Religious stuff n' all. (split from Cheetos topic)

[Amber Williams]

Jews Christians Mormons Mithra Cult Catholics Holocaust Idols Mammon Hinduism Spirits Rebirth Heaven Muslims Donations Scientology Crusades Harry Potter.

Did you have to mention Harry Potter?!  Now we're gonna get all sorts of wierd search engine results!

[Netami]

And I get fifty bucks from the advertisement agency.

[fesworks]

It's important to note that there's a difference between ethics and morality.    Ethics is the study of what is right and wrong, from the perspective of a few first principles, while morality is the code of what is good and bad, from the perspective of Eternal Truth (whatever you believe that Truth to be).

You can be an atheist and have ethics, but you can't be an atheist and have morality.  Now, an ethical society is still possible in a godless universe, and there are reasons for remaining in society, or a social contract, but it does come down to a sort of behavioral stock exchange.  If enough people opt out of society, the whole thing crashes, since it's all based on the Tinkerbell effect.

without reading the etire thread closely (its late for me) this part caught my eye.

How can someone who is athiest (Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively disbelieving in the existence of deities. -Wiki) be impossible to have Morality as you state?

Morality is "Morality is a system of principles and judgments based on cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which humans determine whether given actions are right or wrong. These concepts and beliefs are often generalized and codified by a culture or group, and thus serve to regulate the behaviour of its members." (from Wiki)... its not dependent upon religion, but rather as a group of people sharing a common foothold...

Now, Moralities (or even ethics for that matter) may not transfer exactly between different groups of people... but just because they different, does not mean its "absolute wrong"...  It seems that the world, as a whole... when the majority (of people and/or of power) can decide what is right or wrong when it comes to this, but a lot of times they may still be wrong to the other cultures and such..

Example again: Nazis believed that Jews (among other peoples) were not deserving of life... so their ethics and morals place them above these people, and states that they have rights to kill those lesser than themselves... and not just Nazis are familiar with these practices. The Catholic church is ALSO familiar with this first hand... But the majority of the world will say that killing others because they are lesser than you, is wrong... even though the ones in power think that killing the killers is right (flawed logic)..... Oh well I forgot where I was going with this...

oh yea, Athiests can have Morality like anyone else...

I think you were thinking about NIALISTS... those that claim to believe in nothing.

I'd rather believe in God than Tinkerbell.

I'd rather believe in myself and the people I meet than (i assume you mean the Christian's and/or Judaism's God) God.

Just so you know where I am coming from, I was raised Catholic, but later discovered myself as a Pagan or "Witch" if you will (not Wiccan), and lead an OK life basically practicing good "christian" values and acts of kindness.

Something more interesting, if it's worth for context, I do not have a belief in *any* god, goddess, or demi-variation of the two.. because I have not personally "felt" such a thing. I keep open minded of course, but most of my beliefs are in that of science... which is strange because then you have the Magic vs Science thing with is strange to some people and is a different discussion completely.

[Vidar]

Jews Christians Mormons Mithra Cult Catholics Holocaust Idols Mammon Hinduism Spirits Rebirth Heaven Muslims Donations Scientology Crusades Harry Potter.

You forgot Cthulhu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Russel's Teapot.

Also, with the way Harry Potter books are selling, it might as well be a religion. 

[fesworks]

Jews Christians Mormons Mithra Cult Catholics Holocaust Idols Mammon Hinduism Spirits Rebirth Heaven Muslims Donations Scientology Crusades Harry Potter.

You forgot Cthulhu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Russel's Teapot.

Also, with the way Harry Potter books are selling, it might as well be a religion. 

Oh not to mention all the Pagan religions and their subsets like Asatru, Celtic Reconstructionist, Discordian, Dianic, Druid, Shaman, Ecclectic, Gardenarian, Gnostic, Heathen, Wiccan, and Witch (and those are just the major ones).

And there's also Trekkie if we are including Harry Potter.

[Netami]

Ugh.

[Cvstos]

the Flying Spaghetti Monster,

I've been touched by His Noodly Appendage! 

And there's also Trekkie if we are including Harry Potter.

All Power To The Engines!    (w00t!  Futurama reference!)

[Tapewolf]

Did you have to mention Harry Potter?!  Now we're gonna get all sorts of wierd search engine results!

That's going to happen already if the adverts on the DMFA wiki are anything to go by.

For example:
Dan -> "Save your relationship", "cat constipation help"
Abel -> "Islam in the Bible", "Jesus Christ loves you"
Creature -> the Sun newspaper
SAIA -> "Pastoral care training"

[superluser]

That we are all just another variation of a finite possible number of variations and constellations of mass and energy, and that the fact that we are such is what makes our existence certain, that allows for existence itself to be certain. And that this in itself is so much greater, so much more perfect than any magic or heaven or hell could ever be.

You're not ``walking the path.''  If you accept your proposition, you have no reason to believe that you exist, even as a bundle of atoms.  I can believe that you exist, because I'm reasoning from the assumption that you exist because God made you.

(This is not to say that there cannot be atheistic logical arguments that life exists; just that ``life exists because life exists'' is not one of them)

Why, then, are you arguing with someone on the internet when you cannot logically believe that either you or I exist?

Also, morals are based on beliefs; ethics is the science of evolving value judgments based on those beliefs.  You can make an ethical system based on a few first principles, such as the following:

1.) I have the right to live as long as I choose to live and am capable of living.
2.) This code of ethics applies equally to all ethical creatures.
3.) Value #2 may apply to a lesser extent to creatures that are incapable of adhering to codes of ethics.

You can evolve most of our present laws from these three principles.  There really aren't any subjective beliefs here; #2 is a game theory optimizer and #3 is a check on scorched-earth ethics.  The only controversial one is #1, and if you have an issue with that, you might have some other issues.

Laws about drug use or noise ordinances are pretty much moral issues, and if you have beliefs about that, I'd suggest checking to make sure that you really are an atheist.

[Aridas]

Not to throw a monkey wrench into this discussion, but I guess the fact just about all animals can't think on the level we do means they don't believe in god and therefore do not exist.

Also: You can't go telling people about morals like that, because whether you like it or not people still have an idea of how they want to act, and it's usually NOT "I'll do as I please" type acting. Your argument sounds like those christian comics that label athiests as rude or, like you seem to want to say, lacking morals and such. Whether or not you think religion is tied so closely with morality, people still take moral values.

<semi-out-of-discussion>Besides. What's the point in having a "moral" to a story if nothing was to be gained from reading it?

[Cogidubnus]

 Adrias is, of course, correct. Most atheists are not rude, nor are they moral degenerates. This fact is, of course, more dependent on the person at hand.
Of course, if you want to say that morality is self-evident, you are admitting that there is a basic morality inherent in man, which is another discussion altogether.

However, you cannot dismiss the belief system that somebody believes in - "As a man thinks, so he is". Adrias makes the point that most peoples have an idea about how they should act - and this is probably a good thing. However, were one to ask them why they do so, I doubt that many could give an answer beyond 'I'm a good guy', or give no answer at all. While they may want to act virtuously, they still need something to tell them what virtuousness 'is'.

Let me put it like this- people will act as they will act, this is true. If someone wishes to act virtuously, wether that be by some personal moral code, or by some socital code, they can do so, and often do. However, once such codes are exposed  to human beings, they begin to crack - not to sound pedantic, but, why does it become wrong to steal from this man, who's morality is determined by himself only? Why does it become wrong, from this man's personal moral code, to kill him? He may believe it is wrong:  He may defend himself, certainly, but why does that make him right? Why should I listen to him? But, we have now reached an area in which might has made right.
  But what about societal codes - certainly, the laws set down by a government have the ability to create a morality! This is not so: we have merely exchanged the one person for many. In this case, the majority imposes a morality on everyone - it is merely another form of enforced morality. Might, again, makes right.

So certainly, not all people act like barbarians, but you must ask: why do they do so? Eventually, someone will. Merely saying that people act 'morally' is not enough to stave off questions: why do they do so? What is morality? And why should we act in such a way? Indeed, if there is not  an objective morality, than I say that there is no morality at all.

[Farinata]

And, if indeed sir, you are willing to bite all the bullets that come with a nihilistic philosophy, you are entitled to it. I wish you the best - Nietzsche, if I am correct, killed himself at 40.

Nietzsche went insane at the age of 44 (if I am calculating it correctly). He probably had syphilis, though how he contracted it is unknown (and indeed there are elements of his illness not consistent with syphilis so it may have been something else). His illness seems to be totally unrelated to his philosophy.

The real misconception I want to clear up, however, is the idea the Nietzsche was a nihilist. He hated nihilism; he even saw himself as a prophet of the dangers of the coming nihilism. Nietzsche's philosophy was profoundly life-affirming, it just got horribly twisted by his sister's deliberate distortions (her publication of The Will to Power, for example).

On topic, I am an atheist. This doesn't mean that I lack spiritual emotions, I just don't believe in God. It sucks at times. Being an atheist doesn't make me more or less likely to be moral or kind or anything. There are religious people I love and atheists I really dislike. I honestly think someone's religious beliefs play little role in how good a person they are.

As for morality itself, this is obviously something that people have been debating since debating began. It's easy to say "there is an objective morality - and here it is!" but it's not so easy to come up with a proof of it. I certanly don't have an answer here. Even if God does exsist, though, it really doesn't solve the problem. Why should we do what God says? Because he will punish us otherwise? There still has to be something else. If you want to say "God is good by definition" then you have other problems (for example, if God said to torture a bunch of Mow's to death  then it would be good... you can't even say he wouldn't say that because you have no other way to judge goodness or badness).

[Reese Tora]

Jews Christians Mormons Mithra Cult Catholics Holocaust Idols Mammon Hinduism Spirits Rebirth Heaven Muslims Donations Scientology Crusades Harry Potter.

You forgot Cthulhu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Russel's Teapot.

Also, with the way Harry Potter books are selling, it might as well be a religion. 

Don't forget Jedi

[superluser]

Your argument sounds like those christian comics that label athiests as rude or, like you seem to want to say, lacking morals and such. Whether or not you think religion is tied so closely with morality, people still take moral values.

Then you are misunderstanding my argument.

To quote Fowler's Modern English Usage:

``Ethics is the science of morals & morals are the practice of ethics.''

Bergen Evans follows up in his Contemporary American Usage:

``[Fowler] believes that the impression that ethics is less definitely connected with religion than morals are is ``unfounded,'' and so it may be in philosophy, but in the common usage of words it is pretty well established.''

Morals, as I have always understood the word, are a set of beliefs about conduct that you hold as true on a basis impervious to logic.  Ethics is a set of rules of conduct based on those beliefs which may be based on logical interpretation of those rules.

With few exceptions, no outside observer should be able to differentiate between the two.

More importantly, belief in religion has nothing to do with whether you are moral, immoral, rude, or whatnot.  Most likely, your ethics will lead you to do the same things that morals would.  It's really a semantic difference, here.

...now, I must admit, I may be confusing atheists with freethinkers (most of the atheists that I know are freethinkers), so I suppose you can have a set of moral beliefs that are completely illogical but have nothing to do with religion, but I really don't see what the point of that would be.

A set of beliefs that is logical and has nothing to do with religion would probably be ethics.

[Alondro]

One of the things I most dislike about atheism is those who wish to do away with certain laws because they have a religious basis.  There are only two ways to interpret that.  Either they have no idea what would becoem legal if we did that, or they do know and want to do those things.  Let's all imagine what would be legal if we took away all religious-based laws and left certain things to 'personal preference'.  

Amsterdam.

Yes, you end up with Amsterdam... and all the horrible things found within... things that scared Kagemushi.  And if you know Kage like I do and all the things he simply can shrug off (being around fur conventions for decades tends to create a high level of tolerance to freak-out-ness), you don't want to know what he could have seen that freaked him out.   It was all legal too.  

There must be a solid moral code of some kind.  The problem is, once you take away the foundation, more and more tends to become relative and time wears away shock value and increases desensitization as each new generation grows up with the newly allowable actions, until your entire society is in ruins.

It doesn't give any proof of God, of course.  But it does bring up the unsettling question of how to base moral laws on anything without a god.  I have yet to see a social system survive without any religion at all.  I really wonder if one even can, given human nature.  

Maybe if I make everyone like me... *works on mind-control nanobots*  Need more silly now.  Serious is getting dull.  :p

[Farinata]

Then you are misunderstanding my argument.

To quote Fowler's Modern English Usage.... [please see superluser's postfor the rest of his argument]

superluser, your argument is interesting and I would like to address it. However, I'm not sure I have fully understood what you are saying so please feel free to correct any misunderstandings.

In everyday speech I think morality and ethics are used interchangeably; I doubt someone would ask me to be specific if I used ethics instead of morality. I do agree with the quote you posted however that morality is a word more associated with religion than ethics.

Formally, I have always understood morality to be the standards of right and wrong conduct that an individual (or society) has; ethics is the science through which such standards are analyzed and developed (though meta-ethics is a little different). A moral person is someone who corresponds to the moral standards of their community (or my community, depending on my point of view... however, I am deliberately not addressing the issue of universal moral values). As such atheists could have personal moralities. I think the point is that your moral standards allow you to make choices without having to constantly go through the ethical "proof" of that standard; the same way I can use mathematical formula without having to formally prove it every time.

One of the things I most dislike about atheism is those who wish to do away with certain laws because they have a religious basis.  There are only two ways to interpret that.  Either they have no idea what would becoem legal if we did that, or they do know and want to do those things.  Let's all imagine what would be legal if we took away all religious-based laws and left certain things to 'personal preference'. 

Amsterdam.

.....

It doesn't give any proof of God, of course.  But it does bring up the unsettling question of how to base moral laws on anything without a god.  I have yet to see a social system survive without any religion at all.  I really wonder if one even can, given human nature. 

Of course, atheists are as guilty of stereotyping as anyone else (he/she/it is religious therefore bad). This is why I don't think atheists are inherently better than religious people (their beliefs may be, but that is another discussion). There are plenty of religious standards that I agree with.

Ah, Amsterdam.... I have been there. I have been to the red light district in the middle of the night. It was a profoundly disturbing experience for me, so much so that I was almost unable to speak for the next day. (And this isn't the sex or pot or the prostitutes I'm talking about either, there is a lot of other stuff that goes on there.) But there were many fun things too, though it took me a while to realize it. It's pretty cool to be walking down the street and say to yourself "hey, I could pay for sex or some pot or go into this sex shop if I want." I may not want to (and I didn't), but you have no idea how liberating it is to not have the government over you with it's magnifying glass. I try to be moral because I want to be moral; not because someone tells me I have to.

Yeah, there are a lot of people there who have ruined their lives with drugs, etc. Unlike America where they are illegal? I think it's better to have it out in the open... if I had ever had any inclination to do drugs it would be gone - totally, totally gone - after my night there. These things are going to happen, period. Amsterdam is just open about it.

As for the unsettling question of how to base moral laws on anything without a god... well, yeah. It's not that easy even with a god. This is the problem Nietzsche knew our culture would have to face. I think this is something people need to talk about though; not just say "You are a brain-dead Christian! No, you are an immoral atheist!" I certainly don't have the answer.

[fesworks]

Just to make it clear: "Atheism" does not equal "Nialism"... but I think that concept has been taken in hand already.

also, I think it would be best to have some examples of Morals and Examples of Ethics...

something like "Killing someone for your own gain" or "Stealing is ok, if you are trying to feed your family"

I mean, I think examples of which is which would be helpful, especially if the examples are similar.

[Netami]

Link

[superluser]

Just to make it clear: "Atheism" does not equal "Nialism"... but I think that concept has been taken in hand already.

Ahem, ``nihilism.''  In Latin, `nihil' means `nothing.'  Coming from a Latin background, I always pronounce it ni-hil-iz-em, but I guess that's wrong in English.

also, I think it would be best to have some examples of Morals and Examples of Ethics...

I would, but first I should introduce you to something called the ``Chinese Room.''  In this adaptation, there is a man in a room and every so often, someone will slip a piece of paper under the door.  The paper will contain a moral question, written in Chinese.  The man cannot read Chinese, but has a large book which tells him, based on what is written on the paper, what to write back.

Is the man moral?  Can he even be said to be ethical?  He doesn't even have a clue if what he's writing is sound advice, or even Chinese.

Moving on to your examples, a moral rationale for stealing to feed your family might be, ``As David took the showbread to feed his men, so can I steal to feed my family.''  An ethical one might be, ``If my family dies, then they cannot pass on their genes, and the diversity of the species is endangered.''  An ethical one based on moral precepts might be, ``Man is more important than money, therefore I can steal to feed my family.''

(fun to note is that you never specified that he was stealing food.  He could be stealing cars and selling them to feed his family; the moral and ethical calculus are the same for these arguments)

Morals and ethics need not be what is generally considered positive, either.  For example, a bad moral might be, ``Killing someone for your own gain is good because I'm Jim Jones, and God.''  A similar ethical argument might be, ``Killing someone for your own gain is right if you will give more back to society than you and the other person would have been able to do together.''

The situations and outcomes are the same.  The only difference is what the person is thinking.

Anyways, if you want more examples, PM me; this is getting pretty long.

P.S.

Link

This is the most bizarre thing I've ever read.  It appears to be aimed at Fundamentalist Hasidic Protestant Catholic Americans.  Now I see where the Orange Catholic Bible came from.

[Netami]

It is aimed at anyone who places their faith, regarding God, in the bible or the church teachings and not in their own heart and mind.

[fesworks]

Link

that's awesome!

Ahem, ``nihilism.''  In Latin, `nihil' means `nothing.'  Coming from a Latin background, I always pronounce it ni-hil-iz-em, but I guess that's wrong in English.

my bad, sorry.


Also, I did mean "food" in that example, but I really wanted you to make your own examples... but going with what you wrote, It seems that the "Reasoning" to do something or not is what is at hand here for determining what is ethical and what is moral.

Can't an Athiest have the belief that one should not kill because they believe that noone has the right to take a life that is not their own... which goes along the same principles of not taking property the belongs to others because it is not yours to take.

Or are you saying that this is ethics?

I'm figuring that ethics would be "I will not kill this person, because I would not like it if someone killed me."

what about this reasoning:
"This person has done me great wrong, but he exists as a hope to so-and-so people, I can't take that away from them.. I should not kill him."

or (unrelated to the above):
"This person has been lying to everyone, feeding off of their fears and promising false hope. I have evidence of his deciet, and with what he has done, he does not deserve to live!"

or how about:
"I am [state your name]. You have killed my parents, and now I am going to kill you."
As in duty and pride and honoring your family.

OR
"I am [state your name]. You have killed my parents, and now I am going to kill you."
For mere revenge.


My only point to presenting these ideas is for you to help me understand your reasoning a bit better... I have no (for sure) idea if these are moral, ethical, both or neither.

I'll reiterate my main argument: You say Athiests can't have morals... I say they can. You said that Morals relate to religion, I say they don't need to. (but I think you weened on that one a bit?)

[LigerJet]

How does an amusing little ebay auction turn into this?

[Netami]

How does an amusing little ebay auction turn into this?

When that amusing little ebay auction's humor is drawn primarily from the fact that it is religious? 

[superluser]

Can't an Athiest have the belief that one should not kill because they believe that noone has the right to take a life that is not their own... which goes along the same principles of not taking property the belongs to others because it is not yours to take.

Or are you saying that this is ethics?

That's ethics, yes.  You could argue that the concept of private ownership is a moral one, but it tends to be pretty common in ethical systems.

I'm figuring that ethics would be "I will not kill this person, because I would not like it if someone killed me."

This is also ethics.

what about this reasoning:
"This person has done me great wrong, but he exists as a hope to so-and-so people, I can't take that away from them.. I should not kill him."

This is probably morals.  You're making a value judgment about someone being a great hope, and that such people are inherently more deserving of life.

You might be able to make an ethical argument about it, but from the way the statement stands, it would be very difficult.

or (unrelated to the above):
"This person has been lying to everyone, feeding off of their fears and promising false hope. I have evidence of his deciet, and with what he has done, he does not deserve to live!"

or how about:
"I am [state your name]. You have killed my parents, and now I am going to kill you."
As in duty and pride and honoring your family.

OR
"I am [state your name]. You have killed my parents, and now I am going to kill you."
For mere revenge.

These are all morals.  In #1, the question of who `deserves' to live inherently requires a value judgment.  In #2, family is given higher prominence than other people--once again, a value judgment.  In #3, the speaker is seeking revenge for revenge's sake, without explaining why it might be right.

Many of these can be turned into ethical arguments by adding a few details, but from the way that they're presented, I'm calling them like I see them.

My only point to presenting these ideas is for you to help me understand your reasoning a bit better... I have no (for sure) idea if these are moral, ethical, both or neither.

It's important to reiterate that there are no cross-cultural moral or ethical absolutes, with the possible exception of mass genocide.  What you might consider bad morality, I might consider good morality.

So I'm classing these based on the moral/ethical divide, not on whether or not these are good or bad, right or wrong.

I'll reiterate my main argument: You say Athiests can't have morals... I say they can. You said that Morals relate to religion, I say they don't need to. (but I think you weened on that one a bit?)

I said before that I usually associate atheists with freethinkers.  I'm a Libertarian, and most of the atheists/agnostics that I talk to on a regular basis are either Libertarians or Socialists, groups that tend to be heavily populated with freethinkers.

It is entirely possible to base your belief system off of Miss Manners or Ayn Rand, and while those systems were supposed to be ethical systems, you could ignore the ethics and rationale behind them and take The Fountainhead as holy writ and follow it.

But then you start running into problems defining what religion is.

[RJ]

I'd... probably better not read all this... >_>

[Vidar]

Link

WIN!

[fesworks]

I think I understand you much better now. Good points too.

It's important to reiterate that there are no cross-cultural moral or ethical absolutes, with the possible exception of mass genocide.  What you might consider bad morality, I might consider good morality.

So I'm classing these based on the moral/ethical divide, not on whether or not these are good or bad, right or wrong.

excellent point.

or (unrelated to the above):
"This person has been lying to everyone, feeding off of their fears and promising false hope. I have evidence of his deciet, and with what he has done, he does not deserve to live!"

or how about:
"I am [state your name]. You have killed my parents, and now I am going to kill you."
As in duty and pride and honoring your family.

OR
"I am [state your name]. You have killed my parents, and now I am going to kill you."
For mere revenge.

These are all morals.  In #1, the question of who `deserves' to live inherently requires a value judgment.  In #2, family is given higher prominence than other people--once again, a value judgment.  In #3, the speaker is seeking revenge for revenge's sake, without explaining why it might be right.

Many of these can be turned into ethical arguments by adding a few details, but from the way that they're presented, I'm calling them like I see them.

I'll reiterate my main argument: You say Athiests can't have morals... I say they can. You said that Morals relate to religion, I say they don't need to. (but I think you weened on that one a bit?)

I said before that I usually associate atheists with freethinkers.  I'm a Libertarian, and most of the atheists/agnostics that I talk to on a regular basis are either Libertarians or Socialists, groups that tend to be heavily populated with freethinkers.

It is entirely possible to base your belief system off of Miss Manners or Ayn Rand, and while those systems were supposed to be ethical systems, you could ignore the ethics and rationale behind them and take The Fountainhead as holy writ and follow it.

But then you start running into problems defining what religion is.

so do you still state that Athiests or freethinkers can't have morals? I could not tell if you merelt reworded yourself or changed you stance... because by what you defined as morals from my examples, I submit that Athiests could easily have those ideals, and thus have morals.

(I don;t wanna sound like I am beating a dead horse with this topic, but It hasn't been made specifically clear yet about that stance )

[superluser]

Depending on your definition of atheism, atheists can probably have morals.  This is a change in my reasoning.

The literal etymology of atheist would suggest that an atheist is someone who does not believe in a god or gods.  This, however, would mean that Buddhists and Taoists are atheists, since they don't believe in a god or gods.  They do, however, believe in reincarnation, karma, and often ascetism.  A slightly broader definition would be that an atheist is someone that does not believe in preternatural phenomena.

Now we get into definitional problems.  Is Confucianism a religion?  From what little I understand of it, Confucius didn't intend to start a religion, but it's commonly listed as a religion.  If that's a religion, does that make Objectivism a religion?  Once we go that far, would it be wrong to call the instructions on a packet of toothpicks a religion?

I'm pretty sure that toothpick instructions is not a religion.  Some people take Objectivism pretty far, and they might be considered religious, but I really think that the divide comes somewhere between Taoism and Confucianism.

Freethinkers cannot have morals.  From Wikipedia:

``Freethought is a philosophical doctrine that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logical principles and not be comprised by authority, tradition or any other dogmatic or other belief system that restricts logical reasoning.''

Since morals are derived from religion, and religion requires belief in preternatural phenomena, and preternatural phenomena is almost always unassailable by logic, therefore freethinkers cannot have morals.

And, as I've mentioned before, most atheists/agnostics that I know (and know are atheists/agnostics) are freethinkers.

[fesworks]

I guess where we differ is in the athiests we know... I'd also have to say that I know no "freethinkers" as that Wiki entry defines what I previouslly associated as a "free thinker" (which would be to think for yourself and not be confined by rules... where as this "freethinker" definition seems to be the exact opposite as it is so specific and regimented in logic).

I define athiests (as well as the athiests i know) as people that don;t believe in a god, goddess, demi-gods, a great energy pool,  or  the "powers that may be"... basically that there is no great and powerful "sourse" or controller of thw world, etc...


as far as moral stemming from Religion... I guess I can buy that, though I can't say that morals didn't already exist before religions took them over... unless the fact that when people began to have (what would be considered "morals") became religion in and of itself? Ack... that's a seperate topic of discussion and research on it own...

I personally don;t think that what you and Wiki define a "freethinker" as can really exist.... entirely logic? I don't think its logically possible for a human to do such a thing... sooner or later our emotions will get the best of us, and emotions pretty much  through basic logic out of the window.

[Vidar]

I don't see why morals and religion would be insepperably intertwined. An atheist can regocnize the wrongness of, say, a murder as well as any other human being of sound mind, religious or not.