Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That right mord. And I feel that just because "they, them there evil theist" use "it" doesn't mean it is not good for me. Like "love", "compassion:, and "understanding". And, don't steal my stuff. And it is coded in the dna anyway. like you pointed out. So if there is a god, that's there he would have stored it.
Of course, theists have no corner on love, compassion, empathy, kindness, gentleness or humility. They fancy that they do and the more conservative among them especially like to characterize "the Other" as arrogant, proud, boastful, supercilious, unloving, harsh, self absorbed, ,unkind, rough, and -- lest we forget -- hellbound.
I have met wonderful human beings who are godless, and malignant stains on the soul of humanity who are god fearing. And the inverse. We are all human, warts and halos included.
The problem is that atheism is by definition rejection of God. It does not on its own suggest any replacement for morality.
First, atheism is not a 'rejection of God'. It is the disbelief, or lack of belief, of any deity. It is neither a rejection (which sounds suspiciously like an attempt to mischaracterize atheism as an emotional, rather than logical, stance), nor is it all about anyone in particular's favorite deity.
Second, atheism no more needs to present a 'replacement for morality' than critics of virodene (a drug pushed in the 1990s as a cure for AIDS, when it was in reality a complete scam) are compelled by their rejection of the claims of that drug to put forth an alternate cure for AIDS. In both cases, the stance simply does not demand the advancement of an alternative.
Third, atheism does not reject morality - it simply rejects the notion that we can't get it from anywhere but an ancient book. And proponents of that ancient book regularly though unintentionally reveal that they agree. They do so when they engage in endless logical contortions to explain why all sorts of moral declarations in that book should be disregarded. Very few of them support the stoning of adulterers. Very few of them support slavery. Many of them whine about legalizing same-sex marriage, and to support it they point to a comment about Jesus which tacitly rejects such unions while very explicitly rejecting divorce - yet you won't hear a peep from such people about banning divorce. And most of them are enthusiastic capitalists who pretend have one excuse after another to disregard the parable of Jesus and the moneychangers to allow their love of unfettered capitalism to flourish. I could go on for hours.
What these Christians are doing when they reject Biblical admonitions is demonstrating that we don't need the Bible for morality. Aside from the comparatively mild (though idiotic) prohibitions, they know that it's horrifically wrong to stone adulterers to death. They know that slaughtering the first-born of an entire kingdom is an abomination. They know that glancing over ones shoulder to look at a city is not a capital offense. And so on and so on.
They simply have morality which they might try and match up with the Bible, but on even casual examination it is clear that they embrace a moral understanding that is largely achieved by logic and consensus, rather than the marginally-coherent, oft-contradictory ravings of an ignorant bronze-age tribe.
Ask a Christian, for example, if they would torture and murder an entire kindergarten class if their favorite deity told them to do so. Few would. They will claim their God would never do so. Yet any in-depth look at the Bible reveals that the God therein doesn't really have a problem slaughterin children en masse. Despite that, those Christians know it is wrong. And they know it despite the Bible.
Finally, look at the real world. Compare the violent crime rate of the relatively pious South to the less-pious Northeast, or Midwest, or West. Guess which one is higher? (hint - it's not the one with the supposedly divine moral code that everyone supposedly needs). Make the same comparison with the violent crime rates in Latin America compared to less-pious Europe, or Australia or Canada as a whole compared to the more-pious United States.
So, not only is the notion that atheism, which has absolutely nothing to do with morality or ethics, is compelled to offer a moral or ethical code completely nonsensical, but the implicit notion that religious moral codes provide a more effective framework for inducing a populace to behave well is simply not borne out by the evidence in the real world.
What these Christians are doing when they reject Biblical admonitions is demonstrating that we don't need the Bible for morality. Aside from the comparatively mild (though idiotic) prohibitions, they know that it's horrifically wrong to stone adulterers to death. They know that slaughtering the first-born of an entire kingdom is an abomination. They know that glancing over ones shoulder to look at a city is not a capital offense. And so on and so on.
They simply have morality which they might try and match up with the Bible, but on even casual examination it is clear that they embrace a moral understanding that is largely achieved by logic and consensus ...
So, not only is the notion that atheism, which has absolutely nothing to do with morality or ethics, is compelled to offer a moral or ethical code completely nonsensical, but the implicit notion that religious moral codes provide a more effective framework for inducing a populace to behave well is simply not borne out by the evidence in the real world.
Cannot agree more, will try (probably unsuccessfully) to leave a rep point :-)
I think most Christians -- conservative / literalist ones, at the least -- take the notion that Biblical morality predates all other forms of morality, as axiomatic. The most they will concede regarding, e.g., the code of Hammurabi, etc., is that it was an inferior stab at the problem, with nowhere near the success rate (whatever that actually looks like) of the One True Morality. They would regard the Greek and Roman worlds as lacking in morality altogether, or, if pressed, would perhaps concede that they were possessed of a corrupt and vastly imperfect moral code. Which is probably how they largely regard current societal morality -- because gays are tolerated and god is optional if for no other reasons.
And yet ... as you point out, their morality is as cherry-picked and consensus-laden as the cherry-picked and consensus-laden morality they unknowingly borrow from. Indeed, like it or not, Biblical morality exists, even in the imagination of Bibliolaters, only to the extent that it can discreetly compromise with the societal morality within which it is contained and tolerated. Churches cannot openly hang black people anymore in the South, they cannot (other than via nudge-wink lack of enforcement in some regards, and through front organizations) back political campaigns from the pulpit, they cannot legally impose their rituals and prayers in public institutions such as public schools. They cannot even more than sabre-rattle and grandstand because some 14 year old nitwit boy provokes them by simulating oral sex with a statue of Jesus, although clearly they would love to throw him away for a couple years in juvenile hall, a penalty stiffer than if he had simply taken a baseball bat to the statue and beheaded it. And thanks to the dominance of Renaissance-spawned impulses, Christian fundamentalists, unlike Muslim fundamentalists, can't even do what their secret heart of hearts wishes it could do and what doubtless their ancient spiritual forebears would have done: draw and quarter the kid and put his head on a pike.
Of course, theists have no corner on love, compassion, empathy, kindness, gentleness or humility. They fancy that they do and the more conservative among them especially like to characterize "the Other" as arrogant, proud, boastful, supercilious, unloving, harsh, self absorbed, ,unkind, rough, and -- lest we forget -- hellbound.
I have met wonderful human beings who are godless, and malignant stains on the soul of humanity who are god fearing. And the inverse. We are all human, warts and halos included.
First, atheism is not a 'rejection of God'. It is the disbelief, or lack of belief, of any deity. It is neither a rejection (which sounds suspiciously like an attempt to mischaracterize atheism as an emotional, rather than logical, stance), nor is it all about anyone in particular's favorite deity.
Second, atheism no more needs to present a 'replacement for morality' than critics of virodene (a drug pushed in the 1990s as a cure for AIDS, when it was in reality a complete scam) are compelled by their rejection of the claims of that drug to put forth an alternate cure for AIDS. In both cases, the stance simply does not demand the advancement of an alternative.
Third, atheism does not reject morality - it simply rejects the notion that we can't get it from anywhere but an ancient book. And proponents of that ancient book regularly though unintentionally reveal that they agree. They do so when they engage in endless logical contortions to explain why all sorts of moral declarations in that book should be disregarded. Very few of them support the stoning of adulterers. Very few of them support slavery. Many of them whine about legalizing same-sex marriage, and to support it they point to a comment about Jesus which tacitly rejects such unions while very explicitly rejecting divorce - yet you won't hear a peep from such people about banning divorce. And most of them are enthusiastic capitalists who pretend have one excuse after another to disregard the parable of Jesus and the moneychangers to allow their love of unfettered capitalism to flourish. I could go on for hours.
What these Christians are doing when they reject Biblical admonitions is demonstrating that we don't need the Bible for morality. Aside from the comparatively mild (though idiotic) prohibitions, they know that it's horrifically wrong to stone adulterers to death. They know that slaughtering the first-born of an entire kingdom is an abomination. They know that glancing over ones shoulder to look at a city is not a capital offense. And so on and so on.
They simply have morality which they might try and match up with the Bible, but on even casual examination it is clear that they embrace a moral understanding that is largely achieved by logic and consensus, rather than the marginally-coherent, oft-contradictory ravings of an ignorant bronze-age tribe.
Ask a Christian, for example, if they would torture and murder an entire kindergarten class if their favorite deity told them to do so. Few would. They will claim their God would never do so. Yet any in-depth look at the Bible reveals that the God therein doesn't really have a problem slaughterin children en masse. Despite that, those Christians know it is wrong. And they know it despite the Bible.
Finally, look at the real world. Compare the violent crime rate of the relatively pious South to the less-pious Northeast, or Midwest, or West. Guess which one is higher? (hint - it's not the one with the supposedly divine moral code that everyone supposedly needs). Make the same comparison with the violent crime rates in Latin America compared to less-pious Europe, or Australia or Canada as a whole compared to the more-pious United States.
So, not only is the notion that atheism, which has absolutely nothing to do with morality or ethics, is compelled to offer a moral or ethical code completely nonsensical, but the implicit notion that religious moral codes provide a more effective framework for inducing a populace to behave well is simply not borne out by the evidence in the real world.
You are right about "morality". You pack 8 million people in a small area with a liberal law set (like we have here in, and around, the NE USA) and you are asking for ultra violence. It has nothing to do with belief system. well, in this context anyway.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,508,145 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
You are right about "morality". You pack 8 million people in a small area with a liberal law set (like we have here in, and around, the NE USA) and you are asking for ultra violence. It has nothing to do with belief system. well, in this context anyway.
You are right about "morality". You pack 8 million people in a small area with a liberal law set (like we have here in, and around, the NE USA) and you are asking for ultra violence. It has nothing to do with belief system. well, in this context anyway.
Frankly, I have no idea how what you write relates to what I wrote about atheism and from whence morality is derived.
I suppose the '8 million' bit is in reference to New York (the city)? And I'll guess that 'liberal law set' means you think the bluer the place, the more violent it is? Any reason for attempting to implement this partisan side-track?
Anyway, let me burst your bubble - the NE is, as a whole, considerable safer than the South. You know, I mentioned this in my post about morality, with which you professed to agree.
And New York itself isn't a particularly unsafe city (and it's considerably safer than many less-dense cities, so you might want to check your notions that crime necessarily correlates with people/sq. mile - because even Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee all have higher statewide per capita murder rates than does the city of New York, and the population density of the five boroughs is over 400x that of any of those states). NYC is slightly less safe than one Southern city (Dallas) but considerably safer than the other three Southern cities included in the following survey (Atlanta, Houston, Miami). And even regarding Dallas, New York is much lower in terms of per capita murders and forcible rapes - it is the far more common (in both cities) aggravated assaults which put New York ahead of Dallas, but the flaw is that the overall violent crime metric treats each violent crime as equal statistically, be it murder or assault, though most people would presumably much prefer to be assaulted than murdered). http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/nycdata/public_safety/crime-selectcities.htm
Back to my non-partisan point; contrary to what theists would have you believe, religiosity simply does not consistently correllate with more moral behavior, at least as far as defining more moral as committing fewer violent crimes*. Actually, the overall correllation tends to run against that notion. They must find it very inconvenient that we have real-world examples that just don't jibe with their theoretical claims.
* - All the idiotic rules that aren't even remotely useful - don't masturbate, don't each shellfish, don't have fun on Sundays, etc. - are another story entirely.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,508,145 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
Frankly, I have no idea how what you write relates to what I wrote about atheism and from whence morality is derived.
I suppose the '8 million' bit is in reference to New York (the city)? And I'll guess that 'liberal law set' means you think the bluer the place, the more violent it is? Any reason for attempting to implement this partisan side-track?
Anyway, let me burst your bubble - the NE is, as a whole, considerable safer than the South. You know, I mentioned this in my post about morality, with which you professed to agree.
And New York itself isn't a particularly unsafe city (and it's considerably safer than many less-dense cities, so you might want to check your notions that crime necessarily correlates with people/sq. mile - because even Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee all have higher statewide per capita murder rates than does the city of New York, and the population density of the five boroughs is over 400x that of any of those states). NYC is slightly less safe than one Southern city (Dallas) but considerably safer than the other three Southern cities included in the following survey (Atlanta, Houston, Miami). And even regarding Dallas, New York is much lower in terms of per capita murders and forcible rapes - it is the far more common (in both cities) aggravated assaults which put New York ahead of Dallas, but the flaw is that the overall violent crime metric treats each violent crime as equal statistically, be it murder or assault, though most people would presumably much prefer to be assaulted than murdered). http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/nycdata/public_safety/crime-selectcities.htm
Back to my non-partisan point; contrary to what theists would have you believe, religiosity simply does not consistently correllate with more moral behavior, at least as far as defining more moral as committing fewer violent crimes*. Actually, the overall correllation tends to run against that notion. They must find it very inconvenient that we have real-world examples that just don't jibe with their theoretical claims.
* - All the idiotic rules that aren't even remotely useful - don't masturbate, don't each shellfish, don't have fun on Sundays, etc. - are another story entirely.
Just to add something on the NYC thing and ultra violence. Up until recently I lived in N. NJ. And in the time I was there I met/spoke to some folk from the central america that "came" to NYC/N. NJ. And from speaking with them I got a picture of areas in that region (s) of "ultra violence." NYC even with any of it's problems was a dream (for these people) compared to the areas they spoke about.
This is something that happens to me from time to time. Even though I "know" that atheism is probably the most intellectually honest position, I find that it does not always relieve anxiety and bring peace and happiness to the mind.
Can anyone else relate to this? If so, how have you reconciled this contradiction? Let's hear about your journey.
This is like asking if there is ever a need to believe in Santa Claus. And the answer is no, not really.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
