Islamaphobia?

If you say so.

Which religion? Are they all true?

The political ideologies didn,t taken root the way spiritual ideologies have done.

Maybe because religion is true in a way that Nazism and Communism were not?

"Humanists/secularists/atheists - really, the terminology isn't the point, is it? "
Well, it does matter rather. I am two of those things but not the 3rd. There are Christian secularists. For two examples.

There are loads of studies on this subject. I'm sure you can find a few on the internet. = I am going to evade answering this point.

I can however, still go out of my way to give others, as long as it's not my children's only pair of shoes or only meal for the foreseeable future. Doesn't that boil down to, "I will go out of my way to give to others, as long as I don't actually have to disadvantage myself to do so"?

In what way do imitation and duty = coercion? A moral ideal or imperative is not the same thing as being forced to do something.

I think you have rather a rosy view of people of faith

Well, it's a counterbalance to some of the views expressed on this thread, then . Actually, I don't have such a rosy view of people as those who have claimed that altruism is hard-wired into human beings and that being honest and helpful is easy.

Humanists/secularists/atheists - really, the terminology isn't the point, is it? The point is, the test of morality is where it presses on your own comfort and self-interest. And the question is, what support do humanists/secularists/atheists have in those cases?

"But what about when it isn't easier to help someone, and when it isn't easy to be truthful? What about when helping someone else doesn't make us happy, and when someone else's happiness conflicts with our own?"

What about it?

"And if altruism is hard-wired into us then how come there is so much observable selfishness in the world?"

There are loads of studies on this subject. I'm sure you can find a few on the internet.

"The truth is that the test of anyone's morality - whether they have a faith or not - is in the hard cases, when your principles conflict with your inclinations, your happiness or your own self-interest."

Are you talking about stuff like running into a burning building to save a stranger? I would have done it before I have had children, but now my primary responsibility is to them. I can't take chances that have a significant probability of leaving them without a mother. I can however, still go out of my way to give others, as long as it's not my children's only pair of shoes or only meal for the foreseeable future.

"One of the strengths of religion, in that context, is that it gives people a support for doing something that they don't very much want to do - whether it be through the idea of duty (as in Islam), or imitation (as in Christianity), or even through the hope of heaven (though in Christianity no-one gets to heaven because of their good acts)."

Personally, I don't think that sort of coercion is worth much. Sure, I'm happy that hoards of people who wouldn't otherwise be decent are being kept in check with religion, but my opinion of atheists who are decent because they want to be is much higher.

The political ideologies didn,t taken root the way spiritual ideologies have done.

I think you have rather a rosy view of people of faith, miminy.

Why do you say "humanists and secularists"? Do you mean "atheists"?

But what about when it isn't easier to help someone, and when it isn't easy to be truthful? What about when helping someone else doesn't make us happy, and when someone else's happiness conflicts with our own?

And if altruism is hard-wired into us then how come there is so much observable selfishness in the world?

The truth is that the test of anyone's morality - whether they have a faith or not - is in the hard cases, when your principles conflict with your inclinations, your happiness or your own self-interest.

One of the strengths of religion, in that context, is that it gives people a support for doing something that they don't very much want to do - whether it be through the idea of duty (as in Islam), or imitation (as in Christianity), or even through the hope of heaven (though in Christianity no-one gets to heaven because of their good acts).

It's harder to see where humanists and secularists get the support that helps them to live out their morality in hard cases - what gives them the motivation to act against their own interests or comfort in order to help others, say. I'm not saying it's not there - I imagine it may come from other people - but it's just less obvious.

"I think cote is right, I don't act the way I do because someone is watching me. I do it because I find it easier to be honest and truthful than lie "

Exactly. I also go out of my way to help people and find genuine happiness in making others happy. None of this has to do with a belief in a creator God who is keeping a ledger of my good/bad deeds but everything to do with how I want my life to be. Here, on this Earth and in my lifetime.

"if religion didn't exist something else would be in place. One of the other things I can think of is superstition"

Because religion isn't superstition?

I guess I'm colourblind in that range.

It was easier to see through communist or Nazi psychopaths.

I expect that's why the populations of the Soviet republics, the European Eastern bloc countries, China, Germany, Austria and occupied Europe simply refused to cooperate with them.

There is no advantage to being a psychopath if there is no one to manipulate.

A single isolated individual neither benefits nor suffers from psychopathy, or any other social dysfunction.

Religion gives too much power to the manipulator.

It was easier to see through communist or Nazi psychopaths.

See I think we would run as a society with or without religion, because we are genetically programmed to be altruistic.

I don't see much evidence of that.

Mind you, we do have some evidence for psychopathic behaviours being genetically influenced and those with such traits seem to do very well exploiting the more altruistic in society.

Society is, always has been and seems likely always to be about power dynamics; The form those dynamics take will shift, but hierachy and control will always be a component of any prolonged human social structure.

Slug if religion didn't exist something else would be in place. One of the other things I can think of is superstition. They must have played a bigger part at some point more than religion did. The biggest reason for most of it was to protect people. There is always a hidden meaning behind and I always find it quite funny when people take literally. For example don't break a mirror for fear of seven year bad luck. Any sensible person nowadays would know that it can't be true. But for someone who believes in bad luck it carries a lot of weight on what it means for them.

this would have been the meaning behind it

If a servant broke a mirror, it would be approximately seven years’ worth of wages to pay it back, as they were very expensive at the time.

In Roman times, if the servant broke a mirror, they had to make a new one and the way they did that was by polishing stone until it reflected. That would take a long time, presumably seven years.

Your friend did that because God watches their every move. Ten Commandments is a set of morals. Dos and don't for Christians. Breaking any of those can lead you to hell if you don't repent. It's like going to a parent and saying look I have done abc can you please for give me because I have sinned.

I think Jesus broke one of the Ten Commandments too.

To make you even understand your friend better is by looking at how parents tell their children that Father Christmas only brings presents for those who have behaved all year round. That is all based on morals. Be an upstanding child in our home and I shall reward you. On the other hand, the parent is being immoral by lying to the child. It's only morally right if the parent is utilitarian. If they fallow the Ten Commandments then I would assume they would have to repent because they have broken the law of the bible.

Next time you meet your friend ask them whether they lie about Father Christmas being real or not. "Thou shalt not lie" if she does, she no better than you morally.

So feminists are also racist as well as man-haters?

Thanks debbriana

I have bookmarked that because I love and agree with all that you have said.

Gah, sorry theydonknow Id written out a long reply to you only for my phone to freeze and now that post having disappeared off into the ether. I had to google magdalen laundries as I hadn't known about them but they certainly don't fit in with my understanding and conception of what Jesus said/did although a Christian would know more. I want to come back tomorrow and explain the non Quranic origin of stoning for adultery and other unfair laws that fall on muslim women disproportionately with no or weak basis in religious scripture.

Laurie you asked: 'moonstruck - do you feel that there are negative aspects for women being part of such a network of "shared commonalities/responsibilities"

I think we all as people not just women give up some things concerning freedom/labour/autonomy in order for the protection/security of/in a group. We pay high taxes in order for the social safety net to encompass as many of our society who would be destitute without it: that 'from each according to his ability to each according to his need' is not a natural law but social conditioning. We live in a high surveillance society and give up our privacy but benefit from low crime rates and higher rates of solving crimes. Someone may go for a public sector job which gives them Lower pay but then get the job security and non financial perks. Conversely someone else might choose a private sector job in a big corp and give up long term security for financial gain. It all depends on whether one thinks it's worth it or not.
earlier it was spoken about how there's patriarchy in all circles and misogyny in religions, amongst prominent atheists, western feminism is not isolated in a vacuum but has individualism and liberalism underpinning it. That is its own ideology and whilst some parts are great some are not so. If it's ones norm a woman gets accustomed to it - shrugs her shoulders and say iyeah there are drawbacks but benefits far outweigh the cons. it's like the difference between a capitalist patriarchy where women go under the knife for labiaplasties to make their genitals like a porn star or a patriarchy where women go under the knife for hymenoplasties to make their genitals like a virgin.

I mentioned babies and the young: the care and feeding and sleeping and nursing when they're sick and teaching them life skills, educating and nurturing their social behaviour to get on with others, mental health, self esteem etc etc are all so time and resource consuming - lasts for years- that it wouldn't let you do anything else except for the 'help of a village'. On an individual level i have a mother who helps me with my children and takes them from me when they're sick/during the holidays/ when I have big deadlines at work. I get nagged to distraction by her which is a price my best friend let's say isn't prepared to pay but I don't mind because I see it as part and parcel. I give up some of my privacy (and right to peace) in order to have her practical help and advice in raising my young.

scale upto bigger social groups and then a different motivation and purpose enters, no longer the child of the child of my womb, that's when you get these golden rule things happening but also whether it's the christian 'do good to spread God's love' or the islamic 'do good to earn God's love', either take the place of give to receive and with that the pressure off an individual to reciprocate or place back in the time bank box straight away. I hope that made sense.