It is my opinion that it is mostly the surroundings and the people around us, especially during our childhood, that affect our sense of right and wrong. Most of the people in this forum have grown up and still live in relative luxury and therefore can 'afford' to have 'high' morals. Of course, the general characteristics of each person (most of which are inherited, I'd believe) at least partly define the response the person will have to each situation.

Of course. I was merely pointing out the flaw in the "might makes right" scenario. The fear of punishment, by law or by god, does not deter people from doing bad things. It's what's in us that counts.

I guess it all comes to down to the rights of the individual. Why would you need laws to limit other people from doing things that are not (potentially) harmful to other people or the society, nature, etc.? Why would you need to forbid other people from doing things that are 'crimes against God', and punish them for those? Wouldn't that be God's job? (I don't mean to offend anyone, but this is something my atheist mind has always been baffled by.)
For instance, homosexuality between adults, in the privacy of their own homes, is their own business. It's not something I like to think about but you won't see me trying to get between them. Things like abortion and euthanasia are more difficult to deal with, especially since there is so much emotions involved. Still, they most definitely fall into the category of individual choice where someone else's beliefs should have no effect.

Very well, but then be sure to apply it the other way around as well - 'Just because a large "non-religious" group believes in one thing does not mean they can impose their beliefs upon others'? Do you mean to say that anything goes, unless it's from a "religious" group (how ever you decide what a religion is) in which case it's not allowed? Are our laws only to be decided without taking into account our beliefs?

One thing, since you bring it up - I don't think gay people should be allowed "marriage". It dilutes the term to make it apply to so many things that it becomes meaningless. I'm all for equality before the law and such, but it would be good to find a better term for it. It's not about discrimination - it's about differentiation. There's a reason why men are to go into men's toilets, and women into women's toilets.

You've made a perfectly plausible point, but one that's limited in the viewpoint that religion is an opiate for the masses, of sorts, and "useful" for unifying people, comforting them and so on, but nothing more. Speculating what our world would be like if there was no religion is no more useful or supportive than speculating what our world would be like if there was no automobile.

If you're a professed atheist then that's only fair enough, but then I guess your mind's already closed to the possibility that religion is indeed our human response to whatever god we believe in (and though I am a Christian, let's not get into the debate about which god is real or some such).

If this sounds insulting, then I apologise, I don't mean to offend in manner of speech. I'm a little tired and short of time to be dealing in a roundabout way right now.

Yeah, but if I don't feel compassion, can I do what I want? Thus, IMO, feelings ought not be the basis of making laws or regulating behaviour. Getting back to the earlier point, efficacy and practicality aren't good reasons, either.

I suppose that could be possible. I'm more interested in seeing where those people get their morals from, if this is indeed the case.

Why do individuals get rights? Do animals in the jungle have rights?

You don't need to limit it to 'crimes against God'. There are plenty of people being punished for other 'non-religious' crimes - such as having someone kill you.

As for homosexuality, honestly I don't care. I say it's wrong, because the Bible says it's wrong (but that doesn't mean I hate the people - just the action) - but as for individuals who want to do whatever they want to do, I'm not going to do anything about it as such. It's not my business to make them act rightly. I have always felt that you should not even try to legislate holiness/religious righteousness.

That said, there is a case for political leaders being proper leaders and people who try to make the country a better place to live, and if their beliefs induce them to think that "oh, I reckon a country where divorce isn't so easy, since stable marriages make for good relationships and stable societies", then why should they be forced to act differently just because some people have a problem with the beliefs that are intrinsic to the political leader?