the right religion

[Enai de a lukal]

Who are you to tell somebody that their system of ethics is right or wrong?

I'm not. I'm saying that it doesn't follow that morality is a matter of taste from the fact that moral systems disagree- its possible that some systems are right and some are wrong. I'm not saying this is the case or saying I know which one(s) are right and which are wrong, I'm saying this possibility makes your inference non-sequitur.

It seems to me that people are only right when they agree with you, which is a matter of opinion and not based in fact of any kind.

No, in certain cultures it is morally acceptable to commit violence in situations in which we would deem it morally unacceptable. This means that moral values are a function of sociocultural convention, not individual taste.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

No, in certain cultures it is morally acceptable to commit violence in situations in which we would deem it morally unacceptable. This means that moral values are a function of sociocultural convention, not individual taste.

"We" and "society" being people that agree with you, and everyone else not being a part of society...

 

[Enai de a lukal]

"We" and "society" being people that agree with you, and everyone else not being a part of society...

No, I'm talking about the particular sociocultural group I belong to, and "we" being the other members of that group, as I (perhaps mistakenly) assume you to be. Different cultures have different rules, just like different games have different rules. Over here in our culture, we're playing chess, as it were, and "bishops move diagonally" is true, according to this particular game. Over there in a different culture, they're playing a different game with different rules, in which "bishops move diagonally" is NOT true. Now the game we're playing in my sociocultural setting is not better nor are its rules "more right" than any other, just different.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

No, I'm talking about the particular sociocultural group I belong to, and "we" being the other members of that group, as I (perhaps mistakenly) assume you to be. Different cultures have different rules, just like different games have different rules. Over here in our culture, we're playing chess, as it were, and "bishops move diagonally" is true, according to this particular game. Over there in a different culture, they're playing a different game with different rules, in which "bishops move diagonally" is NOT true. Now the game we're playing in my sociocultural setting is not better nor are its rules "more right" than any other, just different.

1) You're saying it's not up to the opinions of the individual but the opinions of the group they identify with, which still makes it a matter of opinion

2) Don't lump me in with your society. According to your template, I'm my own society

 

[Sha'irullah]

There is nothing religious about a lack of religion and no OP is going to help that.


I agree it is a path.

If the lack of religion is a path then it counts. The OP states....

there r many religion in the world, but surly there r only one right religion, but how could we reach the right believe, the right path?

This is just a general word for a believe in god and non-religiousness counts. But you dislike this as it does not agree with your religion and you wish to remove another factor out of the equation, right

 

[Enai de a lukal]

1) You're saying it's not up to the opinions of the individual but the opinions of the group they identify with, which still makes it a matter of opinion

Not opinion, convention.

I'm my own society

Lol... That's a neat trick. How special for you. I guess when they say "no man is an island" they hadn't met you, eh?

Silly.

 

[Sha'irullah]

1) You're saying it's not up to the opinions of the individual but the opinions of the group they identify with, which still makes it a matter of opinion

2) Don't lump me in with your society. According to your template, I'm my own society

This is the most enlightened thought I have heard from any individual speak in this thread.

Society is baggage and without individual awareness your usefulness is nil. Rejection of norms is the best thing one can do in his/her life because without societal rejection non of the geniuses whose works benefit society would have existed.
Enlightened philosophers, inventors and creators had to abruptly leave societal exceptions and present a giant middle finger with their individuality.
:clap bravo

 

[Enai de a lukal]

If the lack of religion is a path then it counts.

Well, but "path" is not what the word "religion" means in English, especially not any scholarly contexts. So whether it counts as a religion according to a useless definition of "religion" is a moot point.

Non-religion/non-theism as an active and conscious disbelief or rejection of belief in God/gods (i.e. "positive" atheism) has only one feature in common with religions- i.e. an epistemic stance towards the existence of deities, and non-religion/non-theism simply as a lack of ANY epistemic stance towards deities, positive or negative, lacks even that. And all the other crucial features common to religions; ritual, a canon, commitment, metaphysical presuppositon and so on, are absent, and so it is obviously not a religion or religious in any substantial or conventional sense whatsoever.

Thus referring to it as a religion is simply misleading and an abuse of language.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Not opinion, convention.

So, if these "moral conventions" were not invented by each society finding out what the majority of each individual within that society's personal opinions were on each issue, please tell me how they decided what was right and wrong. Did their respective gods tell them?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

this is the most enlightened thought i have heard from any individual speak in this thread.

lol...

 

[Sha'irullah]

Well, but "path" is not what the word "religion" means in English, especially not any scholarly contexts. So whether it counts as a religion according to a useless definition of "religion" is a moot point.

Non-religion/non-theism as an active and conscious disbelief or rejection of belief in God/gods (i.e. "positive" atheism) has only one feature in common with religions- i.e. an epistemic stance towards the existence of deities, and non-religion/non-theism simply as a lack of ANY epistemic stance towards deities, positive or negative, lacks even that. And all the other crucial features common to religions; ritual, a canon, commitment, metaphysical presuppositon and so on, are absent, and so it is obviously not a religion or religious in any substantial or conventional sense whatsoever.

Thus referring to it as a religion is simply misleading and an abuse of language.

You are abusing common sense with your own incompetence for the English language. Religion and god are NOT EQUAL.

I reject religion and I believe in god. Non-religiousness includes Deism which is a branch of theology outside of non-theism and traditional theism. Considering the amount of Deists we have on this board I am surprised you did not know this. There is a fundamental difference in the rejection religion and rejection god. I of all people am the most harshest critic of religion on this forum to the greater extent and I am a god believer

You obviously missed 99% of what i said

 

[Enai de a lukal]

So, if these "moral conventions" were not invented by each society finding out what the majority of each individual within that society's personal opinions were on each issue

It wasn't as if each primitive society took a poll, and whatever the results of the poll were became codified as a system of norms values.

please tell me how they decided what was right and wrong. Did their respective gods tell them?

I've already mentioned it; anthropology and evolutionary biology suggest that norms and values had an evolutionary function in that they helped societies and in-groups cooperate better. And different societies grew in different environments, with different needs, and thus slightly different values were formed. If you're honestly interested in what it looks like the origin of morals actually were, this may be a place to start-

Morality and Evolutionary Biology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Sha'irullah]

lol...

Give credit to where it due

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You are abusing common sense with your own incompetence for the English language.

Doesn't look like it. In any case, your bare assertion isn't going to be enough- say where and how I'm "abusing common sense" or displaying "incompetence for the English language"

Religion and god are NOT EQUAL.

An astute observation, sherlock.

I reject religion and I believe in god. Non-religiousness includes Deism which is a branch of theology outside of non-theism and traditional theism.

Deism is a form of theism. It is certainly a borderline case between philosophical theism and a religion proper. But it probably has sufficient similarities to warrant a loose identification as a religion in certain contexts, not others. And it seems you're using "religion" as a somewhat normative term rather than a descriptive one, which is likely the cause of your emotionally driven response.

In any case, my point regarding non-religion still stands, and it just looks like you were so hasty in your negative reaction to my post that you failed to sufficiently grasp it. You should probably try reading more slowly.

The point is that non-religion/non-theism, including even positive atheism, is not itself a religion or religious, and that the definition of religion that would render it as one (i.e. religion as "a path") is obviously a poor definition.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Consider the question: “Does morality require that we make substantial sacrifices to help distant strangers?” Such a question arises from the deliberative standpoint as we seek to determine how we ought to live, and it is a normative rather than an empirical question. We are not here asking an anthropological question about some actual moral code—even that of our own society—but a normative question that might lead us to a new moral code. When we use ‘morality’ in the normative sense, it is meant to refer to however it is we ought to live, i.e., to a set of norms that ought to be adopted and followed.[2]

Philosophers employ this normative sense of ‘morality’ or ‘moral’ in posing a variety of both normative and metaethical questions: What does morality require of us? Does morality have a purely consequentialist structure, as utilitarians claim? What kind of meaning do claims about morality in the normative sense have? Are there moral truths—i.e., truths about morality in the normative sense—and if so, what are they grounded in and how can we come to know them? Is morality culturally relative or at least partly universal? (Note that this is not the same as the anthropological question whether or to what extent morality in the empirical sense varies from culture to culture.)

Sounds to me like it's a matter of opinion

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Sounds to me like it's a matter of opinion

Then you should perhaps look up the word "opinion" in a dictionary, because you have a very curious understanding of what this word means.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

opinion (əˈpɪnjən)

— n
1. judgment or belief not founded on certainty or proof
2. the prevailing or popular feeling or view: public opinion
3. evaluation, impression, or estimation of the value or worth of a person or thing
4. an evaluation or judgment given by an expert: a medical opinion
5. the advice given by a barrister or counsel on a case submitted to him or her for a view on the legal points involved
6. a matter of opinion a point open to question
7. be of the opinion that to believe that

Is definition #2 not exactly what you were saying the moral "convention" was for each individual society?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

No, in certain cultures it is morally acceptable to commit violence in situations in which we would deem it morally unacceptable. This means that moral values are a function of sociocultural convention, not individual taste.

The prevailing public view, no?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Is definition #2 not exactly what you were saying the moral "convention" was for each individual society?

Perhaps. But conventions are not necessarily popular, and they are often not arrived at by any matter of consensus or conscious deliberation. Your sarcastic remark about morals being handed down by gods is actually ironically sort of close to the mark- the existing morals in a given culture are usually values that have been codified, most often times by a religion. Historically and from an evolutionary perspective, religion has been one of, if not the, prime mechanism for enforcing and passing on norms and values, and regulating the behavior of members of a group. Now, its probably not the case that any of these prophets or religious leaders were actually given any ethical mandates from any deity (no Moses and the 10 commandments, in other words), but simply gave expression to existing societal behavioral patterns by documenting them in religious scriptures; encouraging altruism and cooperation (because this gives an evolutionary advantage to the members of the group acting altruistically), discouraging violence and cheating (since cheating detracts from the fitness of the overall group), and so on.

So even if #2 of the definition technically "fits", it is still slightly misleading- conventions are not like gallup polls, and in that sense they are not like opinions. Morals are more like other societal conventions and norms; washing your hands, dress codes, and so on. And in this sense they are exactly like the rules of chess; they aren't absolute rules, like "gravity is proportional to mass", but relative to a given societal moral game/set of conventions, it is true that "unnecessary violence is wrong/bad/immoral" just like it is true that "washing your hands is proper/right/etc."

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Historically and from an evolutionary perspective, religion has been one of, if not the, prime mechanism for enforcing and passing on norms and values, and regulating the behavior of members of a group.

And what is religion if not the opinion of the people who invented said religion on how their "society" should live?

conventions are not like gallup polls, and in that sense they are not like opinions.

Polling is not the only way to gather opinions. I am giving you mine right now and you haven't asked me a question.

washing your hands, dress codes,

Saying that washing your hands is sanitary is a fact. Saying that it is the right thing to do is an opinion.
Dress codes are dictated by what people believe to be proper dress for a certain occasion, which is also a matter of opinion.