Religious repugnancy

Some people believe that positive morality and ethical conduct flow entirely from religion.

I do not.

 I hold that lived personal experience will show the kinds of behaviour and attitude result in good or bad effects on oneself. You learn quickly and painfully that if you pick up a hot coal, you will get burnt; that if you deliberately injure somebody, you will see their pain and suffering, however much you attempt to justify it to yourself.

It follows that identical outcomes will apply to others; therefore it forms the basis of what is called the golden rule, and results in the spiritual principle of cause and effect where intent and actions of an individual influence the future of that individual.  It is not surprising to me that a number of religions accept the idea of cause and effect, but this does not infer that their teachings are the foundation of kindness and compassion.

An important weapon, which can easily brought to bear on the proponents of blasphemy is the simple question, “WHY?”

WHY is some imaginary deity held in reverence?

WHY are particular objects deemed sacred?

WHY are certain tenets inviolable?

A person who asks this question and demands answers is likely to see the shallowness which lies in superficial trust or faith in some intangible.

However, there is strong evidence concerning the undoubted good that many religions actually achieve in guiding their followers in moral and ethical decision making, a kind of moral compass. There is also the added benefit of the creation of human bonding amongst members of those religions, which gives group solidarity and reinforcement of societal mores. But a key factor in positive outcomes is the question of guidance, not of control.

Dogma-driven religions are overseen by fallible human beings who, often with the best of intention, still have personality shortcomings which bring their hierarchical standing into serious question (as though hierarchy has any rightful place in morality).

The immutable fact is that the responsibility for all personal thought, action, and speech lies solely with the initiator. No one else has the authority to direct you what to think, how to behave, or what to say.