"Still can't help wondering if suddenly magic happened and there were no religions in the world, if peace couldn't be finally achieved."

I could not agree more with this sentiment, MaraM. If one looks at the modern world, it certainly seems that much of practiced religion is a major hindrance to human solidarity, the peaceful arts, and intellectual progress.
Cheers,
John

name='jgweed' post='575777' date='Jul 23 2007, 12:12 PM'
I could not agree more with this sentiment, MaraM. If one looks at the modern world, it certainly seems that much of practiced religion is a major hindrance to human solidarity, the peaceful arts, and intellectual progress.
Cheers,
John

I don't know what you think John, but where do you believe religion "comes from"....and what's to say in your dream world that religious concepts and practices would not surface?

I am unconcerned about the origin of religion, but I would make an educated guess that it does NOT come from some benign god. Nor do I think that there is some "religious sense" that is innate in mankind.
Regards,
John

lol...benign god...perhaps you believe it came from a malign god?

Well, then you still don't know if it would surface in your dream world. I contend that it would.

Are you talking about "religion" as portrayed by many people, or the generic concept of "religion"?

I could see where god, hopefully benign, would allow and not stifle a belief system.

I could also see where mankind would hope and maybe assume based on the "unknown" that there is something else.

This should make the people crying tolerance happy...that this TV station is standing up for its belief in tolerance....

VisionTV gives Islamic radical more air time.

Excerpt: TORONTO - A day after saying it regretted broadcasting a lecture by a Pakistani preacher who says Muslim scripture advocates violent holy war and the “extermination” of Jews, VisionTV put him back on the air again this weekend....

(Source)

Judge not lest ye be judged yourself.

I don't mind, and am prepared. If you really are concerned however...research discernment as it pertains to judgment.

Once again, the point seems to be made. No religion, less hate and bickering and deaths.

Obviously you haven't thought that when I said "Or their will be trouble" that I meant in the near future we might have conflict of ideals(meaning in the near future we will end up in some sort of arguement), I did not mean this as a threat, but whatever, you are assuming again. and yes you have stated directly you thought Islam is fundamentally wrong and want to prove it, you may think it's wrong but I take offense to that, and it doesn't matter because you are still posting mostly about Islamic extreamists, all pointing back to your theory that "Islam is fundamentally wrong" and I would definately call it a smear campaign to get on a public forum and say one religion is wrong and just spam a whole bunch of articles only defending your side/thoughts, that would be considered propaganda in most countries. Besides I never specificly called it a smear campaign, but that word works well.

There is no 'winning' when it comes to tolerance of religious differences of many. The zealots of all faiths have caused and continue to cause massive harm to others.

Christianity is not innocent of harm and few faiths are - and nearly every one of us could, if we wished to, find links showing zealots of nearly all faiths, including those of Christianity, causing harm, both in the past and during current times.

But would it be helpful? Would it be kind? Indeed, it may even seem a tad tacky to do so as hurting another's feelings or slamming their faith is, in itself, commiting a wrong to the innocent person belonging to that same faith, is it not?

So what people only kill over religion? Read the news people, MOST killings and crimes are NEVER over religion its say, money or he called me a name so he deserves to die.



Mara I am going to sound the intolerance horn on you,

So mara would not taking peoples rights away to believe the way they want be intolerance? Saying if you could you would take away all religions would be like saying "I dont believe in religion, any of them and I don't like people fighting over who is right and wrong anymore so I am going to FORCE(by taking away religion) you to believe like I do."????

Lets look at what webster says on intolerance:

unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights :

I can not force anyone to believe the way I do. Killing someone because they do not believe like you is wrong.

What I am getting at is taking away religion is like forcing them to believe like you do.

Webster on religion:
the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

Would not taking away religion make everyone atheists?

I hate to disappoint you both, but if even if there were no religions in the world, humanity would still fight over land and natural resources. You also forgot humanities basic tendency toward greed and jealousy. This will always bring humans into conflict and ruin any attempt at utopia. Just being realistic here. I would say it is more likely these other forces that will take advantage of people's faith and twist it, resulting in mass suffering.

Seafox14

You're likely right, SeaFox ... mankind seems to have a basic 'flaw' even the few that exercise it versus the many that don't, it still would like cause woe in our poor world.

I don't mind if you "sound the intolerance horn" on me, CGM. But please don't say it's intolerance when I wish I could 'wish' all religions away - as in 'poof!'. I'm not sure that would be much different that you wishing all people would be Christian, perhaps? A wish is a wish and not an action. And as SeaFox pointed out, many would likely find something else to 'worship'.

But you are right, CGM, I can be intolerant. It upsets me when someone of any faith starts bashing those who belong to another faith. I'm intolerant - silently but still intolerant - of those that walk by the homeless when it's over 90 degrees and pretend they don't see them, let alone think of handing them a couple bottles of water. I'm intolerant - extremely - of those who deliberately harm innocent people, especially children. Yes, I have many flaws and I'm afraid intolerance can surely be one of them- gentle smile.

I can make up any hypothetical I want and make it work in my mind...but it doesn't make it true.

Show an example.

Am I assuming?

(Ussr post)

What happened to the remark?


I have asked you repeatedly ussr to show why you believe islam is peaceful....how the life of mohammed was peaceful and how he taught peace and tolerance. To show how the fundamentals of islam are peace and harmony and tolerance with the rest of the world. You keep telling me to find the good that is going on....yet you are unwilling to show it yourself.....why is that?

Actually, if there were only one religion, and everyone believed in it, there probably would be much less hate, bickering, or deaths.


Just an observation.

Okay, I'd be happy to compromise and have one Faith for those who believe in a Higher Being - I'd agree to darn near anything that would end the centuries of bickering and hate that has been based on 'my religion is better than yours' attitude of so many.

jwinathome, I know you mean no harm but remember when names of Christian religious leaders were mentioned who, in my opinion at least, were the cause of hate and intolerance towards others? We all know people like this exist - and we all know people like this exist in all religions, including ussr1943's.

Perhaps the point should be that all teachings within any religion are not bad. Period. Millions live in peace, including those that have immigrated to your country and mine. Peaceful, hardworking people who live by their Faith, yet cause no harm to others. That is 'proving' something in itself, is it not?

name='MaraM' date='Jul 24 2007, 12:47 PM' post='576690']
Okay, I'd be happy to compromise and have one Faith for those who believe in a Higher Being - I'd agree to darn near anything that would end the centuries of bickering and hate that has been based on 'my religion is better than yours' attitude of so many.

jwinathome, I know you mean no harm but remember when names of Christian religious leaders were mentioned who, in my opinion at least, were the cause of hate and intolerance towards others? We all know people like this exist - and we all know people like this exist in all religions, including ussr1943's.

Perhaps the point should be that all teachings within any religion are not bad. Period. Millions live in peace, including those that have immigrated to your country and mine. Peaceful, hardworking people who live by their Faith, yet cause no harm to others. That is 'proving' something in itself, is it not?


As you demonstrated though, there is a giant line between what people would call "radical Christians" and what people would call "radical muslims".

I asked you to post what atrocities or acts of terrorism that were done by your cited examples. I did not see them....if they are there, I will happily go back and read.

We also pointed out that there are many BAD teachings in Christianity. I think they should be exposed, and I have no problem with it. I don't know what religion ussr is either...and it is not relevant to my opinion of islam.

Yup, the names are there - back in the posts where I mentioned that in my opinion they were 'guilty' of inciting others to intolerance, etc.

Radical Muslims kill innocent people.

Radical Christians kill innocence. (And in some cases, innocent people too - abortion clinic bombings, etc).

Radicals of any Faith are far from harmless. Peaceful people in any Faith are wonderful.

"I don't know what religion ussr is either...and it is not relevant to my opinion of islam". No, it need not be relevant to your opinion of Islam - but a constant bashing of another's Faith is relevant to him and others.

Might I suggest that a bit of research be done in finding examples of the goodness people of the Muslim faith do for others?

No, no....I asked for you to show evidence that the people you cited committed acts of terrorism. You directly compared them with islamic extremists.


Might I suggest that a bit of research be done in finding examples of the goodness people of the Muslim faith do for others?

Its been suggested plenty of times...yet nobody that cries intolerance over my posts is willing to do it themselves. I find that interesting.


but a constant bashing of another's Faith is relevant to him and others. This mentality to me, is most perplexing. I post stories from the press, yet there are no outcries over the press reporting these things. The cries are against me....not even against the acts of terrorism (particularly in ussr's case), or what they might call "extremism", which I contend is taught in islam.

Its all my opinion of published news items as well as the published qur'an. How is that bashing?

We seem to be going 'in circles' ourself -

Yes, you asked me to 'show evidence' that the people mentioned commited acts of terrorism. And I replied that while they themselves may not have lifted the hand that strikes down their enemy, they undoubtedly have incited/urged on people towards intolerance towards others - which, in turn can lead to violence and worse.

So I say to you again, if 'proof' is wanted, prove that those people mentioned did not preach hate and intolerance to others.

And I say to you, why don't you look for the good within the people who's religion is taking a bashing, I wonder? The member we are speaking of does not have to 'prove' the text he follows contains goodness ... nor does anyone else have to 'prove' their particular text does. Rather, actions speak for themself. And he and others similar to him follow that Faith and lead kind and tolerance lives.

I'm sorry I'm apparently not explaining myself well here but bashing of any religion, either by a person or a newcast, is still 'bashing'. Bashing of a person or persons within a religion who behaves badly - well, I'm all for it.

For yes, ""extremism", which I contend is taught in islam" exists - but when I mentioned the people earlier I could - and do say - "extremism", which I contend is taught is Christianity" applies to some but not all that follow Christianity, too.

Those who stand in their pulpit and call themselves Christians and firmly believe they are basing their words on the interpretation of God's wishes - and teach their followers to see others as evil or wrong and a threat to themselves - how is that different, I wonder? Shame on all of them - from any Faith - and cheers to all those that live a good life filled with kindness and tolerance towards others, no matter their Faith.

Well said MaraM!! Sadly it seems that tolerance is in short supply lately. Certain religions (and the majority of people who subscribe to them) seemed to have been singled out and bashed on unashamedly. As a Christian I find this hard line approach repugnent. I believe the quote is "Judge not lest ye be judged" is appropriate at this time.
To those who choose not to follow any religious order, from what I have read in the post on this site, the majority of you are in a position to make an informed decision as to how you choose to live your life and knowing some of you the way that I do I find you much less than evil or threatening but rather very kind and decent people and I wish for you only the best.
I have posted my opinion here and see no need to argue the why's and wherefores of my beliefs any further and I feel no need to justify my feelings to anyone on this earth. So with my regards to all I wish you well.

Iodine

My thoughts exactly 'MaraM' and 'Iodine'. I have tolerance for everyone and the Faith they choose.I say live and let live.
Everyone should look in their own backyard first,instead of continually throwing stones.Once a point is made,I think it's time to move on,instead of a prolonged vendetta against one particular Religious Faith.I don't think that is being very Christian Like.

I would like to ask a question, though -

speaking about the world today,

which religious extremists are causing the most concern worldwide?


I'm having a problem comparing a Christian action group that bombs an abortion clinic with a Muslim group that bombs a subway, or a restaurant, or a building containing multi-national people such as the World Trade Center.

I fail to see your point 'John Who' Why bother comparing any of them unless your advocating a Forbes 100 type list.
These killings are Crimes against Humanity and they are all evil.They all need to be eliminated.IMO.

I agree that they should all be eliminated.

They aren't equally threatening to the same portions of our global society, however.

Using the examples I cited, one threatens a very small group of people at very specific clinics while the other threatens virtually anyone who isn't "one of them" (and in many cases, doesn't even make that distinction).

Seems pretty clear to me.

The KKK was (is) a Christian organization, so is the IRA I believe. The list can go on and on of Christian extremists who will kill anyone not like them or opposing them.

My point : one is no better then the other

I wouldn't exactly call the KKK a "Christian" group - Wikipedia - Ku Klux Klan.

I would say that from what I understand, real Christians speak out against the KKK in a much stronger manner than Muslims speak out against terrorist groups acting in the name of Islam.


I agree that the hate groups are equally reprehensible,

but on a global scale, some deserve more attention than others, in my opinion.

Some people are scared to live next to muslims and infact have them in our country. Mainly because they fear they are growing in numbers and just waiting for the word that its time to set off bombs and kill the americans.

Why fear? The Jehovah's Witnesses, Baptists, and Seventh Day Advetists I can see they come knocking on your door in groups but Muslims have always kept to themselves around me. Nice, outgoing people but they don't knock on my door telling me I'm gonna go to Hell because i got a beer in my hand and 4 guys passed out in the living room holding their bottles (very funny story from college, will tell it some time).

The only reason they are feared is because they are "new" to us Americans.

Fear turns to Hate, Hate turns to Violence, Violence destroys us all.

Yea though I walk through the valley of the Shadow of Death I fear no man..... you finish it how you like but for me Its because I'm the baddest one here. (Saw it on a T-Shirt and it clicked with me)

One more thought on fear No Hope = No Fear. (Soulfly Song. BTW Soulfly is founded on Christian beliefs)

I agree DSTM ...one killing or a thousand killings. Each evil. It does not good to blame deaths on a religion. We've covered the fact that Hitler firmly and utterly believed he was a Christian (and again, I suggest one does some thorough academic research if finding this statement unfounded). In fact, that is one of the largest reasons he managed to convince so many German Christians that what he/they believed in was the will of God. So to start comparing apples to pears is a tad useless perhaps.


And BlackSpyder, you are spot on. Fear. It's an ugly thing in many ways. For those the feel the fear within them and especially for those that are feared. It wasn't all that long ago many here in Canada had a huge fear of all the Chinese arriving, and what we did to the people of Japan who were Canadian citizens and even to their children born here in Canada during the war, makes me feel shame.

Most of us are descended from people who fled their home countries for one reason or another - war included. Unless Native American or First Nations for instance, chances are pretty darn good that our ancestors were feared by someone when they arrived.

Can we not put nationalities/religions aside and judge people simply for their actions here and now as they live among us trying to do as our parents and grandparents did - have a better life for themselves and their children.

The only reason they are feared is because they are "new" to us Americans.

What about the countries where they aren't new? Your point?

Look what the massive influx of islamic migrants has brought to Britain.


Fear turns to Hate, Hate turns to Violence, Violence destroys us all.

why not just say fear destroys us all?

We've covered the fact that Hitler firmly and utterly believed he was a Christian (and again, I suggest one does some thorough academic research if finding this statement unfounded). In fact, that is one of the largest reasons he managed to convince so many German Christians that what he/they believed in was the will of God. So to start comparing apples to pears is a tad useless perhaps.

He may at a point in his life believed he was a christian...but his life in absolutely no way reflected biblical principles....and he very much hated Christianity and was set against all Christians later in his life.....at the point where massive amounts of people were being killed...he was a major proponent of darwinism.

The statement you make is not unfounded, its just deceptive. Any time someone says "I suggest one does some thorough academic research", rather than providing their own research that led to the conclusion, it shows little informational integrity.

Can we not put nationalities/religions aside and judge people simply for their actions here and now

Judging people based on their actions here and now....Judging them....I'm confused.

I would love to see the information that leads you to this statement....actually, I would love to see the list.

The list can go on and on of Christian extremists who will kill anyone not like them or opposing them.

I despise the kkk. As I despise abortion clinic bombers.

Christians everywhere denounce and also despise these two elements. You would be hard-pressed to find Christians that would endorse or condone the actions of either. I'm sure it wouldn't be anything like 25% of them.....

(For whatever polls are worth.)

According to the Pew Research Center poll released late last month, about 25% of American Muslims ages 18 to 19 said, "the use of suicide bombing against civilian targets to defend Islam could be justified, at least on rare occasions."

More from the research...

* 40% acknowledge that Arabs orchestrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks, while 32% declined to answer the question.

* 16% of Muslim Americans believe that the rights and needs of Palestinian Arabs cannot be taken care of as long as Israel exists.

* 26% of Muslim Americans believe that the war on terrorism is a “sincere effort,� compared with 67% of the general public.

* 60% of Muslim Americans under the age of 30 regard themselves as Muslim first, Americans second, while only

*25% regard themselves as American first (47% of the entire population of Muslim Americans regard themselves as Muslim first and American second, with 28% regarding themselves as American first).

* 58% -- of Muslim Americans have a very unfavorable view of Al-Qaeda. Also of great concern is the fact that over a quarter of Muslim Americans declined to indicate their view of Al-Qaeda).

* 51% -- of Muslim Americans are concerned about the rise of Islamist extremism around world.

One post at a time now



look at what the IRA did for years to England and Ireland. and it was their homeland



It's a Yoda-ism (You've seen Starwars right?) Also your version doesnt convey the whole point.



Uh like JohnWho stated the Klan is no longer a national entity and every sect has its own ways. In some places racism and religion go hand in hand, Ive been to one too many of them not to put one and one together (coal country).



How many were saying what people wanted to hear so not to sound like a terrorist themselves.



What were the choices and what was the demographic?


I will get you your list.

Christain Extremist Groups at Wikipedia

SPLC's hate group page

Also check the Hate Directory (just goggle it I'm not about to post it here) and start counting.Got sick of it after the 3rd page.

Re: "Christians everywhere denounce and also despise these two elements" . Hmmm. 'Regular' Christians yes. But one must remember surely that in the minds of the people belonging to these radical groups they are Christians. Ergo, if you believe you are a Christian, you are. Even if condemmed by others within your own Faith it doesn't change how they view themselves.

I do not tar all Christians with the same brush as those belonging to the radical groups nor the ones who bomb abortion clinics, etc. Nor should we tar all Muslims with the same brush as those that do violence.

The people in the past that fought religious wars or did other violence - we may (and I do) think of them as having had 'warped minds' and 'warped views' on Christianity - but at the time, the people then involved believed with every fibre of their being that they were not just Christians but good Christians.

Just as I honestly believe that there are many groups that firmly believe themself good Muslims - yet 'regular' Muslims do not consider them so - and likely think of them as having 'warped minds' and 'warped views' on being a good Muslim.

As I said before, we should surely judge each person on his or her individual actions, rather than religion.


P.S. re: Judging people based on their actions here and now....Judging them....I'm confused. Nope, I suspect you aren't confused at all.

Right, looked through. They are all horrible....most of the groups don't acknowledge the deity of Jesus Christ. Interesting.

Anyway....thanks for posting. I think its good to expose the rabid hateful Christian terrorist groups that exist.

look at what the IRA did for years to England and Ireland. and it was their homeland

What does the IRA have to do with anything? Namely what do they have to do with imposing their religion upon the world? (Aside: I am not catholic.)

It's a Yoda-ism (You've seen Starwars right?) Also your version doesnt convey the whole point.

Not a big fan of yoda... Beyond that, there really was no point more than to just make a person think about fear.

Uh like JohnWho stated the Klan is no longer a national entity and every sect has its own ways. In some places racism and religion go hand in hand, Ive been to one too many of them not to put one and one together (coal country).

While I am sorry that you were exposed to that...its all but vanished...and declaring a vague statement like "some places" don't really convey your point. I would still like to see the "list" that "goes on and on." I looked through the Wikipedia, and many of these groups are intertwined. (Many of which are just hate speech, and not committing physical acts of terrorism.)

How many were saying what people wanted to hear so not to sound like a terrorist themselves. Strawman argument.

I could make the ridiculous argument that "only God knows what's in their heart." Looking at the way they conduct their lives (various leaders) is probably the best way to figure it out. "Ye shall know them by their fruits."

What were the choices and what was the demographic?

I'm not willing to pay for the information.

I will get you your list.

Thank you, like I said above...I think its a good idea to expose the hateful Christian organizations (if you want to call them organizations). I said in another thread (I think), that the Kingdom of God is not spread through imposition and conquest.


See, now this is a good discussion. Thanks BlackSpyder.

Assumptions have been made about atheists in this thread and hopefully we've cleared a few things up - such as there is no 'group' of atheists that follow the same anything other than the fact each is a 'unbeliever'. And even more hopefully, we've cleared up the fact that it doesn't take religion to make a 'good' person nor to provide a reason or be the 'cause' of knowing/doing 'right from wrong', etc.

Now, in defense of a religion that seems to have taken quite a bashing in this thread:

"If anyone harms (others), God will harm him, and if anyone shows hostility to others, God will show hostility to him." Sunan of Abu-Dawood, Hadith 1625.

And a great source to find out info is:

"THE TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM, the "best, short introduction to Islam," has been published in Foreign Affairs, The Brown Journal of World Affairs, Washington Report On Middle East Affairs, Teacher Magazine, The Washington Times, Islamic Horizons, etc" ... just click on the following link to read a 'card' with the info on it.

http://www.twf.org/Truth/iCard1.pdf

It can't hurt to read it - one needn't accept it - but to not read the 'other side' is to close ourselves off to honest evaluation and understanding of those we fear and/or judge unduly, perhaps.

Thank you for the link MaraM, I found it very interesting and informative.
You are definatly right, one can not give a true and proper evaluation of anything if they don't take the time to learn as much as possible about the thing that they are evaluating and forming an opinion of.

Thanks for the link MaraM.

However, I have a real issue with some of the things they say - in particular:

Islamic society comes closer than any other society to the ideal democracy.

The European Court of Human Rights determined that "sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy" and that its "plurality of legal systems, grounded on religion" was ruled to contravene the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It was determined that it would "do away with the State's role as the guarantor of individual rights and freedoms" and "infringe the principle of non-discrimination between individuals as regards their enjoyment of public freedoms, which is one of the fundamental principles of democracy". It was further ruled that:

[T]he Court considers that sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it. […] It is difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverges from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervenes in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.

Sharia law condones punishments such as amputation of one/both hands for theft, and stoning to death for adultery. Under sharia law non-Muslims are second-class citizens in that they cannot serve in public office, cannot testify in court and must follow certain rules meant for living on Muslim land and under Muslim protection such as paying the jizya (a kind of tribute).

We've already established that you don't believe in God.

I ask sincerely...how can we take you seriously when you defend islam?


t can't hurt to read it - one needn't accept it - but to not read the 'other side' is to close ourselves off to honest evaluation and understanding of those we fear and/or judge unduly, perhaps. And you assume that "people" haven't read the 'other side'. You know what they say about assuming.


An example of the "other side" I have read, listened to, and studied.

The Great Courses - Great World Religions, Islam (By the Teaching Company), taught by Professor John L. Esposito of Georgetown University.) He lays out the entire facts of islam and is of the mindset that it is actually a peaceful religion. I disagree with him. But either way...this is ONE example of the reading I have done in favor of islam.

I certainly appreciate what Enver Masud is trying to do, and the times that he has spoken out against terrorism. Oddly enough though, he has written some things that could be seen (and are seen by many) as anti-semitic. (I don't have the material readily available, so this is my claim.) He is also a 9/11 truther.

Atheists' morals are not absolute. They do not have a set of moral laws from an absolute God by which right and wrong are judged. But they do live in societies that have legal systems with a codified set of laws. This would be the closest thing to moral absolutes for atheists. However, since the legal system changes, the morals in a society can still change, along with its moral laws. At best, these codified morals are "temporary absolutes." In one century, abortion is wrong. In another, it is right. So, if we ask if it is or isn't right, the atheist can only tell us his opinion.

An opinion which is only based upon the societal opinion. Doesn't sound an awful lot like free thinking to me. Of course, that's only my opinion.

Since the great majority of atheists are evolutionists, their morality, like evolution, is the product of purely natural and random processes that become self-serving.

These are just opinions....If you want to take the time Mara, would you mind pointing out where the above statements are not correct? I understand all of the above may not represent any or all of your views.

And another opinion would be that basing one's morality on a religious text doesn't sound an awful lot like free thinking.


I do not consider myself an atheist, but I do not have much of a problem with this statement. Although I would say that while morality is the product of a natural process, I would not call it random. I would say it is the product of a rational process.

"Atheists' morals are not absolute. They do not have a set of moral laws from an absolute God by which right and wrong are judged. At best, these [social]codified morals are "temporary absolutes." In one century, abortion is wrong. In another, it is right. So, if we ask if it is or isn't right, the atheist can only tell us his opinion."

Of course, "atheist" morals are not absolute, but at least they own up to the fact. Now to label a well-thought out position about what are correct moral choices as mere "opinion" does not, it seems to me, do justice to this.
On the other hand, the "absolute" morality based on a religious text is far from unchanging. The early Christian attitudes towards slavery or towards the position of women in society is but one obvious example. It seems that even with "absolute" morality that it is also subject to interpretation, but at least some adherents of this view are not willing to accept that it is nevertheless and still an interpretation based on individual choices about what is right and wrong. Any morality can become, no matter what its basis, self-serving.
And in both cases, it is always a matter of individual choice about whether a particular action fits a particularly moral imperative, or is an exception. Ethics, no matter what the source, is always subject to the ambiguity human situations,
I should also point out that there is no logical reason why an atheist could not accept Christian morality as absolutely binding.

"Since the great majority of atheists are evolutionists, their morality, like evolution, is the product of purely natural and random processes that become self-serving."

I am not clear about the link between atheism, evolution, and morality. How does the acceptance of evolution as a scientific theory CAUSE their ethics to be a product of natural or random processes, or CAUSE these processes to become self-serving? Or how does it CAUSE it to be any different than religious interpretations of morality?

Regards,
John

And another opinion would be that basing one's morality on a religious text doesn't sound an awful lot like free thinking.

I understand your point, but I was talking about atheism, as usually atheists make the claim that they are free-thinkers, and think completely on their own.

I do not consider myself an atheist, but I do not have much of a problem with this statement. Although I would say that while morality is the product of a natural process, I would not call it random. I would say it is the product of a rational process.

Rationality is subjective, and not something that could be proven with science.

"Rationality is subjective, and not something that could be proven with science."

Can you explain what you mean by rationality? Reason seems to be not only objective, but transcendental in that it is one of the defining characteristics of humanity. And could you explain how science could prove or disprove rationality, since it could do so only by using reason itself?
Cheers,
John

I think for a person of your intellectual magnitude John, the phrase was very self-explanatory. What you are getting into is your "circularity" thing.

Reason is used to justify rationality, rationality is based on reason. Fun isn't it. (I realize I may not have said that right. But each one is justified by another.)


is the product of a natural process, I would not call it random. I would say it is the product of a rational process.

So we have one natural process that is a rational process...which does not agree with evolutionary theory. What natural mechanism randomly generated a rational process? We are talking about origins, right?