Found this on Youtube today, nice video on positive correlation between atheism and healthy societies:-
A Major Discussion of the Virgin Birth of Jesus!
17 hours ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
CASE Branch Office
Washington DC Branch Office
CASE Profile
- CASE - now with holiness
- CASE is diametrically opposed to all faith based organisations. CASE can scientifically show all faith based organisations are wrong. With Science. Our aim is to replace religion in public life, whether that be in politics, education or social policy with our own superior brand of reasoning. CASE does not need to refer to an almighty God to make decisions. CASE considers it would be irresponsible to abdicate personal responsibility to a third party, particularly as that third party is imaginary. Furthermore, CASE would be negligent if it did not engage in showing the works and policies of the faithful to be the fanciful wishthinking that it is.
New Poll - Politics
Preacher Watch
Intelligent Blogs
Websites that may interest you
-
-
-
Covidfreude3 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
I Think I Believe In God12 years ago
-
THIS BLOG HAS MOVED!13 years ago
-
A Few Truths13 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Intelligent Design Advocates at work
Sad but true
What will you choose?
8 comments:
Oh, you mean like Stalin's Russia, and Pol Pot's Cambodia?
Riiiiight.
Cheers,
Sye
Those societies used dogmatic belief in order to enforce their reigns of terror. The same mechanism used by religion.
Modern atheism is not compatible with dogmatic belief and accordingly, is not comparable to the societies that you describe.
Albeit, if christianity is so good then you wouldn't mind comparison with Hitler (a confirmed Roman Catholic) or Stalin who was trained in seminary for the Orthodox Christian Church.
Belief in absolutes makes such evil societies possible. Had the population questioned these men, do you think they would have been able to get away with what they did?
"Belief in absolutes makes such evil societies possible."
What you incredibly fail to reaslize is that you have an absolute dogmatic belief that there are no absolutes!
Furthermore, without belief in absolute morality, it comes down to personal preference, and if the most powerful happen to prefer wholesale slaughter for kicks, YOU have zero grounds to oppose them.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye - once again you are not sufficiently precise
I said "Belief in absolutes makes such evil societies possible"
Does that mean that:-
1. Any society that beleives in absolutes are evil or
2. Belief in absolutes are the only cause of societies being evil
No, the word possible is in there. I am positing a possible connection between two things which is in itself not an absolute statement. Furthermore, you should always read this text as coming from me, as an individual, rather than a statement existing in some eternal state. I admit being fallible.
Please be more precise - I know it is an interesting word game to say that any statement refuting an absolute is itself an absolute, but it doesn't necesarily mean that it is every time. You've become a little obsessed with it and in doing so have lost some of your precision.
Furthermore, without belief in absolute morality, it comes down to personal preference, and if the most powerful happen to prefer wholesale slaughter for kicks, YOU have zero grounds to oppose them.
Again, you are not sufficiently precise. I do not need absolute morals to oppose something that I think is wrong.
As previously stated, morals are subjective and the result of our experience and empathic functionality.
Just because I cannot point to an objective truth does not mean that I cannot make a case that certain acts are immoral.
Should you ask me whether one human life is worth more or less than another and I would say no, they are equal. Ask a catholic if they would sacrifice themself for the Pope? Or better yet, a wahabist if they would sacrifice themself for the Koran? Would oyu sacrifice yourself for Jesus? It is subjective.
”Sye - once again you are not sufficiently precise”
Another thing which you cannot know.
Please be more precise - I know it is an interesting word game to say that any statement refuting an absolute is itself an absolute, but it doesn't necesarily mean that it is every time.
You know this eh? Alright, how do you know this? Oh wait – you don’t.
I do not need absolute morals to oppose something that I think is wrong.
Didn’t say that you could not oppose things, just that you have zero grounds for such an opposition.
As previously stated, morals are subjective and the result of our experience and empathic functionality.
Another thing which you do not know. As far as you know they could reflect the character of God.
”Just because I cannot point to an objective truth does not mean that I cannot make a case that certain acts are immoral.”
The floor is yours.
Should you ask me whether one human life is worth more or less than another and I would say no, they are equal.
On what basis do you make this evaluation?
Ask a catholic if they would sacrifice themself for the Pope? Or better yet, a wahabist if they would sacrifice themself for the Koran? Would oyu sacrifice yourself for Jesus? It is subjective.
Irrelevant. I’m sure, or at least I’d hope, that there are people that you would sacrifice youself for. What does that have to do with anything?
Cheers,
Sye
The floor is yours.
These things we hold to be self-evident that all men are created equal. [paraphrasing]
Thats right. Even though the founding fathers of the United States could understand that something was their own personal subjective belief, they still prosecuted a bloody war of independence because they thought it was right. But, based on what was this self-evident? They stipulated that each human experiences the world and that others may cause harm to us or we may cause harm to them. I consider the basis for moral action is recognising that others experience pain and that as a collective of individuals we should prevent pain and harm happening to all members of society - after all, it may one day be me on the other end of the pointy stick.
Still, I assume there are other people in the world and that they expereince things (I note that I do not experience what they experience, but all the evidence I have before me suggests they probably do exist).
Based on my imperfect knowledge about the world - I can easily provide a moral fibre. Now, why do you need an "objective truth" to determine moral behaviour?
”I consider the basis for moral action is recognising that others experience pain and that as a collective of individuals we should prevent pain and harm happening to all members of society”
Why should we?
”Based on my imperfect knowledge about the world - I can easily provide a moral fibre.”
Nope, you can only provide your own personal preference, which has exactly zero bearing on anyone else. Your idea of morality is just as subjective as your reason as to why anyone should behave morally, if you ever provide it.
”Now, why do you need an "objective truth" to determine moral behaviour?”
Cause morality implies ‘right behaviour’ and without an absolute standard, you can’t know what right behaviour is. Paraprasing C.S. Lewis, you can’t call a line crooked, unless you have a concept of a straight line.
Cheers,
Sye
Why should we?
Cause anyone of us could be next. Its survival instinct.
Nope, you can only provide your own personal preference, which has exactly zero bearing on anyone else. Your idea of morality is just as subjective as your reason as to why anyone should behave morally, if you ever provide it.
People may not listen to you, but they listen to me. They may not agree completely, but that doesnt mean that my "personal preference" has no weight in society.
Cause morality implies ‘right behaviour’ and without an absolute standard, you can’t know what right behaviour is. Paraprasing C.S. Lewis, you can’t call a line crooked, unless you have a concept of a straight line.
Is my idea of a "straight line" (a poor analogy as it is a physical object rather than a set of behaviours- albeit) the same as yours? I think thats what you are failing to grasp.
Post a Comment