Religion is Evil!

I am not suggesting that the US constitution be applied in all it’s glory to citizens of Iran residing in Iran. I am merely pointing out that a rather inconsistent moral approach is being taken here.Unless you think it is morally justifiable for foreign governments to kill US scientists on US soil because their work is perceived as potentially threatening by the foreign government in question I don’t really see how you can justify your approach to the act under discussion.Do you think other nations who feel threatened by scientific research taking place in the US have the moral right to have US scientists assassinated as they go about their daily lives? Do you think that those who did the killing are justified in taking on the role of being not only the "the world's police" - but also the world's judge jury and executioner?Do you think in the absence of a world police force it is a case of every nation for itself and anything-goes on that basis? I don't think I am espousing cultural relatavism so much as moral consistency.

Hmmmm....... isn't that a bit like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?

Yes the golden rule provides a reasonable basis for moral decision making. Christianity of course adopted the golden rule (which long predates Christianity) and has rephrased it in the way you describe.

No, but we are contemplating taking action against Canada in response to their not including sufficiently rigorous anti-circumvention provisions in their copyright statutes.

Absolutely. It is in fact pretty much a central part of all major World Religions. Even you atheists seem to buy into it. Maybe we should all agree that this is a universal truth and start insisting that the world run on that basis. At least I can't think of a better place to start.Edited by GDR, : typo

Lots of luck with that. We beat you the first time and we can do it again. Canada won the War of 1812, U.S. historian admits

I think he was talking about war, not hockey.

I think it's fair to say that most that have contemplated ethics, whether they be religious or not, have come up with some variant of the golden rule. It seems a pretty practical foundation on which to base moral conclusions for a social species such as ourselves.I don't think religion can lay particular claim to it however.

We can take you at hockey too. We got it covered all ways.

Can't disagree with that but it seems to me that it is such an ancient widely understood principle that it is suggestive that it might be an eternal universal truth, but it is possible that you would see that differently.

Straggler is saying that religion just so happened to have picked it up (poorly, I might add), but really has no stake in it. What you seem to be implying is that since most religions have that as some sort of basal motto, religion must be right or that religion must have coined it. You even threw in the "even you atheists agree" or something like that as your attempt to point out that religion gets to take credit for it.What you fail to see is that religion has utterly failed in it's execution of this motto, while humanism has taken the ball and run. Humanism at it's core espouses the motto. It's blindingly obvious that you attribute everything to religion and jesus, but this one just doesn't fit.

Actually if you read what I said I wasn't giving credit to religion. I was implying that there is truth that exists universally whether we exist or not, and that the "Golden Rule" would be an example. (maybe even the only example), of such a truth. As it being universal it would exist exclusive of any religion or world-view if I am correct.I know how hesitant you are to disagree but feel free to do so. Cheers

Message 197
Sounded a bit to me like an insinuation saying "well isn't that what jesus said??" Feel free to correct me. Message 200
If not trying to attribute it to religion, why bother saying this? Message 205
I see the word eternal in there which is the religious way of shoehorning in god without saying god. You even go on to acknowledge that straggler would possibly disagree. Why? Because of your use of "eternal" perhaps? And you would be wrong. But I can see why you would want that to be so.
{abe}
I'm pretty sure that as soons as humans acquired sentience, we realized that we kinda need to get along in some form of society in order to survive. In order for a society to function, it just doesn't pay for every individual to be wholly selfish. For humanity yes. Me? Hesitant to disagree? Surely you jest..Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"Universal truths" are wishy-washy nonsense.The "golden rule" stems from simple empathy, the ability to see other individuals as similar to oneself.It's "universal" among humans because complex features (like brains) within a species evolve together - there's a reason that smiling is universal, a reason we can all feel sadness and happiness and anxiety and joy, a reason that a psychiatrist can prescribe the same medication to a hundred patients and have it work in roughly similar ways, and the reason is that our brains are all very similar.Morality does not stem from the laws of physics. There is no term for fairness in the laws of motion. There is nothing in the Universe looking out for us, no special meaning from on high.But we don't need that. We give the Universe and our lives meaning, we create fairness, we determine right from wrong by how we want to treat others and how we want others to treat us. The answer to the question "what is the meaning of life" is "whatever you want the meaning of your life to be!"

Well I guess I quoted the version most familiar to me but I meant it in a broader sense. I was simply trying to point out that is is something that the vast majority of people of any religion or any non-religious person could agree on. I wasn't really trying to be subtle. I was just saying that it might be indicative of something beyond ourselves knowing that Straggler would have another explanation. (Actually I really enjoy Straggler's well thought out posts and agree with him much of the time even though we come at things from a different perspective.) It isn't that I want it to be so, it is that I believe it to be so. I could just as easily say that you would want it to be wrong. That could very well be true and it could be that there is nothing but the natural material world. However, even if your statement is 100% correct that doesn't eliminate the possibility that our sense of the golden rule evolved from some greater truth beyond ourselves. We all believe things we can't prove or know. Maybe, but there exists forms of co-operation which might be considered "the golden rule lite" amongst animals. I can't get anything by you - can I.