Debate between a Christian and a Muslim

[AlP]

I just listened to this fascinating debate between a Christian and a Muslim. They are both intelligent and well informed. Be warned it's like 90 minutes or something.

The debate was on the question of whether Britain would be better off with Christianity as the major religion or with Islam. Islam has overtaken Christianity as the most popular religion in Britain in terms of practicing individuals. The thing I found most interesting was that both debaters were working under the assumption that ethics must come from religion. My take was that the concern of the Christian debater was that if Islam takes over as the major religion, then ethics in Britain will come from Islam.

To me, this is absurd. Atheists and non-practicing religious people will continue to operate under whatever ethical views they have always held. But I wonder, might it be worthwhile for atheists to take a stronger stance on ethics and to communicate it. "You can be good without God" is a start. Humanism is an example of a non-religious world view that takes a stance on ethics, though one that I disagree with. I disagree with it because it has no rational justification as far as I can tell. I'm actually a member and I've read more than just their web site.

Here is my crazy idea. Reinvent ethics in a rational way. Don't inherit ethics from Christianity or any other religion. Start from scratch. Make one that makes sense.

[Scrub]

It's impossible to just start over. Give a suggestion for one core law that isn't on the 10 commandments. As ridiculous as Christian and Islamic laws are (the ancient versions anyways) they have got SOME things right. Now, that doesn't mean that they were given these holy laws by their Gods, much the contrary; Rationality DOES play a role in its creation.

I entirely agree with you, however, in saying that neither of the 2 (or 3) religions are good moral bases. As Hitchens repeated so often, Islam still has archaic laws that any modern teenager, religious or not, would likely disagree with. Hitchens also stated Islams mission to be the world religion. He forgets to add, and Mogram forgets to push him on the fact that England was/is an imperialist state. They are a country with a state religion that went around the world conquering countries through force. Whether or not it was their mission to spread their religion they accomplished it anyways.

The most dangerous statement that was in this whole debate was something that both parties agreed on which was that they have such faith in their religion that they can hear someone bring up fact contrary to their beliefs and merely pass it off as an anomaly. No good atheist or indeed good rationalist should ever do that.

[Heretical Rants]

Give a suggestion for one core law that isn't on the 10 commandments.

Assuming we all have equal rights:

"Thou shalt not violate nor threaten another's rights"

This goes much further than all of the commandments combined, I think.

I also like this, from wicca:
"An it harm none, do as ye will."

[AlP]

It's impossible to just start over. Give a suggestion for one core law that isn't on the 10 commandments. As ridiculous as Christian and Islamic laws are (the ancient versions anyways) they have got SOME things right. Now, that doesn't mean that they were given these holy laws by their Gods, much the contrary; Rationality DOES play a role in its creation.

I'm not arguing that just because a moral law comes from religion, it is a bad idea. I'm totally down with the not murdering people and such like. What I mean to propose is starting over at trying to justify an ethical position using a wholly rational argument, in contrast to a religious argument like "cos God says so". It's something I'm thinking about trying anyway. It's more about being able to back up my position with a logical argument than the somewhat lame, "I'm good because I'm good".