Uncritical Acceptance of Atheist Nonsense Breeds Killers

[brewmama]

That's a religious casting of it, I suppose. But even on its own terms, Paul is observing something apart from religion.

He's observing God.

 

[rexlunae]

He's observing God.

Paul might have agreed with that, but that's just confirmation of his existing beliefs, as well as yours. And he would have lacked the vocabulary to describe it otherwise. Even today, we sometimes struggle with it.

 

[brewmama]

Paul might have agreed with that, but that's just confirmation of his existing beliefs, as well as yours. And he would have lacked the vocabulary to describe it otherwise. Even today, we sometimes struggle with it.

I'll grant you that. But you can no more prove that secular morality pre-existed religious thought, or that religious thought piggybacked onto secular thought than what you refuse as our proof.

 

[rexlunae]

I'll grant you that. But you can no more prove that secular morality pre-existed religious thought, or that religious thought piggybacked onto secular thought than what you refuse as our proof.

It's at least as hard to prove that religion originated morality, really. Religion may claim to have done so, but that isn't proof.

What is undeniable is that our species predates the current slate of religions by orders of magnitude. And if we didn't have morality until we had our current religions, I don't think we would have survived as a highly-cooperative species. And why would there be common moral precepts, like a respect for life, that transcend religious traditions?

 

[brewmama]

It's at least as hard to prove that religion originated morality, really. Religion may claim to have done so, but that isn't proof.

What is undeniable is that our species predates the current slate of religions by orders of magnitude. And if we didn't have morality until we had our current religions, I don't think we would have survived as a highly-cooperative species. And why would there be common moral precepts, like a respect for life, that transcend religious traditions?

I think it's presumptuous to conclude that just because our current religions weren't around earlier in the history of the species that there was not a religious impulse. I have always heard otherwise, most ancient cultures had some form of pagan religion.

And you can hardly claim that respect for life is a hallmark of secular morality! There's way too much evidence to the contrary.

 

[rexlunae]

I think it's presumptuous to conclude that just because our current religions weren't around earlier in the history of the species that there was not a religious impulse.

I don't presume that. On the contrary, our species has almost certainly always been religious. But I think you have to view morality as part of a larger holistic system of behaviors. What's certain is that no one was waiting for a burning bush to speak to Moses to stop killing each other.

And you can hardly claim that respect for life is a hallmark of secular morality! There's way too much evidence to the contrary.

In what specifics?

 

[brewmama]

In what specifics?

Like I already said, French Revolution, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, euthanasia, abortion...

 

[rexlunae]

Like I already said, French Revolution, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, euthanasia, abortion...

Crusades, Daesh, persecution of LGBT people, colonialism of most of the world, forced conversions, the Inquisition...

 

[brewmama]

Crusades, Daesh, persecution of LGBT people, colonialism of most of the world, forced conversions, the Inquisition...

What's your point? I am showing how secular morality has little value on human life. Other than Islamic barbarism, your examples pale in comparison to secular killings, not even in the same ball park...

 

[rexlunae]

What's your point?

That religion also produces acts of incredible violence and disregard for life.

I am showing how secular morality has little value on human life.

...by the application of a very biased standard.

Other than Islamic barbarism, your examples pale in comparison to secular killings, not even in the same ball park...

No it doesn't. And it's just a few examples off the top of my head. There are a lot more. Christians in Europe fought a 30-year war over which type of Christianity was the right one.

 

[badp]

ummm ok. You stated, verbatim: "atheism can form no moral argument against murder."

I then proceeded to answer your unsupported accusation with several specific examples of morality that need not a religious/dogmatic justification.

Exactly where along this path did I lose you?

You gave examples of emotion and instinct. Nothing about morality, which involves absolutes. A person feeling empathy and having an instinct to survive doesn't translate to any kind of universal moral law that all of mankind is obligated to follow.

 

[quip]

You gave examples of emotion and instinct. Nothing about morality, which involves absolutes. A person feeling empathy and having an instinct to survive doesn't translate to any kind of universal moral law that all of mankind is obligated to follow.

Well, first provide some universal evidence for this universal moral law then provide some proof of my universal obligation to it.

After that, we'll talk about the fantasy entitled absolute morality.

Pinning down the phantasmal seem quite the herculean task..hope you're up to it.

Get back to me when your task is either complete or dispelled.

 

[badp]

Well, first provide some universal evidence for this universal moral law then provide some proof of my universal obligation to it.

After that, we'll talk about the fantasy entitled absolute morality.

Pinning down the phantasmal seem quite the herculean task..hope you're up to it.

Get back to me when your task is either complete or dispelled.

Ah, finally. I was trying to get you admit you don't believe in moral absolutes.

 

[brewmama]

That religion also produces acts of incredible violence and disregard for life.

...by the application of a very based standard.

No it doesn't. And it's just a few examples off the top of my head. There are a lot more. Christians in Europe fought a 30-year war over which type of Christianity was the right one.

I never said that Christians and other religious people have not conducted wars, etc. I was replying to your statement:

"It's actually the opposite. To the degree that religions condemn certain acts, like murder, it's because they get those principles from the people who created the religions. Nietzsche was mistaken. Religious morality piggybacks on secular morality, even as it often distorts and corrupts it."

I still don't see how you have any basis for saying that.

 

[rexlunae]

I never said that Christians and other religious people have not conducted wars, etc.

Well, you can't use a laundry-list of atrocities committed by allegedly secular groups as disproof of secular morality without allowing the same logic against religious morality. It's hypocritical.

I was replying to your statement:

"It's actually the opposite. To the degree that religions condemn certain acts, like murder, it's because they get those principles from the people who created the religions. Nietzsche was mistaken. Religious morality piggybacks on secular morality, even as it often distorts and corrupts it."

I still don't see how you have any basis for saying that.

What part of it? I feel like I explained my understanding.

 

[brewmama]

Well, you can't use a laundry-list of atrocities committed by allegedly secular groups as disproof of secular morality without allowing the same logic against religious morality. It's hypocritical.

What part of it? I feel like I explained my understanding.

This part. "And why would there be common moral precepts, like a respect for life, that transcend religious traditions?" I don't see respect for human life in secular morality, as I've already shown. And since many of those killed by secularists and those who fight against secularists abandoning respect for life as in abortion and euthanasia are religious, I don't see how you can equate it as a universal precept in all people.

 

[rexlunae]

This part. "And why would there be common moral precepts, like a respect for life, that transcend religious traditions?" I don't see respect for human life in secular morality, as I've already shown.

How about this? Agree of disagree: The only reason I don't kill people is that I don't think God wants me to.

And since many of those killed by secularists and those who fight against secularists abandoning respect for life as in abortion and euthanasia are religious, I don't see how you can equate it as a universal precept in all people.

If you go to China, they have different language, different writing, different traditions, and different religions. But they still recognize that you can't just kill someone.

It's not that there are some well-defined, clearly-specified rules. In fact, the details and the exceptions vary greatly between cultures. But there is a consistent recognition of the humanity of others, and with that recognition comes empathy, and with empathy comes a desire not to do harm. Usually.

 

[quip]

Ah, finally. I was trying to get you admit you don't believe in moral absolutes.

Blatantly obvious.

Anything more to add?

 

[Lon]

Crusades

Not evidence at all of murder but of war. So "nope." Your worldview is flawed, I have aced all my history classes and taught it. You really are going to lose this before you even get out of the gate. You are flat wrong simply to favor your atheist opinion. It literally makes you have to lie to yourself to maintain it. Atheism is untenable on many fronts.

Daesh

Not Christian so really doesn't touch Christianity or Atheism. It is rather about a religion that devalues humans that are not Muslim as disposable infidels.

persecution of LGBT people

:nono: Exactly the opposite of what you think/suppose. Rather, it is the evolution mindset that allows anything-goes mentality and stops treating fellow human beings as brothers/sisters and starts treating them as objects for personal gain and satisfaction. Exactly the opposite.
You mistake "this is not right for a brother to do to another brother in the human race" with persecution. Nope, it isn't. Police don't 'persecute' criminals. This is bad, prevalent uncritical thinking in society today. Today's citizen must stop being duped by uncritical thinking and actually start/begin to think of what is better for society, not just what it 'wants to do.' That's hedonism and it is fueled by Darwinism to the extent that man is seen as an over-glorified ape rather than a brother/sister. That has to change. The next generations will reap a low-view of humanity by more violence and demoralizing behavior.

colonialism of most of the world

The difference is the 'reason' war and killing happened. We are seeing more and more 'meaningless' killings because we are being told more and more by secularization, that we are merely animals. In fact, if you were 'not created in God's image' there is no moral problem with you and I killing each other off. None of it matters. I'm dust, you are dust and it is a pie-in-the-sky reach to say that 'cooperation' is beneficial. Why? Because it doesn't matter. Nothing can matter but our own inflated senses and desires and being as the conflict between mine and yours stops each of us from getting all we want, there would be nothing wrong with one superimposing over the other, even to death. Death would be meaningless and so not wrong as well. It is only a recognition of value, brotherliness, and these indelible values that 'can' impart a societal value, and they necessarily must reach well beyond Darwinian thought and observation. If it does not, we are well headed backwards, not forwards.

forced conversions, the Inquisition...[/QUOTE]

 

[brewmama]

How about this? Agree of disagree: The only reason I don't kill people is that I don't think God wants me to.

Since I believe in a morality based on God's word, I agree. Since there is really no way of knowing whether I (or you) would agree if religion had never occurred, it's a moot point.

If you go to China, they have different language, different writing, different traditions, and different religions. But they still recognize that you can't just kill someone.

And yet they do kill infants and babies in the womb to a horrific degree, to the point of having an extremely lopsided difference in sexes. Not to mention how they kill religious practitioners and dissidents. It's very typical of Communist countries to kill any religious voice, since that us what they fear most as a threat to their hegemony.

It's not that there are some well-defined, clearly-specified rules. In fact, the details and the exceptions vary greatly between cultures. But there is a consistent recognition of the humanity of others, and with that recognition comes empathy, and with empathy comes a desire not to do harm. Usually.

Within their own tribe, as liberals like to say. Not so much with others. Unless religion changes it.