About secular morality.

I actually agree with some of what Aussie says, though I don't think his criticisms of secularism are entirely fair. I think you're misinterpreting him somewhat.

This is unfair. If it's true at all, it only refers to some of the proponents of secularism, and nor do I think it's entirely wrong. It is absolutely vital, to my mind, that politics are secular. Politicians may have any beliefs they want, and their morality may be guided by those beliefs. It is on these beliefs (and thus the policies they inspire) that citizens vote, after all. But no special consideration ought to be given to any religion, or indeed religion in general. It isn't the business of the state to validate god's existence or otherwise, and neither is it the state's business to punish people for criticising religion, or offering it insults that one might use to describe any organisation.

Insisting that people 'be secular' on the other hand, is different. It seems a bit of a non-sequitur to me, as secularism isn't a belief, just a state of non-interference in religious terms. Arguing in favour of atheism is pretty similar to trying to convert people to a particular religion. It may irritate some, but everyone does it in some way or another. It's a mark of a (somewhat) free society, and not one I'd sacrifice.

The rest, however, I agree with. He isn't saying that secularism is wrong, per say, just that the poster is incorrect in saying that secularism is the only valid form of morality. Most ways of thinking have their faults, true, and it's the duty of the philosophy's proponents to try to fix them.

I agree with what you say. Obviously, as someone who doesn't believe in any gods, I don't consider the argument from a non-existant being to be valid. But in the end, I choose the people I associate with in part because they are good people. I may sometimes enjoy a debate of this kind with them, but I don't much care where their goodness came from.

It should be noted that for some, particularly of the 'liberal' variety, scripture is not the source of their morality, but, shall we say, divinely inspired.

 

As with anything else, it's relative. The morality important to us is what benefits ourselves and the rest of society. "Thou shall not kill" is a rule meant to preserve people's right to life. And since killing someone is usually the direct opposite of benefiting them, we consider it to be unacceptably immoral. I don't mean to go into a philosophical mire by bringing in military or self defense actions, but it's safe to say that as far as our secular society goes, killing is objectively immoral and we need no declaration from God saying so.

My views are probably a weird fusion of religious and secular. According to Emerson (if I interpret his writing correctly) each of us has been given a spark of divine wisdom allowing us to trust ourselves. If we have a strong sense of what is right and wrong, it is correct and able to be applied to decisions made. In short, it's a sort of "Godly knowledge" that makes it possible to interpret the world and share it peacefully with others.

 

I try to use secular morality, but like many people already stated here, it's like trying to reason with a brick wall sometimes. I try to go for the common sense, logical approach, which some folks just don't understand. They always try to hide behind some scripture or the Bible in itself in order to back up their statements, which I find really irritating. My views are that the Bible, to me, is up to anyone's interpretation and serve as a guideline, dogma if you will, in order to live a better life. I just hate that some people take everything written in that book literally and at face value and try to spout their views on everyone who doesn't agree with them. Remember, the Bible was written by people and thus it can be altered over time due to bias and personal reasons. If people back in 1100 didn't like black people, then I'm pretty sure that they can just have said "God doesn't approve of black people". That was 914 years ago. Are we really going to call them out on it? We can't, and I hate that they try to use God as a scapegoat for their personal prejudices.

For these reasons, I like to have an infusion of religious, meaning that I still believe in God, and use more secular and practical approaches. I think God loves everyone single one of us despite our differences.

 

I poorly worded what I meant when I wrote "This is why secularism alienates people. Not only is it petty and self-aggrandising, it's also rather inaccurate." I was referring to the single statement Radioactive Bi made, not to secularism as a whole, the firm "we are the enlightened ones" without any back-up (the response I got was only a verbose repetition with no actual explanation).

I firmly believe in secular law, government, business, and education. But I do not believe that the non-religious have a moral monopoly, nor that the religious need to justify themselves in the absence of proselytism.

 

I am religious, but the vast majority of secular people I've met seemed perfectly capable of making morally correct decisions. Just because they don't believe in God doesn't make them go around killing people. I do agree somewhat that religious morality is often faulty because of misinterpretations of religious text. Nowhere in the Bible did it say that it was right to commit genocide, but the Spanish Inquisition still happened. And nobody expected it either. Sorry, that was bad.

 

You said it yourself though. They think it's gross and unnatural and interpret that as "wrong". Those aren't the same things, and in the case of homophobia, I can't imagine someone has weighed the circumstances and found that being gay is destructive in any but the most trivial ways.

I never meant to imply that "go with your gut feeling" is what he meant. I felt it was more along the lines of having the ability to separate right from wrong with careful reflection. It's still different than relying on some external set of moral principles such as the Bible to guide your thoughts and actions.

 

I think the whole "you must believe in God in order to be a decent person" argument is complete bullshit. If that was true, what if you stopped believing? Would you run around killing/raping everyone and feel no guilt or shame about it simply because there isn't a man in the sky to judge you? That sounds pretty fucking scary to me.

Regardless of whether or not the Bible says anything about genocide, you cannot ignore the fact that trillions and trillions of innocent people throughout history have been slaughtered in the name of religion.

Of course, I've met a lot of Christian people who have no problem with me being agnostic (some of which are now good friends of mine), so I don't hate everyone who's Christian. However, if someone who follows any religion starts to think they're automatically more moral than I am simply because I'm not religious, I disregard them.

 

The irony is that if they did actually follow their religion and didn't use their own secular morality to stop them, they would be raping people, killing people that ate shellfish, killing menstruating women that didn't segregate themselves away from society, and so on. Religion tells us to do these things, and our own conscience tells us not to.