|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 06/30/2007 : 21:06:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I will tell you my standards have been different in the past... |
So in your case, yes.| Keep in mind that current standards of societal morality are different today than they were even 20 years ago. |
That's the point, yes. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 22:10:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marty
If everyone, especially our political leaders, practiced the maxim of "treat others as you would like to be treated" the world would be a better place. |
It requires no faith whatsoever to follow the ethic of reciprocity. All it requires is a modicum of empathy, which atheists don't lack anymore than any randomly selected person might. It's been my experience that some Christians think that because Jesus said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," that must mean it was an original thought with Him. While it's nice when a religion follows ancient societal norms, it's a shame when an adherent of such a religion cannot work out the same morals from first principles, and instead thinks that it's some sort of divine revelation for which faith is necessary for understanding.
Some other points of yours:| It is my belief that there is a God (with a capital G) and that it is fact. Any attempt to persuade me otherwise will fail. That is not because I am closed off to your arguments, but that I have probably heard them before and they failed to convince me in the past. |
Nobody here should be interested in persuading you otherwise, but I (for one) am dying to know how you've made the leap from faith to fact.Actually, they show nothing of the sort. You'll note, of course, that Kohlberg's theory of moral development doesn't actually say what actions are good or bad, only how far along a person has progressed from the earliest understanding of morals to the most advanced. With Heinz' Dilemma, for example, it doesn't matter whether or not you think Heinz should steal the drug, only your rationale for what you think Heinz should do is important to classifying your moral development.
Kaczynski quite likely rationalized his bombings as being actions protective of human society as a whole - a necessary evil which would prevent an even greater evil - thus putting him not at the bottom of the moral development scale, but closer to the top.
Here's an easier dilemma for you to deal with: would you push a person in front of a train - to certain death - if by doing so you could save five other peoples' lives? No matter which way you answer, someone is going to die because of your decision, so how do you explain your choice?| With an atheist, I'm can never be sure that they are operating under an code other than their instinct, which could lead them in any direction. |
Actually, no, it cannot. Instincts are those reactions that have been bred into us over billions of years of evolution for the benefit of the species' continued existence. If you drop a baby into a pool, she will instinctively hold her breath. It's not an "any direction" sort of reaction, it's a sure thing (so long as the baby isn't sick). Instincts are anything but random.
Really, your objection amounts to little more than "atheists don't get their morals from a book, so I can't tell what they're thinking." Plenty of them will tell you if you ask without making presumptive statements about instincts.| Next, you say that you hope that a person of faith never loses their faith, well I agree on that point, but I wonder why you state that. After all, if a person of faith "loses" (if such a thing can be lost like a set of car keys) their faith, doesn't that make them an atheist, which, I'm gathering you are? |
We've run across plenty of people who've told us in no uncertain terms that the only reason they don't murder, rape or steal is because they'd go to hell if they did. If the only thing keeping a person from being a sociopath is their faith, then I (for one) hope they keep that faith.| And finally, back to my original point, faith is good. It is good because it provides hope... |
Hope for what, exactly?| ...and a context for morals and ethics. |
Do you deny that there are other contexts for morals and ethics? If not, then why is faith better than any other context?| It is good because it humbles people and shows them that they are not the greatest most powerful thing in creation. |
So does evolutionary theory. Or a kodiak bear attack. Or a hurricane. Or the flu.
| Anyway, this type of humility is not something that comes naturally to people, and I prefer that my political AND social leaders bring their faith with them to the office. |
Unfortunately, the Christian faith teaches people that they are specially created, and in God's image, and that God gave them dominion over all other life on the planet. That's exactly the opposite of the sort of humility I'd like to see in my elected officials.
Hey, you didn't answer my question: would you vote for a devout Satanist - who has as much faith in the existence of God as you do (he just thinks God is a bad guy) - over an atheist? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 22:16:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Valiant Dancer, so would I be correct in stating that an atheists moral standards are concurrent with societal moral standards and will change with the ebb and flow of society?
|
Isn't that true for theists?
|
In my case no. For those involved in organized religion in most cases yes.
|
I'm calling bullshit on this one.
As you experience more, your morals will change. Not all of them, but some. It all depends on the situation. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 22:22:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by marty
If everyone, especially our political leaders, practiced the maxim of "treat others as you would like to be treated" the world would be a better place. |
It requires no faith whatsoever to follow the ethic of reciprocity. All it requires is a modicum of empathy, which atheists don't lack anymore than any randomly selected person might. It's been my experience that some Christians think that because Jesus said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," that must mean it was an original thought with Him. While it's nice when a religion follows ancient societal norms, it's a shame when an adherent of such a religion cannot work out the same morals from first principles, and instead thinks that it's some sort of divine revelation for which faith is necessary for understanding.
Some other points of yours:| It is my belief that there is a God (with a capital G) and that it is fact. Any attempt to persuade me otherwise will fail. That is not because I am closed off to your arguments, but that I have probably heard them before and they failed to convince me in the past. |
Nobody here should be interested in persuading you otherwise, but I (for one) am dying to know how you've made the leap from faith to fact. |
I believe, from the context of his statement, that we can infer that he is expressing that his faith in the capital G God is a fact. And one, I also note, that noone here disputes in the least.
Actually, they show nothing of the sort. You'll note, of course, that Kohlberg's theory of moral development doesn't actually say what actions are good or bad, only how far along a person has progressed from the earliest understanding of morals to the most advanced. With Heinz' Dilemma, for example, it doesn't matter whether or not you think Heinz should steal the drug, only your rationale for what you think Heinz should do is important to classifying your moral development.
Kaczynski quite likely rationalized his bombings as being actions protective of human society as a whole - a necessary evil which would prevent an even greater evil - thus putting him not at the bottom of the moral development scale, but closer to the top.
Here's an easier dilemma for you to deal with: would you push a person in front of a train - to certain death - if by doing so you could save five other peoples' lives? No matter which way you answer, someone is going to die because of your decision, so how do you explain your choice?| With an atheist, I'm can never be sure that they are operating under an code other than their instinct, which could lead them in any direction. |
Actually, no, it cannot. Instincts are those reactions that have been bred into us over billions of years of evolution for the benefit of the species' continued existence. If you drop a baby into a pool, she will instinctively hold her breath. It's not an "any direction" sort of reaction, it's a sure thing (so long as the baby isn't sick). Instincts are anything but random.
Really, your objection amounts to little more than "atheists don't get their morals from a book, so I can't tell what they're thinking." Plenty of them will tell you if you ask without making presumptive statements about instincts.| Next, you say that you hope that a person of faith never loses their faith, well I agree on that point, but I wonder why you state that. After all, if a person of faith "loses" (if such a thing can be lost like a set of car keys) their faith, doesn't that make them an atheist, which, I'm gathering you are? |
We've run across plenty of people who've told us in no uncertain terms that the only reason they don't murder, rape or steal is because they'd go to hell if they did. If the only thing keeping a person from being a sociopath is their faith, then I (for one) hope they keep that faith.| And finally, back to my original point, faith is good. It is good because it provides hope... |
Hope for what, exactly?| ...and a context for morals and ethics. |
Do you deny that there are other contexts for morals and ethics? If not, then why is faith better than any other context?| It is good because it humbles people and shows them that they are not the greatest most powerful thing in creation. |
So does evolutionary theory. Or a kodiak bear attack. Or a hurricane. Or the flu.
| Anyway, this type of humility is not something that comes naturally to people, and I prefer that my political AND social leaders bring their faith with them to the office. |
Unfortunately, the Christian faith teaches people that they are specially created, and in God's image, and that God gave them dominion over all other life on the planet. That's exactly the opposite of the sort of humility I'd like to see in my elected officials.
Hey, you didn't answer my question: would you vote for a devout Satanist - who has as much faith in the existence of God as you do (he just thinks God is a bad guy) - over an atheist?
|
I would think that our friends here might want to check out Maslow's heirarchy of needs as a primer to why atheists have the same perpensity for good or ill as theists. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 22:36:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
I believe, from the context of his statement, that we can infer that he is expressing that his faith in the capital G God is a fact. |
Actually, I considered that for all of five seconds and decided that marty wouldn't be asuming that we're so dimwitted to think that his belief wasn't a fact. Arguments that one's faith itself is false are few and far between, so given the context that marty has probably heard many against his position that "it is fact" leads me to believe that the "it" refers to "the existence of God" and not "the existence of marty's faith in God."| And one, I also note, that noone here disputes in the least. |
Correct on that, which is why I'm guessing that marty isn't asserting that as fact.| I would think that our friends here might want to check out Maslow's heirarchy of needs as a primer to why atheists have the same perpensity for good or ill as theists. |
Good stuff. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 23:16:11 [Permalink]
|
Marty, you seem like a decent person, so please don't take personal offense at anything I have to say, but there is quite a bit you said which I disagree with.
Originally posted by marty
Okay, so apparently I struck a nerve with some folks here. |
It's not that you "struck a nerve," which would imply some sort of emotional aggrievement. I think most of us here just felt it was flat wrong.
| First of all, if you're an atheist, I hardly want to imply that 1) you are an amoral person and 2) I am somehow superior to you in any fashion. |
Good. The feeling is reciprical.
| However, I can assure you that I understand what "atheism" is "about" as you say. |
I'm not convinced on that point, but I'll address that later.
| Next, I would like to point out that much of what I say comes from my own experience, as well as studies I have read, people I talk to and things I have witnessed. It is my belief that there is a God (with a capital G) and that it is fact. Any attempt to persuade me otherwise will fail. That is not because I am closed off to your arguments, but that I have probably heard them before and they failed to convince me in the past. |
If you have come to believe that there is a God (with a capital G), then you've been persuaded by the wrong arguments. But that is a debate for another time, one I encourage you to engage in here in another thread.
Better education leading to greater morality is a trend, not an absolute. Of course you can find exceptions. I doubt, however, that you'll be able to ever find more than isolated madmen. What you won't find is systemic abuses, like with radical Islam's encouragement of martyrdom or Christianity's hostility toward gay rights. These are problems with the systems themselves, not individuals. As Mr. Weinberg said: "With or without [religion] you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
And yes, I have links. For instance, the Baptist divorce rate is higher than the average. And here's a link which shows societies are actually worse off the more religious they are.
I know a lot of people think religion is a source of social morality. It's just that it isn't so. No study which has ever been conducted demonstrates such a link. Invariably the opposite is true, the more religious a society is, the more crime it suffers:| In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9). The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. |
So please, give up the idea that religious is the same as moral. It has never been true in the history of the world.
| Next, how to atheists structure their "moral code" without all of the "God nonsense". Are you referring to Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Marx ?? What is the basis for this moral code? At least with MOST people of faith, I know where their moral foundation lays. With an atheist, I'm can never be sure that they are operating under an code other than their instinct, which could lead them in any direction. |
Well, the idea that you know where a person of faith's moral foundation lies is a very nice idea, but it is also wrong. Most people do not get their morals from their religion, even when they have been led to believe they do. I would direct you to this thread for an introduction.
| Next, you say that you hope that a person of faith never loses their faith, well I agree on that point, but I wonder why you state that. After all, if a person of faith "loses" (if such a thing can be lost like a set of car keys) their faith, doesn't that make them an atheist, which, I'm gathering you are? |
Well, not just any person of faith, but one who specifically states that they would not be moral save for their religion. That markedly differs from most atheists who have graduated beyond the need of supernatural threats in order to be good people.
| Now for the stuff I didn't say: I never said that atheists were amoral people, nor did I say that morality only comes from faith. |
Good. But what you should understand is that in almost all cases, morality never comes from faith at all.
| And finally, back to my original point, faith is good. It is good because it provides hope and a context for morals and ethics. |
This is where I find you to go most wrong. Faith is not good, since it encourages uncritical acceptance of unevidenced claims. It does provide a context for morals, but when examined closely, that context is found to be false.
| It is good because it humbles people and shows them that they are not the greatest most powerful thing in creation. |
Such perspective is possible without faith. Indeed faith can have the opposite effect you claim--it can give people the false delusion that they hold a privileged place in the cosmos and that all of the Universe was created for their benefit. Religion places man at the center of his world. Atheism offers a much humbler explanation.
I will concede the point that this is not always the case, but with 6 Billion people in the world it is impossible to state that anything is always the case. Anyway, this type of humility is not something that comes naturally to people, and I prefer that my political AND social leaders bring their faith with them to the office. Let their concern for others become a guiding principle, which is a founding principle in every major religion. If everyone, especially our political leaders, practiced the maxim of "treat others as you would like to be treated" the world would be a better place.
|
Now that last sentiment is one which we may all cherish. I believe if you release the false idea that faith is the wellspring of such sentiments, then you may well understand atheism yet.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/01/2007 09:50:02 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2007 : 01:06:34 [Permalink]
|
I'm on this very chapter of Dawkin's The God Delusion right now.
 |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2007 : 02:45:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Flithy, I see nothing wrong with the second two other than being religious(I disagree with man structured religion); the first guy is your basic loony tunes. I asked my question because I would like to know the answer without relying on popular examples for the answer. Again, I am not attempting a contrast and compare. I am asking straight from the horses mouth as it were.
|
Stop with the bullshit, Jerome. You know exactly who those people are, and you never looked them up for detail as I suggested.
Dobson is the current holder of the ultra-conservative, Christian leadership. He wrote Dare to Disipline, in which he devoted a chapter on the best ways to beat children, which hints at closet pederasty. He is a theocrat who has managed to consolidate an unwarrented amount of power and uses it to further his political ends. Those ends include the election of theocrats in government and, in my opinion, the scrapping of much of our Constitution in favor of Biblical rule.
Ralph Reed belongs in jail.
These are people with no moral standards beyond what they set for themselves in support of their agendas. And the sad part about it is that so many otherwise sensible folks dote upon their every, lying word.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 07/01/2007 : 03:55:00 [Permalink]
|
Case in point: Floods are judgment on society, say bishops
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 11:50pm BST 30/06/2007
The summer floods are God's judgment on the immorality and greed of modern society, claim senior Church of England bishops.
The Bishop said pro-gay laws were to blame for the floods
One, the Bishop of Carlisle, even said that the introduction of pro-gay laws had provoked God to send the storms that have left thousands homeless.
The bishops argued that while those affected are innocent victims, the flooding was a result of western civilisation's decision to ignore biblical teaching. The Rt Rev Graham Dow, said that the floods were not only a result of a lack of respect for the planet, but also a judgment for decadence.
"This is a strong and definite judgment because the world has been arrogant in going its own way," he said. "We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation, as well as the environmental damage that we have caused."
|
It never fails to amaze me that these turkeys always know the mind of God. Were I a believer, and I am certainly not, I would never be so presumptuous as to claim that an omnipotent being made me privy to it's plans. I mean, why should it? Who the hell am I? And who the hell are these bishops other than mere mortals in fancy dress, trying to impress their followers with their pious incites, and their superiors with their skills at jerking said followers around?
Sometimes, I declare, I wish there really was an interactive god of some sort or other. I honestly do believe that it'd have run out of patience milena ago, and would bitch-slap these clowns silly every time they opened their foolish gobs.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2007 : 05:32:01 [Permalink]
|
One of these days, some flood or hurricane victim is going to beat the tar out of one of these sanctimonious bastards. I hope I get to watch it on You Tube.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2007 : 08:41:03 [Permalink]
|
mm, I know other people answered to this far more eloquently than I can, but I simply can't resist; it's something that has been swimming in my mind, lately. This will be a long, silly rant, so please be gentle to me.
As for an introduction to you, Marty, I'm a girl born and bred in Brazil, where I live. My mother is extremely religious and faithful without being fanatical, which is great. I never believed in God, for as back as I can recall, even though I was raised in the 'belief of God, that is, my mother tried to make me faithful (and failed). From my group of friends, which is quite small, excluding Internet ones, I am the only atheist.
I say this so you know I am not a) against religious people, b) not estranged to various religious beliefs (the aforementioned friends are not all christians; there are muslims, buddhists, pagans and other several flavors of religion among them).
| Okay, so apparently I struck a nerve with some folks here. First of all, if you're an atheist, I hardly want to imply that 1) you are an amoral person and 2) I am somehow superior to you in any fashion. However, I can assure you that I understand what "atheism" is "about" as you say. |
And what is it about? I'm rather curious. I just thought it was lack of belief in a deity (and in my case, in the supernatural as a whole).
| Next, I would like to point out that much of what I say comes from my own experience, as well as studies I have read, people I talk to and things I have witnessed. It is my belief that there is a God (with a capital G) and that it is fact. Any attempt to persuade me otherwise will fail. |
Kudos to you on that. I probably wouldn't be convinced by your arguments, either. But, out of sheer curiosity, I'd like to know what led you to believe in a God, whichever it is. In my experience, many people don't even know why they believe in God. My mother herself doesn't truly know why, I'm sure. I know for sure that she thinks a life without god (uncapitalized; she's in the position that any religion is better than no religion) is miserable.
| That is not because I am closed off to your arguments, but that I have probably heard them before and they failed to convince me in the past. |
I can understand that. Your arguments wouldn't convince me, either. Which is why I find intensely annoying when people try to convert me.
Granted. Not all people are equal. Yes, some highly educated people can be amoral. People are people, regardless of faith, education and social position. But, as someone mentioned before, it's a trend, not an absolute. That's like saying all poor people are moral.
And, I wouldn't say so much education, but rather, culture. I think culture affects people a great deal more than simple education. But that's just me.
| Next, how to atheists structure their "moral code" without all of the "God nonsense". Are you referring to Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Marx ?? What is the basis for this moral code? At least with MOST people of faith, I know where their moral foundation lays. With an atheist, I'm can never be sure that they are operating under an code other than their instinct, which could lead them in any direction. |
Lots of people have answered this already, better than I could. But, the moral foundation of 'people of faith' can be misleading - even dangerous. Especially the foundation that advocates the elimination of the heathens and prejudice against perfectly harmless people.
Me, I'd rather follow what I think is right and feel is right (see my signature below), as an individual, rather than go with the herd. Of course I derive much of my opinion from the society I'm in. We are social animals. But I don't think your foundation is really that different from my foundation - only yours has a name...
| Next, you say that you hope that a person of faith never loses their faith, well I agree on that point, but I wonder why you state that. After all, if a person of faith "loses" (if such a thing can be lost like a set of car keys) their faith, doesn't that make them an atheist, which, I'm gathering you are? |
Other people addressed this, too, so yeah.
| And finally, back to my original point, faith is good. It is good because it provides hope and a context for morals and ethics. |
Hope in, or of, what? And, pulling a Nietzsche act here, why is hope so good, anyway?
| It is good because it humbles people and shows them that they are not the greatest most powerful thing in creation. I will concede the point that this is not always the case, but with 6 Billion people in the world it is impossible to state that anything is always the case. |
Why do you need someone to tell you such? Or is it rather the comfort that you aren't alone in this vast, listless Universe? Indeed, what can be more humbling than knowing that you're nothing but a casual blip in it, insignificant in the grand scheme of things?
Anyway, this type of humility is not something that comes naturally to people, and I prefer that my political AND social leaders bring their faith with them to the office. Let their concern for others become a guiding principle, which is a founding principle in every major religion. If everyone, especially our political leaders, practiced the maxim of "treat others as you would like to be treated" the world would be a better place.
|
I agree that it would, but that is not what happens. People are led to believe they are a special creation from God Almighty. Which is far, far different than believing you - we - are nothing but a speck of dust in the great universe and that it will go on regardless of what we do - we only have this chance. There's nobody else to fix or recreate what we do.
And... this 'foundation of every religion' bit, wouldn't that be because people as a species create religion as an instrument of self-organization? We are social animals, after all. Every social animal has its codes. A stallion challenges another, they fight. A colt challenges the leading mare, she puts it back in its place - even expells it from the herd for awhile, before accepting it back when it 'repents'. We are only more sophisticated, don't you think? |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2007 : 10:35:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Flithy, I see nothing wrong with the second two other than being religious(I disagree with man structured religion); the first guy is your basic loony tunes. I asked my question because I would like to know the answer without relying on popular examples for the answer. Again, I am not attempting a contrast and compare. I am asking straight from the horses mouth as it were.
|
Stop with the bullshit, Jerome. You know exactly who those people are, and you never looked them up for detail as I suggested.
Dobson is the current holder of the ultra-conservative, Christian leadership. He wrote Dare to Disipline, in which he devoted a chapter on the best ways to beat children, which hints at closet pederasty. He is a theocrat who has managed to consolidate an unwarrented amount of power and uses it to further his political ends. Those ends include the election of theocrats in government and, in my opinion, the scrapping of much of our Constitution in favor of Biblical rule.
Ralph Reed belongs in jail.
These are people with no moral standards beyond what they set for themselves in support of their agendas. And the sad part about it is that so many otherwise sensible folks dote upon their every, lying word.
|
This is silly, I am not attempting a contrast and compare. If this where the case I could cite many religious people that are moral beyond human expectation. I also could cite non religious people that are amoral. These are not to the point, within any group one will always find examples that could discredit the group. I am doing nothing more than attempting to learn about the path to a moral code that atheists take.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2007 : 10:42:51 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer said:
I'm calling bullshit on this one.
As you experience more, your morals will change. Not all of them, but some. It all depends on the situation. |
One can not say what the future will bring. But I will tell you I have found a moral code that works to the benefit of those that I interact with. I also will tell you my life circumstances has changed several times since I have chosen this current moral code; many times to my short term detriment. I am a stubborn sort; although I can not predict the future, I can tell you it is very unlikely that my moral code will change based on new circumstances.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2007 : 14:32:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I also will tell you my life circumstances has changed several times since I have chosen this current moral code; many times to my short term detriment. I am a stubborn sort; although I can not predict the future, I can tell you it is very unlikely that my moral code will change based on new circumstances.
|
You are convenliently ignoring that we've been mostly talking about moral codes changing according to larger societal changes.
In 1600s Spain, women would be in dear trouble from wearing two-legged pants instead of a skirt or dress.
Wasn't in in the sixties or early seventies that Pentecostal women were immoral if they wore makeup? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Religion or Politics? Where to put it?
