View Poll Results: Are Secular Ethics Possible?

Voters
50. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    36 72.00%
  • No

    14 28.00%
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 58

Thread: Is Religion Needed For Morality? Are Secular Morality and Ethics Possible?

  1. #21
    Senior Member Kaiser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    Monday, February 27th, 2012 @ 10:41 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Scottland primarily
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Contested-Zone, Arizona
    Gender
    Occupation
    Networking
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Religion
    Atheist/Pagan/Odinist
    Posts
    461
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Secular Morality

    Some Atheists may actually perform more ethically on this planet than religious folks if for no other reason than the fact that many believe their positive lasting memory of beneficial deeds to mankind and science is how they will exist eternally even if done so viscerally. Meanwhile, many perverse acts have been committed in the name of religion throughout the ages. If one chooses a moral code by which to live, then great. If one chooses an ethical code by which to live, great also.

    It may be interesting that Atheists may also behave more ethically if their punishments for not doing so include lifespan lost in prison or even a premature death sentence. Conversely, religious fanatics may commit heinous crimes regardless, having no fear of earthly consequences due to a belief in an eternal existence or even a grand divine reward.

    For me, my Race is my Religion. I have partaken in various religions and do so still whilst preserving my Free Will and Free Thoughts. As for the perilous situation where fellow Whites waste valuable time, resources, and even multitudes of lives battling one another concerning the many esoteric and religious philosophies, I find this a most revolting practice.

    Hindu, Mormon, Muslim, Odinist, Atheist, Agnostic, Transhumanist, you are all welcome in my camp to further preserve and promote a positive future for White children. United we stand. Divided we fall. This openness extends to all political affiliations and other variances of our White Folk until we can regain some semblance of viability as a racial stock once again. Before debating the fruitfulness of the nuances of the myriad governances and religions of our Family worldwide we must soundly establish this basic tenet. Race first, all else second.

    Hell or Heaven, Hades or Valhalla, or eternal silence..., I will find out soon enough what awaits me through the veil of death. Until then, however, I will focus all my energies and lifeforce and fight to leave a positive mark on the legacy of my Folk, my Family. Hail Victory!

  2. #22
    Sees all, knows all Chlodovech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    2 Hours Ago @ 11:06 AM
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Ancestry
    Frankish
    Country
    Holy Roman Empire Holy Roman Empire
    Gender
    Politics
    Völkisch traditionalist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    3,177
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,486
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,565
    Thanked in
    1,116 Posts

    Re: Secular Morality

    Thank you for the response, Moody. I'll formulate my thoughts tonight, for now, I stick to this excellent quote:

    "A man may pile up mountains of gold, or he may order nations to war, or he may acquire great knowledge or skill, but if he does not direct his life in accordance with the One Purpose, he may as well not have lived." - Dr. William L. Pierce

    EDIT: Make that tomorrow instead of tonight, I gotta be at work at sunset. ZzZzZzZzZ.
    Last edited by Parsifal; Thursday, September 21st, 2006 at 12:11 AM. Reason: Work, work, work
    "If we were going to stand in darkness, best we stand in a darkness we had made ourselves.” ― Douglas Coupland, Shampoo Planet

  3. #23
    Sees all, knows all Chlodovech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    2 Hours Ago @ 11:06 AM
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Ancestry
    Frankish
    Country
    Holy Roman Empire Holy Roman Empire
    Gender
    Politics
    Völkisch traditionalist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    3,177
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,486
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,565
    Thanked in
    1,116 Posts

    Re: Secular Morality

    The laws of rank ordering and Separation aren't "fragmentation".
    I agree. I'm a friend of Leviathan, not his enemy.

    With fragmentation, I'm hinting at the division secular/spiritual (and to a lesser extent secularity/religion) - but, if it makes any difference, I don't think each and every corner of society - or the major insitutions of the state (like the armed focres) should be influenced by a religion, or that a theocracy is a must.

    But I'd be nice to have certain parts in a leading class that do entertain a holistic view of things.

    I'd like to add that at least some, but perhaps all contradictions are only in our heads (muslim terrorists and the less militant muslims are looking at the same holy book, but reach different conclusions).

    Even more so is the comparing of (always different) things. There's always truth in it to him who's comparing A to B.

    We should keep that in mind when discussing.

    This assumes that God is separate from his creation ... wouldn't you call this 'fragmented'?
    God, to me, is the fist and last individual, historically, I mean - blew Himself up - and stopped being an individual - not unlike the artist who puts his soul into his own art. You can't think of the art without the artist. But His art can't be lost, not like we know it, anyway. For all happens within His creation.

    God would be the foremost influencer - the consequences of His influence are beyond human scope of detection - all our influencing is merely sub-influencing within his reach of influence. It matters not if He's dead (is there a Life versus God? Who's to say?) - individually dead - or only came to being when galaxy came to life.

    I can make changes on earth too, but on micro-scale. By making kids, for instance. Being me, it's impossible to imitate God, and I consider the very ambition morally insane.

    I presume you are saying that everything is religious and nothing is 'secular', so your real answer to the question 'can there be secual morality?' would be that there is no such thing as secularism.
    According to this position, secularists, agnostics, atheists etc., are all deluded, I would guess.
    Well, like I mentioned above - I rather mean that there's nothing without God. Not that the public domain as a whole should be occupied by God too. There is such a thing as secularism, and secular morality. Clearly, there is.

    This brings in the notion of conscience; do you obey a secular law or do you flout it because your conscience tells you otherwise [and could have a conscience that was religious or secular
    .

    I stay away and as far as possible - from what in my concious is implemented as a sign of wickedness. And I don't cling on to a certain sets of commands for this and all moments, but merely to a credo. Love, by the way, is doing whatever is necessary, isn't it?

    Do you mean 'GOD' as you have written, or 'GOOD'?
    Hehe, the former, God. But anyone could read it as 'good', and still don't think something really different from what I think.

    Well, I don't necessarily disagree with that, but the facts are that when it comes to "fighting" the victors are always those who have the firmest grasp of reality, the better tactics, the better strategies and the better weapons.
    The better science, in other words.
    Secular states have a habit of winning.
    And I don't necessarily disagree with that either. But what good is winning battles, if you're winning 'm for the wrong thing. Take the West, for example... sure, The West is the best, when it comes to armed clashes... but to what ends does this civilization wage war. If we could get rid of our politics, I'd be a happy "loser" (winner?) - if a religion contributes to the disappearance of the morbid (and secular) West, a religion of the blood - or at least defending the blood - would be a sanctifying thing.

    Not all victories are won on a battlefield, I guess. Not in life.

    So what morality do you follow?
    Perhaps no other morality in reality - than you. I can attribute as many divine value to a well placed cruise missile or a good kiss - as many my conscience allows me to with regards to the context of the explosion or the kiss - if it's meaningful.

    My morality, I would say, is the Skadi mission statement. It was only written down some time ago, but in the soul of our folk, the thought, if you prefer, it must have existed always - sometimes, like in our day and age, only in the dark cellar of society.

    And on what basis do you make that choice?
    It isn't my choice. I don't believe humans have thoughts of themselves. The great men, perhaps they have thoughts of their own - the biggest influencers of our own world - I don't have any thoughts of myself. I follow, and I'm proud follower.

    Aren't you yourself forced to 'fragment'?
    I think I made my point on 'fragmenting thought' clear, a couple of times already in this post. Not all is one, nor can I find a reason why it should be - to me, most of the oneness humans get involved with, is blasphemy (for example, the extinction of the distinction between men/women), but all comes from one.

    Are you saying that secularism/atheism/agnosticism [which are not presumably "holy"] are meaningless?
    Absolutely not. All have a larger value that secularists aren't really aware of.

    Are you saying that atheists care nothing for their folk?
    No way! But a nice question, 'cause this is why I reacted to this thread in the first place. I respect an atheist racialist, but I still dislike his attitude towards life - if (IF!) he's poisoning his own habitat - with junk morals. If he's on the one hand racialist, but on the other hand addicted to rampant materialism.

    Are all human beings then "holy"?
    The art of God is holy, yeah. But holy beings can fight and kill.

    Are all religions then relative?
    I don't adhere to relativisim. No religion is relative. But only the first and only individual could tell you why.

    Do you accept all religions as being correct?
    Frankly, I don't care. Esoterically, perhaps they are, yes. Some have lousy (interpretations of) doctrines.

    Chesterton: "Is one religion as good as another? Is one horse in the Derby as good as another?"

    Some religions aren't as complete as others. But they play a part in our universe. The universe matters to me.

    So what religion is the correct one - and where does that leave all the rest if you are not a relativist?
    Correct - religions being correct about their 'description' of some sort of 'Genesis' - of God - or about His will?

    No, being scientifically wrong or right about these things has nothing to do with the believers and doctrine being relative or not - not from a none scientifcally point of view (life is more than science)- if they can have enough impact on earth, they'll become even more important - but I admit we can't know God's will like we can know that of a teacher in front of a class. The thought of such a will is too large to think.

    I really pushed your buttons by saying what I said about fragmentarization, huh?

    When you say "us mere mortals" the implication is that you believe that there is another order of beings [presumably 'immortals'] who would then exist outside of human life.
    Mortality doesn't implicate immortality - as a hard fact. We mere mortals, can be mortal between everything else mortal.

    Why can't those immortals philosophise?
    The option remains open.

    Perhaps human life is the result of an immortal being philosophising.
    Human life would be even more awesome when it was created without philosophising.

    There are secular ideologies which are holisitic too; you can believe in the whole if you want, without believing in a God or in a religion.
    I doubt if I'd call such an ideology holistic - and if it was truly holistic, perhaps I'd call it no longer 'secular'.

    Have any of life's mysteries ever been solved?
    I think they have.
    For example, men spent a huge amount of time wondering what would happen when you came to the 'edge' of the world - would you fall off? And where was the edge of the world?
    The mystery was solved when it was discovered that the world was in fact, a sphere.
    That's right.

    Was that mystery solved by God or by secular science?
    Since I believe in fixed fate, this question is an unsolvable riddle to me.

    Do you think that further mysteries will be solved in the future?
    Beyond any amount of doubt.

    Why not? If life is about living as you say, then we all - by the simple fact of not being able to be everywhere in the universe at once - value one part of life more than we do the others.
    No single person is able to care about the "whole" in practical terms - he can say that he does, but in reality he only cares about those things which are within his own circle of influence.
    You act where you are, ofcourse. But you could do it with that whole (being partially visible, in your own surroundings) in mind, or not. In war, an individual still fights only a small battle - isn't the soldier not aware of the larger picture? The soldier himself is unthinkable without it.

    So a sensible outlook is not take an absolutist 'either/or', "all or nothing" view, but to see life as a matter of levels, or 'strata'.
    Why that would be sensible, is unclear to me. It's like anti-racists or anti-war protestors telling you that you shouldn't view life in black and white colours, when they're viewing Stormfront - or Bush as black, and themselves as white.

    There is no such thing as a 'radical' position, people who speak of 'radicals' suffer from mind control.

    I turn things around: people who act solely here and now, without a further context to their deeds, without having ideas about wrong and right - are perhaps meditating, but surely small in number.

    Actually, there can't be a large mass of the people you mention, and if they are for real, then only during brief moments - perhaps a handful of people on this earth more than the rest, yes.

    We all can operate only on certain levels due our natural shortcomings.
    Thank God! It wouldn't be very wise to act and think globally at the same time.

    This is where you and I differ, then. I don't believe in letting go of the great picture in a situation - because it's only happening in my room or garden. And since you seem a man of honour to me, I doubt you let go of your principles - in your own private life sphere - just because it isn't the whole world at once!

    This does not mean that the other levels don't exist - of course they do - but they are not of our immediate concern.
    If religion is an integral part of (a) Germanic culture, than that's enough reason to preserve it. Whether it is scientifically right or wrong or - perhaps - just allegorical.

    There is no scientific answer as to why preservation is important, that's a weakness of the "religion of science" (and why I'm weary of it), and where belief comes into play.

    Scientists may advocate the end of humanity one day, out of nihilism. And perhaps they're just doing that, unknowingly.
    "If we were going to stand in darkness, best we stand in a darkness we had made ourselves.” ― Douglas Coupland, Shampoo Planet

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 13th, 2018 @ 10:14 AM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Gender
    Posts
    2,673
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    In order to be truly compelling, morality cannot be antropocentric or subjective; it requires a foundation in superhuman spheres. I agree this does not necessarily require an antropomorphic personal deity as we find in folk theism.

  5. #25
    Account Inactive Huzar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 11th, 2008 @ 10:35 PM
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Gender
    Politics
    Paganist
    Posts
    2,485
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    Basically not.


    Religion was born as a sort of help to ordinate better emotions and impulses. a super-structure abilitate to regulate the sphere of human conscience.

    Of course we can't forget the other principal reason since all populations of world has created a thing called "religion" : the deep intimate need to believe in something other than material reality.

    But this doesn't change the more pragmatic significance of "impulse regulation" proper of religion. Without dubt, through the millennia, the "regulation" concept (and its systematization in many cases. See the "ten commandments" etc. etc.) was largely used for "secular" finalities, until the direct abuse.

    For sure the role of "impulse regulation" was born to regiment unorganized and undisciplined peoples of the past ages. It's reasonable to think that mature and conscious peoples don't need this psychologic super-structure anymore (or at least not in the same measure of the past). A mature people can understand what is right or wrong without external (undebt) help.

    I'm not atheist (so i don't believe in the Marxist saying : "Die religion ist das opium des Volk....."., but i don't think to need a regulation from religion. (but at this point, we should separate religion from church : Religion. per sè, and the official interpretation given by the church who rapresent it)

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Saturday, July 4th, 2009 @ 09:41 PM
    Ethnicity
    Icelandic, 1/4 Eng
    Subrace
    Keltic-Nordic
    Gender
    Posts
    504
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Human morality has often been proven that it's a product of our conscience and therefore is objective. It's even observed in animals. Fanatics and fundamentalists of the major religions and some religious scripture often regard the irreligious as immoral, usually for religious segregation and giving believers another reason to try to convert others and/or to prevent disbeliever to rise to power.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 7th, 2011 @ 06:32 PM
    Ethnicity
    -
    Gender
    Posts
    70
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Of course, many people believes in the existence of an objective morality. But those very people don't agree on the actual substance of that supposed universal, objective morality - just think of the squabbles between Christians and secular humanists on abortion. As everybody knows, even Christians believe in a self-evident morality - which by the way should coincide with their own. Humanists usually show the same unwavering self-assurance.

    Morality exists, of course - assuming in each historical occasion different forms, which are irreducible to each other. It is determined by times, by places, even by race I dare to say - and is devoid of a universal essence.

    Just ask Spartans what would they do with weaklings and misfits, and compare with the present stance.

  8. #28
    Senior Member Ederico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, September 4th, 2007 @ 11:37 PM
    Gender
    Age
    38
    Posts
    1,269
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    I subscribe to the ethics of natural law, now to describe that and counter all probable and possible objections to it would require writing too much. I suggest researching on it. This whole question is basically one involving ethical absolutism and relativism.

    As a Catholic, I'll state the Catholic position as I know it.

    Catholic doctrine denies that the non-Catholic are immoral per se, actually it denies the immorality of a person as a personal attribute but rather considers the immorality of a person's practical acts. In point of fact, Catholic doctrine essentially distinguishes the moral from immoral on the basis of natural law itself, the Catholic ethical doctrine (though in itself areligious, but mind you not irreligious). Religious affiliation to Catholicism doesn't presuppose moral rectitude in Catholicism and neither does it claim exclusive hold on morality.

    Obviously, that is a doctrine that most self-identified Catholics probably wouldn't know about, thus giving rise to cultural fenomena such as the notion that the non-Catholic is necessarily immoral. I consider this cultural and socio-psychological and not ascribable to one's Catholic Faith. At most it is ascribable to a misunderstanding of one's Catholic Faith. What I think happens, as I observed in Malta, is that Catholicism is seen as a communitarian tradition and social reality which constitutes part and parcel of being in the social "in-group". Therefore Faith and social belonging get intertwined, not belong to the Faith results in not belonging to the social group, not belonging to the latter could result in being considered a social outcast, that in itself being tantamount to "immorality" in the social group conscience.

    We must remember that in Malta Catholicism was a bulwark against Islam in pre-British Colonial history, and part and parcel of Maltese identity against the British Protestant usurper, oppressor and proselytiser. Eventually, through history not being Catholic being synonymous to not being moral, or not being Maltese which eventually meant being immoral (as in being treacherous after all).

    This is how I see that notions of inseparability between religion and morality could arise in popular thought, in Malta as a traditionally Catholic society. Proper Catholic doctrine however, doesn't hold this.

    Now however, there is another problem related to soteriology. The Catholic dogma of EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS (Outside the Church there is no Salvation) would seem to theologically imply that those not members the Church are damned (unless invincible ignorance is involved) to eternal hell. I am not theologically contesting this. The fact is that morality is not involved here, for as far as mentioned dogma is concerned the person's identified religious faith is a precondition for the potentiality of salvation, morality is not this precondition. Morality in natural law/Catholic doctrine is a question man's application of his practical reasoning to practical scenarios based on his usage of reason and reason alone. It has little to do in this context with one's salvation. The problem is that ignorance of Catholic doctrine results in the least instructed of the Faithful to think that since the dogma of EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS applies then the excluded must necessarily be IMMORAL. As explained above, in Catholic thought, that is not so.

  9. #29
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Leofric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Monday, June 25th, 2018 @ 03:15 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Gender
    Age
    40
    Zodiac Sign
    Aquarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Telecommunications
    Politics
    Libertarian/Neo-Imperialist
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    1,200
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    10
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    I don't think morality comes from any god. Morality (etymologically speaking) is when you behave in a manner consistent with the customs of your society. Morality, then, comes from the society. In that sense, it can come from religion, because religion can be a societal institution. But the religious morality doesn't come from religion as a system of faith in gods or the supernatural, but from religion as a part of society. An social community can instill morality just as easily (and inevitably) as religion.

    Even Skadi instills morality in us.

    I think the benefits of religion are not morality, but spiritual health.



    Quote Originally Posted by Flash Voyager View Post
    Human morality has often been proven that it's a product of our conscience and therefore is objective. It's even observed in animals.
    I don't know about human morality being observed in animals ( ), but morality in animals doesn't prove that morality doesn't come from religion. We know basically nothing about the religious beliefs of animals. It could well be that animals exhibit morality because of their religion. (Though as you can see from my response to the original post, I don't think that morality must be religious in its source.)

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 7th, 2011 @ 06:32 PM
    Ethnicity
    -
    Gender
    Posts
    70
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ederico View Post
    Catholic doctrine denies that the non-Catholic are immoral per se, actually it denies the immorality of a person as a personal attribute but rather considers the immorality of a person's practical acts. In point of fact, Catholic doctrine essentially distinguishes the moral from immoral on the basis of natural law itself, the Catholic ethical doctrine (though in itself areligious, but mind you not irreligious). Religious affiliation to Catholicism doesn't presuppose moral rectitude in Catholicism and neither does it claim exclusive hold on morality.
    This is all well and good, but those who believe in a 'natural ' or 'rational' law contradict themselves about its content. A Catholic instinctively feels homosexuality as something unnatural and deviant - but this is enough for a saecular humanist to shriek about 'fundamentalism', as his own brand of objective morality doesn't care about sexual orientation. Same goes for abortion and contraception.

    There have been in history, for instance, many societies - often great cultures - which were founded on human sacrifice, sexual debauchery, slavery (which is condoned even by the Bible, but is now frown upon by modern humanism as a hideous crime). Either we assume that every historical community has its own standard of judgment, or we must declare that entire human groups had fallen astray from the only true universal table of values. How to convince they are wrong, is a matter about which I haven't the least clue.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Do You Believe In Absolute Morality?
    By Northern Paladin in forum Law, Ethics, & Morals
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Sunday, November 25th, 2007, 01:30 PM
  2. Morality and Free Will
    By Elenor in forum Law, Ethics, & Morals
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Tuesday, March 27th, 2007, 06:43 PM
  3. Why Morality?
    By Jack in forum Law, Ethics, & Morals
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: Monday, August 21st, 2006, 08:32 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •