Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Atheist morals

2»

Comments

  • #52
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    JoeBallantine wrote: »
    Ok, no problem.

    If a young girl (i.e 13 and mentally deranged) came to me and said she had been raped by a soldier in a war zone I would advocate an abortion in some cases (not all cases)

    A believer in Christanity could not. Explain how it is moral for the child to be born to a parent that cannot cope, you are potentially destroying two lives. I know you will try to justify that stance and I am interested in how you will do it.


    If a desperately sick person came to me and said they had a terminal illness which caused constant and unendurable pain I believe it could be moral to end the individuals suffering... the same as we would do for a horse with a broken leg. A christian will simply say 'No, we have a rule, I don't care what the situation is, I cannot advocate that, you must suffer. (God has a plan blah blah)'.

    So these are moral positions a non believer could take that would be considered ethical and moral by the (thinking) majority but that a Christian couldn't advocate.

    A bisexual man tells you he's cheating on his boyfriend with a woman...can a Christian tell him to stop cheating on his boyfriend?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #53
    daveyjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,464 ✭✭✭daveyjoe


    Húrin wrote: »
    So Hitchens is saying that there would be less war and other acts of evil without religion?

    He didn't specifically say any of this in the quote but if he did then I would agree with him.
    Húrin wrote: »
    This must be a joke. Almost no wars were ever undertaken for purely religious reasons; they were waged because of greed for land, resources, royal succession, etc.

    This is true (although there are quite a few exceptions). However, religion almost always becomes a factor in driving the masses to war and can give people the 'courage' to do what they have been 'told to do by god' (can you say jihad?). A person with total unwavering belief in something is a very dangerous person. That is what I am arguing against, total unwavering belief!

    Húrin wrote: »
    Mostly using his knowledge of the books of Mark and Isaiah. Non-Christians wouldn't take those seriously.
    What specific points was he making? We secular people will take on board pieces of literature too. However we will judge it on merit, that is the difference.

    Húrin wrote: »
    Lack of contraception didn't cause world population to become overshot. Fossil fuels did. But that's another story.

    Cause and effect.
    Húrin wrote: »
    I do not agree with the Catholic position on contraception because it leads to suffering among the African poor. It also logically leads to a ridiculous belief that, as monty python says, "every sperm is sacred". I think that these are not at odds with Christian ethics, which do not cause suffering.

    Oh, you've got your own little religion. A bit of this and a bit of that. I'm not going to argue against peoples personal religion because I don't know anything about it. Cherry-picking.

    Húrin wrote: »
    Yes, ideology leads to fanatacism. That was my point. Whether you think it is religion like or not is irrelevant. You have identified a part of the nature of some humans - perhaps all of us - that seeks to draw boundaries around ourselves and eliminate those on the other side of it. Christian Biblical teaching discourages the drawing of boundaries, which is why Christians should be (and in a great many cases, are) tolerant and welcoming of non-Christians.

    Hmmm, ok. I sorta, kinda, a little bit agree with you here. I don't believe religion per se is the problem. It's the 100% unwavering faith that comes with it that scares me, I guess this may be somewhat applied to other ideologies also. However I think ideologies are not as faith based as religion. "I Am the Way, the Truth, and the Life" scares me.
    Húrin wrote: »
    Most atheists who do good are acting on humanist morals, which come from the cultural influence of Christianity.

    Give me a break please, We are all born with an ethic of reciprocity (golden rule, if you like). It was necessary for our survival in the past and has become more innate in us as we have evolved. It benefits all of us if we work towards a common best interest, that is not to say that we are not selfish in certain respects.


  • #54
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    daveyjoe wrote: »
    He didn't specifically say any of this in the quote but if he did then I would agree with him.
    That assumes that humans would be somehow more righteous without religion.
    This is true (although there are quite a few exceptions). However, religion almost always becomes a factor in driving the masses to war and can give people the 'courage' to do what they have been 'told to do by god' (can you say jihad?).
    The 19th and 20th centuries prove that any collective characteristic can be used for this purpose. Nothing unique to religion there. In fact, it was after governments started using myths like nationalism, ideology, money, enlightenment reason, more than religion, as a justification for war, that wars became total wars and much more bloody.
    A person with total unwavering belief in something is a very dangerous person. That is what I am arguing against, total unwavering belief!
    This is ridiculous. Is a person with total unwavering belief in pacifism dangerous? How about free speech or religious freedom? Are you sure you have none yourself?

    This is like saying that because physics led to nuclear weapons, then physics is dangerous and we should be against it.
    Oh, you've got your own little religion. A bit of this and a bit of that. I'm not going to argue against peoples personal religion because I don't know anything about it. Cherry-picking.
    Would I gain more respect from you by sticking to the rigid dogma of a church? Christians who apply independent thought to their beliefs are so much more difficult to stereotype and ridicule aren't they?
    Give me a break please, We are all born with an ethic of reciprocity (golden rule, if you like). It was necessary for our survival in the past and has become more innate in us as we have evolved.
    Yes I agree that there is some degree of ethics written into our genes. But we observe that not everyone in the world, or everyone in our society, believes and acts according to the same moral basis.


  • #55
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    JoeBallantine wrote: »
    A believer in Christanity could not. Explain how it is moral for the child to be born to a parent that cannot cope, you are potentially destroying two lives. I know you will try to justify that stance and I am interested in how you will do it.

    Ah, potentially 'destroying two lives' as opposed to definitely destroying one!


  • #56
    daveyjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,464 ✭✭✭daveyjoe


    Thanks for your reply Húrin. I don't want to flog this topic, so I'll let this come to a close. I will correct my not so thoughtful earlier comment though:

    A person with total unwavering belief in something for which they have no real evidence has the potential to be be a very dangerous person.


Advertisement