Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

MaxWig wrote: »

I grasp it fine. Explain it to me; "With or without it (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."

I read it as saying 'Without religion, good people would not do evil things.'

If that is not what you mean, then please clarify it for me.

I understand it might take a while to outline your thesis on what is good, and what is evil, so a note on each would do.

I made my point clear by presenting you with the below situation, I am not a philosopher and am not arguing about the nuances of good and evil. I am as below showing that a normal thinking good person (by whatever standard of good you choose) would not perform the below act that happen to this day! Maybe you would need start a what is Good/Bad/Evil thread!

Would a good person (good=whatever you define as good) place a piece of metal in his mouth then remove the foreskin of a baby boy orally?

The Jewish reilgion does have good (good=whatever you define as good) Rabbis preform this act!!

silverharp wrote: »

I didn't see it but indeed most things that have happened in a religious society could have happened in a secular society. But a secular society moves on and reforms , changes laws in spite of what religious people want.

The law here has changed too.

The point being that many of the things that you hold religion responsible for in this country, those same things happened in other "secular" countries such as Britain.

I don't advocate for the law to adhere to one set of religious beliefs. However society accepts that actions such as murder and theft are wrong.

hinault wrote: »

The law here has changed too.

The point being that many of the things that you hold religion responsible for in this country, those same things happened in other "secular" countries such as Britain.

I don't advocate for the law to adhere to one set of religious beliefs. However society accepts that actions such as murder and theft are wrong.

But society doesn't need a religious viewpoint to know that murder and theft is wrong. Ask any reasonably well educated person and they would broadly expect a legal system to defend negative rights. The church has fought individual rights in the past which is an additional evil in society.

MaxWig wrote: »

And you are implying that a good person doing this evil thing, and believing it to be good is unique to religion.

I am saying it is not.


Would a good person (good=whatever you define as good) prevent a dying person from taking illegal drugs for pain?

Once again, what is your take on this statement, and please without dragging us into a debate over what is good or evil that is not what my initial comment was about!

Would a good person (good=whatever you define as good) place a piece of metal in his mouth then remove the foreskin of a baby boy orally?

The Jewish religion does have good (good=whatever you define as good) Rabbis preform this act!!

jaffusmax wrote: »

Once again, what is your take on this statement, and please without dragging us into a debate over what is good or evil that is not what my initial comment was about!

Would a good person (good=whatever you define as good) place a piece of metal in his mouth then remove the foreskin of a baby boy orally?

The Jewish religion does have good (good=whatever you define as good) Rabbis preform this act!!

My take is that you are suggesting that this (good) rabbi is doing something deemed evil (by us) in the belief that it is good. I don't disagree with this appraisal. Works for me.

For me it falls down when you imply only religion can cause such a thing

jaffusmax wrote: »

I would disagree but I as I said before am not in the business of forcing my opinion or beliefs on you, ill leave that for religions to do!

Would a good person prevent a dying person from taking illegal drugs for pain?

Genuinely interested in your response

hinault wrote: »

Yet it was religion, the Mosaic religion, which codified that actions such as murder and theft were wrong long before "society" codified such laws.

thats a nonsense , Ireland had Brehon law before any christians set foot in the place. The Roman Empire had a legal system before they ever bumped into the Jews.
Its daft to suggest that Jews were the only ones to suggest stealing is a bad thing for large groups of people to engage in

MaxWig wrote: »

Would a good person prevent a dying person from taking illegal drugs for pain?

Genuinely interested in your response

How can you prevent anyone from taking illegal drugs? I am a good person and have watched for years my alcoholic father killing himself with legal alcohol and have not been able to stop him not matter how much I have tried!

I do not understand what point you are making with this question?

jaffusmax wrote: »

How can you prevent anyone from taking illegal drugs? I am a good person and have watched for years my alcoholic father killing himself with legal alcohol and have not been able to stop him not matter how much I have tried!

I do not understand what point you are making with this question?

That's no problem - I can explain it.

You provided an example of a good person doing a bad thing under the impression that it was a good thing to do, and suggested that this was a phenomenon unique to religion.

I am providing a different scenario, although examples are not necessary. It is very simple to tease this one out.
It is simply people acting the way they believe is right.

If I believe illegal drugs are bad - dangerous - and I refuse to organise cannabis (for the sake of argument) - for a friend/family member who is in great pain because I believe it's wrong, thus increasing, or at least not decreasing the pain of said person - am I a good person doing a good thing? a bad person doing a bad thing? A good person doing a bad thing? Or a bad person doing a good thing?

And what's it got to do with religion?

MaxWig wrote: »

That's no problem - I can explain it.

You provided an example of a good person doing a bad thing under the impression that it was a good thing to do, and suggested that this was a phenomenon unique to religion.

I am providing a different scenario, although examples are not necessary. It is very simple to tease this one out.
It is simply people acting the way they believe is right.

If I believe illegal drugs are bad - dangerous - and I refuse to organise cannabis (for the sake of argument) - for a friend/family member who is in great pain because I believe it's wrong, thus increasing, or at least not decreasing the pain of said person - am I a good person doing a good thing? a bad person doing a bad thing? A good person doing a bad thing? Or a bad person doing a good thing?

And what's it got to do with religion?

Difference is you are making a personal decision that you alone are responsible in your scenario. In this scenario you are also intending to do a good thing!

In my scenario an organised religion is responsible for providing a good person with a reason to do a needlessly evil thing! In this scenario I gave using a pieve of metal to orrally remove a baby boys foreskin is completly needless!

hinault wrote: »

Did Brehon Law / Roman Law codify it's laws to say that theft/murder was illegal?

Brehon Law was codified in 5th century. I think we can agree that the Mosaic Law predates Brehon Law.

Mosaic Law predates both Brehon and Roman law.

The Roman system was influenced by the Greek system so here we go , a State that implemented a law against Murder not referenced to Mosaic law. If you want we could go around the world and find other example , i included one from those godless savages in china

http://www.crystalinks.com/greeklaw.html

Early Laws

After the Dark Ages - About 1200-900 BC - and beginning at about 900 BC, the Ancient Greeks had no official laws or punishments. Murders were settled by members of the victim's family, who would then go and kill the murderer. This often began endless blood feuds. It was not until the middle of the seventh century BC that the Greeks first began to establish official laws. Around 620 BC Draco, the lawgiver, wrote the first known written law of Ancient Greece. This law established exile as the penalty for homicide and was the only one of Draco's laws that Solon kept when he was appointed law giver in about 594 BC. Solon created many new laws that fit into the four basic categories of Ancient Greek law.

Ancient China

http://www.hi.com.au/resource/rfacts.asp?kla=16&subtopicid=2508

the most shameful of all punishments in Ancient China was decapitation (beheading). Any person found guilty of murder and some other very grave crimes could expect this punishment. In China, the head was considered to be the noblest part of the body, so it was shameful to have it cut off.

Difference is you are making a personal decision that you alone are responsible in your scenario.

Really? That 'drugs are bad' is a notion people just come up with it - without any help from institutions?

In my scenario an organised religion is responsible for providing a good person with a reason to do a needlessly evil thing!

As is the case in mine. Except the organised institution is different. You can pick the institution. School. Media. Government. Military.

What about a really nice soldier shooting someone in the head because the Sarge said so? And I mean really nice. Get's the groceries for his elderly neighbour. Volunteers down the animal shelter, washing mangy dogs and nipple feeding the little ones back to health with a tiny little bottle of warm milk.
Then he goes on duty and kills a load of people in the belief that it is the right thing to do?

Bad/Good/Bad?

And what's it got to do with religion?

silverharp wrote: »

Its ok Jaff circumcision only kills around a hundred kids a year in the US, not numerically significant :pac:
thousands die in Africa but hay , you cant make an omlette and all that...

Really is an idiotic practice - no doubt.

jaffusmax wrote: »

I am not debating what is good and bad.

None of the institutions you mention have belief systems in a supernatural deity that grants them divine permission to perform evil acts that no reasonable person would perform, unless they are infiltrated and controlled by religion or I completely cede twisted ideology! Although I would argue that twisted ideology is uselessly by a regime with its own twisted version of most religions!




Is this solider an ISIS solider or a Christian Croat with a gun against a Muslim child’s head?

No - he's one of 'us'.

You like to avoid these questions. You can give a thousand religious references and I can give a thousand non-religions ones. Eventually you have to concede that the common denominator is not religion

jaffusmax wrote: »

Can you be more precise. Any real life examples where a "Sarge" ordered some solider to randomly shoot someone in the head that did not involve some sort of religion?

For sake of argument - US Army, university educated, non-religious soldier fighting for British Army in Afghanistan. His group engage the enemy and kill all of them.

Doesn't have to be head. Just ordered to shoot - and shot!