Tuesday 24 July 2007

Is Atheism a more Moral Position than Theism

Christopher Hitchens, freelance journalist and writer for magazines like Slate and Vanity Fair and author of the book, 'God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything' - made the point that: 'children do not have to be taught the Golden Rule' (treat others as you want to be treated). Now, children may need a friendly reminder, now and again, but for the most part, the Golden Rule is innate in us.

Hitchens went on to say, 'why do many of us voluntarily give blood, religious or not, not only that, we positively enjoy knowing we are helping out a fellow human being.

Most atheists tend to hold that a baby is born innocent and if treated with love and respect will naturally grow up, to love and respect others. Religion and most positively the three major monotheism's start from the opposite premise, we are born innately wicked and thus, a set of religious dogmas has to be followed, to hold that 'innate' evil in check. It is not surprising that many children who grew up in strict Catholic households, have had their minds poisoned with this vile nonsense and it had a devastating effect on their entire lives, to the point where many of them, were so inculcated with the belief in sin on a deep subconscious level, that they grew up, with the incapacity to hold on to a loving relationship. Much the same can be said, for many Muslims today.

But what is important to understand, is that morality has nothing to do with religion or atheism, morality is not a synonym for either atheism or religion. Our morality comes out of our humanity as first cause. This is why the majority of moderate theists, are good and by the same token, so are atheists. Note, I didn't say 'moderate' atheists, the reason for that, is that I see no evidence for atheist extremism and thus the term moderate atheist would be 'null and void' ...The same cannot be said for religion of course. there is plenty of ordinary and extra ordinary violence, created in the name of religion. That is why I used the qualifier, moderate religion, as apposed to extreme.

It seems to be the case, that as long as one is bought up in a loving household, or at the very least, a relatively loving one, as compared to the majority, then that in itself, is enough for one to grow up, with an innate sense of responsibility, in being a reasonable and moral human being... That is all it takes.

Now atheists can of course do criminal things. But what one cannot do of course, is find a causal link between atheism and the criminal act perpetrated. How often have you heard stories in the media of people being convicted of crimes, which they perpetrated, directly because of their atheism, I cannot personally think of even one of the top of my head. Now, there may well be the occasional exception of someone committing a crime, directly because of their atheism, but the point is that such incidence, if they do occur, must be very rare and I challenge anyone to point to any modern or past crime that was directly caused by atheism...

I'm sure many theists will now be shouting at the computer screen, and saying 'Stalin' and 'Hitler' ...This of course is a 'straw man'. No historian is seriously blaming atheism for Hitler or Stalin. Indeed, at the Nuremberg trial, after the Second World War, nobody in the court room, mentioned atheism as a cause for the Nazis behavior... The same cannot be said for religion of course. You can find stories of crimes in the media, that are only caused because of religion and without religion as a direct link, such crimes would never have happened.

It should also be noted, that there are statistically, far more religious people in prison than there are atheists, this is a statistical fact. But even here, a point is being missed. One could of course say that most of the religious people in prison, did not commit their crimes, because of the religion, but of course the same applies to the atheist inmates too. But one can say one thing for certain, the meta analysis, between the statistical numbers, suggests that the only reason that there are statistically more theist prisoners than atheist is exactly because of religion.

I said earlier, that morality really has nothing to do with religion or atheism. Well I now want to add a qualifier so this makes a little more sense. Now, although atheism does not directly make someone a more moral person than 'some' theists, there does seem to be an indirect reason why 'most' atheists are more moral than 'some' theists. The reason quite simply seems to be, that an atheist naturally, has not got the excess 'baggage' of mysticism beclouding their mind, which could possibly lead them into committing acts, which most individuals would consider to be less than human. In many such cases, such acts of violence are committed only because of a literal interpretation of scripture or they were, indirectly advised to commit such acts by priests of the Church.

So, the final point is that, humanity is naturally moral and when someone is behaving immorally, our human nature leads us to look for reasons. The simple fact is and I am absolutely convinced of this, if religion was taken out of the World, it would be a safer and more moral place to live in. It is only the excuse of religious dictates, that leads to crimes against humanity, that otherwise would not occur. Religion is often the catalyst, that allows for the most heinous crimes, including, suicide bombing, beheading, the severing of limbs and all kinds of torture. Now, most of these atrocities today, are of course done in the name of Islam and not Christianity or Judaism.... But, as long as religion remains a force in the world, then it always has the potential to lead to the worst in us and cut us of from our innate humanity.




How I make money from this article and how you can make money too. Please Click here to email me! Please do not remove 'permission' from body of email.

* Ultimate Registry Cleaner
o Put an end to slow bootups & computer problems, with the world's leading registry cleaner!

24 comments:

Guitanguran said...

"Now, children may need a friendly reminder, now and again, but for the most part, the Golden Rule is innate in us."

Where to start? Well, I can catagorically and unequivocally affirm anyone making that statement has never raised a child from birth, or if so, was careless in observing the behavior of said squab.

Its not to say that children aren't capable of altruistic behaviors. In Matthew, Chapter 5 Jesus allowed that even tax collectors and pagans were capable of being kind. That is to say there is 'some' good in all of us. But innately good? You need to stick to Evolution, Mr. H.


Lets take a test!

1. Have you ever lied? Ever?

2. Have you ever stolen anything? Ever?

3. Have you ever 'burned in your loins' for the neighbor's wife (or fill-in-the-blank)? Ever?

How'd you do? I flunked, btw.

So, don't guess it matters what one believes, we still fall off the morality wagon repeatedly.

If we were all innately good or 'moral' as you say(or is just Hitchens?), then we could turn all the jails into Motel 6's because we wouldn't need them. After all, if this morality stuff is innate, then it stands to reason that we'd eventually get our moral compasses facing the right direction, in spite of how we were raised. Surely, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot would have eventually come around to their innate sense of morality, right? We just didn't give them enough time or love...or maybe they were all raised Catholic. That would explain it.

All this 'most' and many' that you're throwing out there. You use 'science' and millions of pieces of data as a club to beat me up and then expect me to accept mere
anectdotal evidence and casual observation (if that) as proof of this assertion, with nothing to back it up? Now talk about needing faith...

What is moral, btw? Is it being 'good' 51%, 75%, 80%, 90% of the time, or what?

Well, now that I've sufficiently amused myself...

It is precisely this kind of post-modernist-secular-humanist "we're all really good deep down inside and we don't need no stinkin' god tellin' us how to act; we already know how all by ourselves" brand of thinking that will get you and the rest of us killed, and our civilization piled into a dust heap.

I think you and Mr. Hitchens are on the right track about there being 'some' innate goodness in well, most of us. But you have no rational way of explaining how it got there, or 'badness' for that matter, without postulating something that came out of a virtual fairy tale that make Noah's Ark look like the six o'clock news.

Craig Secularman said...

1. Have you ever lied? Ever?

... If I said I hade never lied, of course you would never believe me and I would be a liar. But this is really a poor presumption. I am not suggesting for a moment, because we are innately good as I believe we are, that we are not capable of lying. The point is that all of us lie sometimes, but most of us, do not lie most of the time, which if were innately bad, one would expect to see. Now I already qualified the Golden Rule by saying that children also need a guiding hand ocassionally. Now children can of course do bad things, but that on its own does not contradict the fact, that children for the most part are innately good.


2. Have you ever stolen anything? Ever?

...I think I did steal a chocolate bar once, when I was a child... But I hadn't chose to do this, as I recall I was coerced into it and afterwards I felt very guilty. But does that neccessarily mean every child that has stolen a chocolate bar growns up to be an immoral thief... of course not. In fact most people have probably had one incident where they have stole something, but the majority do not go into a life of crime, because they are innately moral. Indeed, after stealing a chocolate bar, I felt so guilty, that I would never consider stealing anything ever again and I never have. The fact is that most people are innately good and that is why when they do something against that innate nature, they do feel guilty.

3. Have you ever 'burned in your loins' for the neighbor's wife (or fill-in-the-blank)? Ever?

...Now, this last one is a none question if your not religious. Only religion considers thought crimes sinful. We have a whole range of emotions over which we do not have conscious contro in stopping them welling to the surfacel, including lust. But sin is another meaningless man invented concept. It only has meaning if it is referenced within context of religious scripture and as an atheist, I can immediately dismiss it as nonsense. There is no such thing as a thought crime, you can have the most evil thoughts in the World, maybe even the desire to kill someone, but unless those thoughts are carried out in action, no crime has been committed.

The priests of the Church have had a long history of manipulating individuals through the tool of guilt, for simply have a range of emotions, that well to the surface as 'sinful desires' that we can no more help, than breathing. However, we always have the conscious ability to take time out "count to ten" and decide whether to act on such emotions or not. Now if you suddenly had an overwhelming desire to steal a bar of chocolate from a sweet counter, if you consciously decided not to do it, that is a moral act. You have not been immoral for simply having the thought and should not even be ashamed of the thought... It is how you act on your thoughts that matters. But religion puts the "cart before the horse" and turns thoughts into ' crimes of sin".

Now of course there is one exception and that is thoughts that are openly expressed as a deliberate attempt to incite violence, where this can be objectively proved in law, people are punished. The fact that we do not have conscious control over all our emotions and lustful desires can suddenly come to the surface of our mind... only theists would consider this sinful, someone who understands a little psychology and indeed a little about evolution to know where those original biological precursors came from, for such emotions, does not call such lust sinful, it is called natural.

And your comment: "Where to start? Well, I can categorically and unequivocally affirm anyone making that statement has never raised a child from birth, or if so, was careless in observing the behaviour of said squab."

...Now of course children can be unruly and undisciplined, but watch a lion cub, it is also. But unruly does not neccessarily equate with morality. Indeed, some children have different character traits than others, some seem to be a bit wild and need to be reigned in now and again and some are quiet. But this behaviour on its own is not immoral. Does a screaming child child in a restaurant equate with morally bad, no of course not. If it were really true that children were innately bad and one had to instil a religious ethic to curb that badness, then we should see evidence of children bought up in atheist households committing crimes on a daily basis. But the opposite is often the case. Children brought up in strict religious households often grow up with psychological hang ups.

Your argument kind off reminds me of a man who phoned into Fox News when they were discussing a religious topic... He said "without religion I would kill my neighbor" ...What a sad and pathetic opinion of human nature.

As for your Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot statement which is blatantly false... I have already answered that in one of my posts "The Trouble With Atheism".

And your statement "If we were all innately good or 'moral' as you say(or is just Hitchens?), then we could turn all the jails into Motel 6's because we wouldn't need them. After all, if this morality stuff is innate, then it stands to reason that we'd eventually get our moral compasses facing the right direction, in spite of how we were raised."

Well, I think this is a stronger point for me than you... The World prison population only stands at between 3% to 4% of the Worlds population and only 1% of the total number are for serious crimes, the rest can be called misdemeanours. Now if it were true that people were innately bad, these figures should be far, far higher.

But your presumption that somehow because so many people are in prison, that somehow proves that "we are not innately good" ...This can only be presumed if one believes crime does not have causes. I have already said that in most instances, criminal behaviour has causation. Look at the crime figures and you will note that those who conmmit a particular crime, started commiting that crime for a reason such as poverty, they got mixed up with a gang, they were forced into crime... There are endless reasons why people get into crime. But you assumption seems to be that, all people in prison are innately bad, I'm sure your not suggesting they were born that way (or are you?)... Well this would suggest that they cannot be reformed, if everyone is innately bad, then reform would not be possible... But individuals do occasionally change paths to the "straight and narrow" ...If this were not so, governments would not spend literally billions on prisoner reform programs every year.

There is nothing innately immoral or bad in a new born baby, it is born as innocent as a lion cub. That child's innocents can either be nurtered in a loving household, so it grows up with a moral framework or it can grow up without that love... But for that nurturing to be allowed to grow in the first place, then we must by definition, be innately good.

What is moral, btw? Is it being 'good' 51%, 75%, 80%, 90% of the time, or what?

Being moral is none of these. There are really only three possible crimes... Theft (fraud, which is indirect theft), force and the threat of force and that's it. Anyone who does not participate in these acts, can be said to be moral, the fact is that the vast majority of us don't. That is why most of us feel reasonably comfortable walking down a high street, we know that most people are innately good and won't attack us.

post-modernist-secular-humanist? ...Well, I cannot respond to this, because I haven't got a clue what it means. Post-modernist-secular-humanist as apposed to secular humanist? ... is that what you mean. But I still don't get it?

Guitanguran said...

"If I said I hade never lied, of course you would never believe me and I would be a liar."

I would submit that you and I still are liars, as opposed to 'ex' liars.

"The point is that all of us lie sometimes, but most of us, do not lie most of the time, which if were innately bad, one would expect to see."

Aside from having no evidence to prove that assertion, I would say the number of lies we tell isn't the whole story. Lies normally only come into play when telling the truth would be detrimental for us, even if telling the truth would benefit the other person, wouldn't you agree? Otherwise, why do it?

So the proposition should more correctly be: most of us do not lie when telling the truth would be detrimental to us in some way. Going back to the kids and grandkids I've had experience with, the FIRST option when confronted with the consequences of being truthful,is to lie. Why is that?

Its simple: its human nature to look out for number one, not adhere to the golden rule. Now whether it means padding your resume to get that dream job, or telling mom you finished your veggies when you actually fed them to the dog so you don't get sent to your room, the concept is the same. Its one of two things: Fear of Loss or Hope for Gain.

This whole 'innately good' idea doensn't hold water in the real world. Empirical, observable behavior proves the opposite to us every day.

"As for your Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot statement which is blatantly false... I have already answered that in one of my posts "The Trouble With Atheism"."

Do you actually read my posts, or are we in parallel universes here? I wasn't referring to our 20th century despots in terms of 'innate goodness', not their religious or atheistic beliefs. That shouldn't matter in terms of innate goodness, right? After all, if there's innate goodness in all of us, what happened to these guys?

"...The fact that we do not have conscious control over all our emotions and lustful desires can suddenly come to the surface of our mind..."

No control? Why not?

"If it were really true that children were innately bad and one had to instil a religious ethic to curb that badness, then we should see evidence of children bought up in atheist households committing crimes on a daily basis."

A non-sequitur. I presume atheists don't condone lying or stealing or any less than I do, and would raise their children accordingly.

"The World prison population only stands at between 3% to 4% of the Worlds population and only 1% of the total number are for serious crimes..."

Don't know how it is for you, but our prisons are overcrowded and criminals are released early on a regular basis.

There again, if we're to believe in innate goodness, all the money we've spent over the last 40 years to rehabilitate criminals (hey, deep down, they're innately good, right?)would have shown some progress. Rehabilitation has been a dismal failure in this country. Pedophiles seem especially resistant to rehabilitation. Are they the exception to the innate goodness we're all supposed to have?

"There are really only three possible crimes... Theft (fraud, which is indirect theft), force and the threat of force and that's it."

So only those things that are criminal offenses are immoral? Here, at least, adultery is not a crime, but would that be considered immoral, or does that not count? Maybe you could clarify.

"most of us" "most of the time" "for the most part"

Where is the line between moral and immoral? Can a person be moral 'most of the time' and still be considered moral? If so, what constitutes 'most of the time'? Shouldn't there be some kind of standard we can use as benchmark?


As I mentioned, you and Hitchey have got it partly right. There's a sense of what's right and wrong in all of us (well maybe not sociopaths). More importantly, most all of us innately aspire to be in line with that sense of right and wrong. Its not innate goodness that brings on guilt. Innate goodness would keep us from crossing that line to begin with. Otherwise its just 'innate mostly goodness'. Its knowing where that line really is (innately) and the inability stay on the right side of that equation, falling short, and missing the mark that creates the guilt. Doesn't take Nuns or Jerry Falwell to bring about that feeling. Comes all by itself. I've seen it, and experienced it myself. The difference here is recognizing it for what it is and where it came from.

Craig Secularman said...

Well firstly, I will respond to your comments on Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao and Pol Pot. Your logic is so obviously faulty, that it 'stands out a mile'. The fact that such dictators are the 'exception and not the rule', I think proves my point and disqualifies yours. The fact is that dictators when compared to the World population seem to be outliers and anathemas, they are not the norm and this is no different to my argument, that most of us are not in prison, that is because the majority of us are innately good, having a natural inbuilt sense of right and wrong, having no desire to break the law.

Now, I already said in the previous comment, that there is almost always a cause and effect reason for criminal behaviour. It is a well know fact, that a child brought up in an abusive household, often grows up to be abusive... They do not grow up to be abusive because they were born that way. Now, why can you not see that the same logic applies to dictators. You seem to separate causes from effects, as if people do bad things, just because they are born and there is no external environmental influence on their behaviour.

Now of course, we all know there are exceptions to this, someone who was once 'meek and mild' could very possibly suffer a head injury, that changes their personality, from mild to violent and I would be the first to admit, that there are rare exceptions even in psychopaths, who have had a perfectly good childhood, yet grow up to be psychopathic. But in such instances, psychologists and scientists interested in brain behaviour, don't simply say... oh, they were born that way, end of argument, they look for reasons.

But the fact remains, that the majority of psychopaths did have the kind of brutal childhood, that easily explain their adult behaviour and that can be extended to dictators. Indeed, both psychopaths and dictators, seem to lack empathy... Which is the same as saying, they are totally indifferent to the Golden Rule and seem to be psychologically incapable of putting themselves in 'someone else's shoes' and are indifferent to suffering. Psychologists know that such individuals almost always, were deprived of love and affection in there childhood, it was not because they were born that way, it is because of circumstances.

Take as one example, the violent behaviour of the sons of Saddam Hussein, Uday and Qusay... Nobody even asks the question of why they did what they did. It is know that they were brutalised as children, even to the point of been forced to watch torture victims... Now if you brutalise a child, it is a fact that you condition a child to be brutal. Now, you may think that Uday and Qusay were born that way, but I do not... It is also a know fact that Saddam Hussein was brutalised by his father, so the chain of brutality gets passed down, from generation to generation.

If you seriously believe that Uday and Qusay were simply born 'evil', now imagine if they were not born in Iraq, say they had been born in England or America and they were not exposed to torture victims and they were well loved, do you seriously think they would still grow up to be crazed psychopaths, ...and one could extend the same logic to all the individual torturer's in Saddam's pay.

Now on you point about lying... Again we are not born liars. You seem to be separating cause from effect again. The argument for dictators is identical to that of lying. Those brought up in households where their parents lie a lot, tend to grow up to be compulsive liars, those who grow up in households where parents are more open and honest. tend to lie less. It's that simple. You don't have to teach children not to lie, rather, they lie, because they learn to... from parents and elders. But the fact remains, that the majority of us are innately good and the majority of the time, we do not tell lies and when we do, because the majority of us are innately good, lying does come at a price, when we lie, we naturally feel guilty.

As for morality in relation to adultery. Well, If your definition of adultery being immoral with reference to Biblical scripture, in that it is a sin... If you are talking about morality in that definition, then no I would disqualify adultery as immoral within that definition, because as I have commented in a previous post, I do not buy into the concept of sin, which is a meaningless man invented concept and it does not pertain to our nature.

Now, is adultery immoral in general. That is a difficult question to answer... The reason being, it is not just a philosophical question, it is also a scientific one. Biologists know that we have a propensity toward adultery, because it does seem to be part of our nature, certainly the nature of males. Richard Dawkins book the Selfish Gene is given that title for a very good reason, it is a genes goal to spread itself around, it is a 'survival machine' ...Genes tend to follow the path of 'least resistance' of what needs to be done, so that those genes can pass on their code and survive in the gene pool. Now part of the genes 'agenda' in spreading itself around, is to mate with as many females as possible. It is thus, hardly surprising that modern human beings sometimes go off the 'straight and narrow' and commit adultery... It is an evolutionary drive built into our genetic code. So simply saying it is immoral, only tries to answer the philosophical part of the question and ignores the scientific fact that we have inherited the genes for such behaviour from our ancestors. Now the fact that we don't just have sex to make babies anymore, we do it for fun, this makes no difference to the gene... The gene has no mindful awareness of our 'condom' sex... So, the drive is still a biological impulse.

Guitanguran said...

Mr. H,

The other stuff I'll let go of for now, but...

Let me make sure I've got this right. You're telling me that when it comes to morality, cheating on a spouse "...is a difficult question to answer..."?

What happened to the 'golden rule'?

Or, maybe its OK if a spouse cheated on you?

I'm usually not at a loss for words. I am now.

Craig Secularman said...

No, I never said it was OK for a spouse to cheat. The fact is that in healthy loving relationships, individuals don't cheat. But again, there are usually causes that lead to adulterous behaviour, these actions do not happen in a vacuum. Perhaps the person who cheats is living in a marriage that has become a sham and the two people have fallen out of love.

Now I certainly was not condoning adultery, if you thought that you have misunderstood me. All I was saying is that in such situations, then the biological drive, that is an innate part of our nature is also operative. If one is in a relationship that has turned sour, then that biological prerogative may well be stronger, than one's conscious control and one may stray. Now, of course, such individuals can still make a choice of whether to enter an adulterous affair or not and it would of course be wrong to say, 'it's not my fault, my biology made me do it' ...That would be nonsense of course and a cop out, but all I was saying, is that biological drive cannot be ignored.

Now, I'm sorry to keep harping on about this point. But again you seem to totally disconnect causes from effects... You seem to be saying ''adultery is bad' end of story, as if it is that 'black and white' and simple. But I have just given reasons why individuals may stray and it would be totally wrong to judge every adulterous affair, as if they are all equally the same, they are not of course, people stray for many reasons. They may be in such a broken down relationship, that maybe they are desperate for companionship, that they are not getting at home and thus, they look for that companionship elsewhere.

What applied to my comments on dictators and lying applies equally here. If someone is adulterous, to simply condemn them as bad, now that would be immoral, which is exactly what the Bible does. Rather, the honest thing to ask is why did they do it.

Now in certain circumstances, I would even call adultery a moral act. I highly recommend Ayaan Hersi Ali's book Infidel. Ayaan Hersi Ali was a refugee from Somalia who fled her family, to live in Holland, to get away from being forced into an arranged marriage. Now suppose the marriage had gone ahead... Suppose she became an adulterer... Well according to the Koran (she was a Muslim, but is now an atheist) she has committed a sin, even the edicts of the Bible would not take circumstances into account, adultery is a sin... and that's it... It totally ignores causes.

Guitanguran said...

First I get:

"No, I never said it was OK for a spouse to cheat."

"Now I certainly was not condoning adultery..."

Then I get:

"Now in certain circumstances, I would even call adultery a moral act."

Get back with me when you've made up your mind.

"You seem to be saying ''adultery is bad' end of story, as if it is that 'black and white' and simple."

There's no 'seem' to it, Mr. H. It is black and white, and it can't be any simpler.

"...I have just given reasons why individuals may stray and it would be totally wrong to judge every adulterous affair, as if they are all equally the same."

There's a difference between judging, which I'm not in a position to do, and discerning the facts of the matter. Its akin to being pregnant, Mr. H. You can't be just a 'little adulterous'. You either have, or have not.

Murder is bad, no matter the causitive factors. The victim is no less dead, Mr. H. It doesn't matter if it's Saddam's kids or not.

What you're describing is what's commonly known as 'situational ethics', where the circumstances can dictate whether the act is actually wrong, or not. With the right kind of circumstances, there is virtually nothing that can't be explained away or excused. Likewise, the perpetrator can avoid blame for what they've done, as they were first a victim of something else.

How convenient. No blame. No accountability. No problem.

Interestingly enough, this actually coincides with the naturalist philosophic position related to the study of evolution. If its assumed there is no God, and that everything related to evolution or existence of the universe is 100% nature, all phenomena will be viewed from that standpoint. That is to say, if you don't think God is there to begin with, you won't be looking for Him.

If you don't think God is there, there's no absolute authority to be held accountable when it comes to morality. You're off the hook, so to speak. As you've so aptly put it, you can call an immoral act such as adultery, moral.

God does hold you accountable Mr. H, whether you believe He's there or not. He deals with absolutes. No exceptions. Nobody gets by with immorality simply by denying He exists.

Craig Secularman said...

Now, in an earlier post, you commented: "I'm wondering whether your reading any of my posts". I am now beginning to wonder the same thing. In your last response you have made all sorts of claims into what I think and you have completely dropped context.

I did say I did not condone adultery. However I then went on to say, however, it would obviously be wrong to judge each case of adultery as if they were all on an equal 'plain'. I explained that individuals committed adultery for all kinds of reasons and I even said that in certain circumstances it is entirely understandable. Now if we lived in a nice "fluffy" World, where everyone got on perfectly and marriages were always perfectly harmonious, then of course adultery would never happen. But it's a fact of life that it does. Now although as I said, I do not condone adultery, on the other hand I can understand it... and unlike a religious fundy (and no I'm not referring to you, but you are starting to give that impression) I would not go round judging someone who has been adulterous... Unlike religious fundies, who think it's their business to stick there nose into other individuals 'affairs' I consider it to be none of my business.

Now there is no contradiction in me saying I do not condone adultery but then adding a caveat... as I said that caveat, is that one cannot make such judgements as if they are black and white, with no grey areas... Which of course is exactly what religious fundies do... Adultery is a sin period. By the way, if it was not for the reformations that dragged us out of the Dark Ages, Christians would still be stoning women to death for adultery... Something that still happens in Iran... Different religion of course, but all of the monotheistic religions push the concept of sin.

As for your comment on: 'get back to you when I have made up my mind'....

Again you are totally misunderstanding me... By me describing why people behave in a certain way, is not the same as condoning it. You are simply putting words in my mouth and making a claim that because there are causes and effects and by me explaining those courses and effects, I am thereby condoning them... I am not, I think tyrants should be punished for their actions as much as the next person, but that does not change the fact, that their actions are not committed in a vacuum and they were somehow born that way... That is simply nonsensical. It seems to me, you are quite happy for people to be 'evil' as long as you only say that they were born that way and you don't attempt to explain there behaviour beyond that context. Then you go on to make the absurd claim, that because I do explain beyond that context, that I am condoning it... of course I'm not... Such people should be punished. But they should not be punished based on the anti-man concept of sin. A meaningless man made concept. In civilized countries we do not judge in courts of law based on sin, we do so based on justice.

Justice is a moral concept, because it judges based on evidence of objectively real crimes being committed. Sin on the other hand, is the antithesis of justice. Individuals are judged based on scriptural context which is uncoupled from evidence, they are judged based on religious edicts that are non-contextual. Thus, in less civilized societies, they stone women to death, they cut off hands and feet and they do so not based on justice, but based on religious interpretations. You may want to live in a society that judges based on hand-downs from 'god' ...I do not.

Now, I put a question to you... To what extend do you think adultery is wrong in all circumstances? ...Do you mean criminally wrong? ...Would you lock these people up... Or would you take the Bible literally and start stoning people to death. Now if you don't take the Bible literally... Then to what extent do you believe it's true?

Well, your claim that without an authority, we'd all be of the hook is very telling... what your really saying is that you consider yourself and everyone else to be innately bad, so without God you would go round killing and raping and every other immoral act. Are you really saying that the only reason that you are not bad, is out of fear of what a hidden authority watching over you, may do to you? Well, what is wrong with being good for goodness sake. I would argue that if an individual is good simply because they feel morally obliged to be, than that person is far more moral than someone who is only being moral out of fear of what God might do them. Indeed, any such person would not really be moral at all, they would be bad and only acting 'morally' out of fear. Well, if you feel that humanity is that debase, then I feel sorry for you. Do you have children... and do you think they are wicked too? ...but the only reason they don't release their wickedness on the World is because of God. I hope you don't teach them such a disgusting concept. I wonder if you can explain as why as a non-believer I don't go round "raping and pillaging" and neither do most other atheists... It seems this is a perfect scientific experiment in action here... The meta analysis has been done... Why are all these atheists not mass murdering... explain that one?

You know, despite what you say... I don't think that you or any other theist really believes that we are all born wicked... I just do not believe that any sane person could believe such an absurdity.

And your saying... God does hold you accountable Mr. H ...Whether you belief he's there or not. That is totally illogical, that's like saying... "The Lochness monster will eat you, whether you believe in him or not.

Guitanguran said...

"Now, in an earlier post, you commented: "I'm wondering whether your reading any of my posts". I am now beginning to wonder the same thing."

"No, I never said it was OK for a spouse to cheat."

"Now I certainly was not condoning adultery..."


"Now in certain circumstances, I would even call adultery a moral act."

What is to misunderstand here?

As to making judgements...

"I would not go round judging someone who has been adulterous..."

"There's a difference between judging, which I'm not in a position to do, and discerning the facts of the matter. Its akin to being pregnant, Mr. H. You can't be just a 'little adulterous'. You either have, or have not."

"It seems to me, you are quite happy for people to be 'evil' as long as you only say that they were born that way and you don't attempt to explain there behaviour beyond that context."

Never used the word 'evil' did I? People do continually fall 'short of the mark', however.

"Now, I put a question to you... To what extend do you think adultery is wrong in all circumstances?"

100%.

"Do you mean criminally wrong?"

No. Morally

"...Would you lock these people up...

See my comment about judgement.

"Or would you take the Bible literally and start stoning people to death." Now if you don't take the Bible literally... Then to what extent do you believe it's true?"

The problem with you, Mr. H, is that you obviously have made no serious attempt to study the Bible. Seems to me if you're going to debunk its content, you'd at least give it a read-thru. Or are you content to take someone else's word for what's in there?.

What is this hang-up with stoning people with you guys? A cursory reading of the Old Testament would show you that offences that had stoning as punishment required two eye-witnesses to the act. How often do you think folks actually got executed, anyway? There's other contextual considerations related to the whole stoning thing for the Israelites at that point in time, but I'll save the lesson for later.

I can take the Bible as having everything in it that God wanted there.


"Well, your claim that without an authority, we'd all be of the hook is very telling... what your really saying is that you consider yourself and everyone else to be innately bad, so without God you would go round killing and raping and every other immoral act."

What I do think is that we all aspire to do the right thing, but we all cross a line somewhere, its inevitable. It may be just lying, or some other situation where the 'golden rule' is violated, however big or small. But you and I will at some point will cross that line. That's an absolute certainty.

What people have trouble dealing with is the idea of right or wrong in an abolute sense.

Wish I had more time on this. Gotta go.

Craig Secularman said...

Well, I already gave a definition of why it would not be adulterous for someone in a forced marriage to stray... In what sense is that really adultery? Now, of course, if you lived in Iran or Somalia... Then of course under the eyes of the law, it may be classed as immoral and indeed illegal. But, can you not see that individuals in western societies do hold a different moral standard and countries that hold those standards also recognise the injustice of laws based on sin.

Would you seriously condemn someone who strayed and had sex outside of a forced arranged marriage.... If you believe this is really immoral ,then your standards are not the same as mine. Unless you think forced marriage is worth the paper its written on? Indeed, what is immoral in this definition is not that the woman may stray... But the fact that she was forced into an arranged marriage.

Which to you is more abhorrent, the fact that someone is forced to marry someone they do not wish to and on top of that, they have to have sex with them, whether they like it or not... that is a good definition of rape. Please explain to me, why it would be immoral for this women to become an "adulterous" ...Are you simply saying "because it's a sin"? ...Well, I have already defined why I think sin is a baloney, man invented concept.

Now we are going round in circles. Now if you cannot see the difference between circumstances and you cannot see the difference from someone straying from say an abusive husband, or just being in a broken down relationship, as apposed to someone being adulterous on a whim, then that is your problem not mine. I have already said that there are many reasons why relationships break down and to merely condemn someone simply for having an affair, without understanding the circumstances, then who is being a fundamentalist... me or you? ...I suggest you are. But even if someone does commit adultery merely on a whim... even if I did define this as immoral, which I haven't by the way, I just said I don't condone it and I then qualified that point by saying one has to look at circumstances.

Indeed, I would go further, I am not condoning adultery, but on the other hand, I am not a fundamentalist... If someone has an affair, it is none of my damn business.

Why is it that religious fundamentalists are so obsessed with adultery and how wicked it is anyway... as far as many of these fundamentalists are concerned it is worse than murder. What is this unhealthy obsession that Biblical and indeed Koranic text has with sex. Why this unhealthy obsession with the birth canal... and why is it always seen as a "one way street". It seems that religions unhealthy obsession with virgin births simply comes from an unhealthy hatred for sex organs.

Sorry, that last bit, was slightly off topic... but I couldn't resist.

You said: QUOTE... "The problem with you, Mr. H, is that you obviously have made no serious attempt to study the Bible. Seems to me if you're going to debunk its content, you'd at least give it a read-thru. Or are you content to take someone else's word for what's in there?." ...CLOSE QUOTE

I have read it, but no I'm not an expert on the Bible... Does one have to be an expert to know that there is some pretty horrible stuff in it, rather a lot actually, of course not... No more than one has to be an expert to know that Mien Kampf is full of horrible stuff too... The point is have you. Not only are stonings in the Bible they are put forth as protocols which one should act on in certain situations... Indeed, the Bible is rife with stoning pronouncements.... It seems to be Gods favourite form of punishment and most often for the most mild of "crimes"

Why would one have to be an expert to know that the God of the Bible condones and commands stonings even for what most reasonable people would consider to be minor transgressions. Such as blasphemy, again the Bible loves to condemn thoughts as crimes and puts them on par with actual physical crimes.



What the Bible says about stoning (from http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/stoning.html)


For adultery (including urban rape victims who fail to scream loud enough)

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24


For touching Mount Sinai

Whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death. Exodus 19:13

For taking "accursed things"

Achan ... took of the accursed thing. ... And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones. ... So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger. Joshua 7:1-26

For cursing or blaspheming

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16


For animals (like an ox that gores a human)

If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned. Exodus 21:28

For a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say ... these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21

For worshipping other gods

If there be found among you ... that ... hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them ... Then shalt thou ... tone them with stones, till they die. Deuteronomy 17:2-5

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ... thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 13:5-10

For disobeying parents

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21

For witches and wizards

A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:27

For giving your children to Molech

Whosoever ... giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. Leviticus 20:2

For breaking the Sabbath

They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. Numbers 15:32-56

For cursing the king

Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die. 1 Kings 21:10

Guitanguran said...

"But, can you not see that individuals in western societies do hold a different moral standard and countries that hold those standards also recognise the injustice of laws based on sin."

Huh wuzzat? I suppose that laws based on sin concerning theft, fraud and murder are also unjust?

"Would you seriously condemn someone who strayed and had sex outside of a forced arranged marriage...."

Perfect! I never used the word condemn (see my earlier comment on it not being my place to judge anyone...again). I suppose you could throw those kind of scenarios all day, but it all comes down to personal choice, doesn't it? I never said that adhering to an absolute standard was easy. I also can't speak to societies or religious beliefs that create their own problems as you've described.

I can only refer to the standard thats been given me. It says you WON'T do such and such....no exeptions. After all there's only ten, and really out of that only 6 that concern day-to-day secular activity. The fact that no one I know can say their score on just 6 is perfect speaks volumes more on the human condition than what you're postulating with 'innate goodness'.

Perhaps if you'd stop dancing around the issue, you'd wouldn't feel like we're going in circles. I couldn't resist, either.

More seriously, as I see 'goodness' as an absolute, my perpective is different than seeing 'goodness' as situational or subject to exceptions. Mostly good is not absolutely good. It is merely 'mostly' good. Is 'mostly good''good' enough for you? Remember that the next time a 'mostly good' guy steals your car.

In terms of this so-called focus on adultery, it only became a big issue here when you made some patently outrageous statements and topped it off by contradicting yourself on whether you think its wrong or not. You're the one that said it was moral and that you didn't condone it all in the same post, not me.

If you look at how broken families negatively impact our society in general and our children in particular, it is a big deal.

"I have read it, but no I'm not an expert on the Bible...Does one have to be an expert to know that there is some pretty horrible stuff in it."

Thanks for conceding my point about your lack of understanding.

Two things: study, and context. If the punishment for 'x' was death, do you think it was arbitrarily applied or was there a reason for capital punishment? In the context of most of what you've quoted, it was right before the Israelites were to go into these other lands, and there's volumes there to deal with, but lets take just one.

For giving your children to Molech

"Whosoever ... giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. Leviticus 20:2"

Do you have any idea why that was in there? Giving your children to Molech essentially entails heating up a metal altar 'red hot' and placing your baby (while still alive by the way)on it as a sacrifice, literally 'frying' your own children to death whilst hearing their screams. That was standard procedure.

In that context, God didn't want His people getting involved in that kind of barbaric society and belief system. Can you blame Him? I'd say the punishment fit the crime, now that we have an understanding and a context.

As to the others, well they're definitely harsh, for reasons I'll be happy to go into with you, if you like. As a I mentioned though, capital punishment required two eye witnesses in order to be carried out. I think the point is not the punishment itself, but its effectiveness as an overall deterrant to negative behavior. If you look at the number of instances where stonings are actually recorded you'd have to understand they weren't an everyday occurance, no more than what we have here now.

Yeah, and I think you need to seriously study "Mein Kampf" if you're going to make provacative, wide ranging pronouncements on what's in it.

Ooops time for church. If you're weren't across the water, I'd say come on over...but if you're ever in town...

Craig Secularman said...

You said... "Huh wuzzat? I suppose that laws based on sin concerning theft, fraud and murder are also unjust?"

Laws based on theft, fraud and murder have absolutely nothing to do with sin. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself. Sin is a meaningless man-invented concept and is uncoupled from evidence of any real crime being committed. We do not judge individuals based on sin but justice. We can define crimes and what goes against mans nature based directly on mans physical, psychological and philosophical nature. My very point being, if you condemn someone based on sin, such as for example adulterous sin... Then this is totally uncoupled from objectively identifiable causes. This means there is no difference between adultery acted on simply in whim or adultery acted on out of desperation within a forced marriage or even a violent one. How many times must I repeat, individual have affairs for many reasons... Now of course, a religious fundamentalist could not care less about circumstances... adultery is wrong period. I am not going to repeat this again, this is my last word on the matter, we are getting nowhere and just going round in circles.

The reason that we punish individuals is directly related to justice for the victim. To judge individuals based on sin as nothing to do with justice for the victim, it is simply based round the concept of sacrifice of the individual to a 'higher cause' ...God. That is why 'sinful behaviour also includes thought crimes, which I have previously mentioned and I won't go over again.

I am dancing around nothing... I have told you my position and I have said it plainly... The fact that you are blind to my point is your problem not mine. You are the one, hardly even debated the issue... You just keep saying things like 'your dancing round the issue', 'your stupid remark' ...That is going nowhere.

As for conceding the point on not been an expert on the Bible, well I don't think I'm really conceding much... Most Christians have to concede it too, and I have found on the whole, that I know more about the Bible than most Christians do.... Indeed, many 'so-called' Christians don't even read it. If you want to discuss the Bible, I will be more than happy to take up the challenge.

You then said... "In terms of this so-called focus on adultery, it only became a big issue here when you made some patently outrageous statements and topped it off by contradicting yourself on whether you think its wrong or not."

Well, I cannot respond to this unless you tell me what outrageous statements I apparently made... I'm in the dark.

Then you said: "If you look at how broken families negatively impact our society in general and our children in particular, it is a big deal. "

Well, there I do not disagree and why did you think I said I do not condone adultery... for exactly that reason. An adulterous society is not a healthy one. That however is not the same as saying, I therefore condemn adultery in all circumstances and totally ignore the context in which the adultery took place... Now if you cannot see why there is no contradiction there, then that is not my problem.

Are you aware by the way that societies that actually condemn adultery as a sin in the literal sense of religious text, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran are far more adulterous than more open societies, that are not run under the edicts of religion... and this is despite the fact that adultery in such countries leads to more severe punishments. It is the same in any society where one represses freedom, whether it is sexual freedom or any other kind of freedom. It is also a know fact that sexually restricted societies are more obsessed with pornography than open societies. Prohibition, always leads to more of the behaviour you are trying to prohibit. I would rather live in an open and free society where adultery goes on openly, than in a society that is run as a theocracy and individuals are punished in the most vile ways imaginable, not based on justice, but one of the most disgusting concepts ever invented, sin.

Not really sure what your comments on stoning were leading to... are you condoning the edicts of the Bible in this regard or not... You seemed to be almost apologizing for the acts in the Bible... Am I mistaken? The immorality of the stonings is not just based on the fact that it is such a barbaric act... you are quite right of course, one has to take the period of 'history' in context and one cannot judge past standards by today's. That however is not the main point, the Bible condones sin as a moral framework by which to judge such 'crimes' thus again, the crimes are punished as sacrifices to God and not based on justice... This alone is enough to dismiss anything the Bible has to say on any subject. It is not a moral book it is depraved and the God of the Old Testament in particular is not one of love but hate and is a monster.

Then of course, many Christians will excuse the Old Testament and say, "yes, but the new testament is not so bad"... Really? ...It is not till we are introduced to Jesus... gentle, meek and mild that the concepts of heaven and hell are introduced... To know what I think of these concepts read my Blog post: Do You Believe in Heaven and Hell? ... http://secularman.blogspot.com/2007/07/do-you-believe-in-heaven-and-hell.html

It seems to me that the Author of End of Faith, Sam Harris - Is absolutely correct. Just because religion is religion it gets a pass and one is not allowed to criticize it. People do of course but if your a fundy you are not open to anything that is critical of the "beloved book". The late Douglas Adams author of Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy, said this of religion:

"Now, the invention of the scientific method and science is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and that it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked and if it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn't seem to work like that; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really what it means is 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? — because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it, but on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'Fine, I respect that'."

Now, you make comments that I am making absurd and outrages statement... compared to what I wonder... Certainly not compared to the Bible. A hardly more absurd document has ever been created... But even more absurd still is that people believe in it.

Guitanguran said...

"My very point being, if you condemn someone based on sin, such as for example adulterous sin..."

At the risk of being repetitive(maybe because you keep repeating it), I haven't condemned anyone. Not my job, man.

NEVER used the word 'stupid',BTW.


Outrageous statements? At the risk of posting it again again again. You said you didn't condone adultery and in that same post said that under certain circumstances you would consider adultery a moral act. The contradiction speaks for itself. If you had said in response that maybe you overstated your case and that its practically and logically impossible to hold both positions at once, I would have let it go...

You've gone to great pains explaining different
'causitive'factors for different behaviors, criminal and otherwise. It does certainly go to what might have contributed to a 'criminal' act, or in my understanding, sinful.

What difference does that make?

If someone did in fact have a horrid childhood or was in a horrible marraige, they still have the power to choose not to steal, or murder, or lie, do they not? In other words, they still have that innate goodness within them, right? There's always a choice, and they don't need God there to make the right one, correct? It would seem that given all the psychological baggage that religion puts on folks that atheists would have a much clearer picture of morality and hence act 'better'. Isn't that the point?

"Prohibition, always leads to more of the behaviour you are trying to prohibit."

Well, doggone it, out of time, but with that proposition, we simply remove all the laws, and everyone will behave perfectly! Perfect freedom = perfect behavior. Utopia!

Guitanguran said...

Lets see if I can finish...

Condoning what essentially is capital punishment? Well, two things...I personally accept capital punishment as valid. From my perspective, I accept that God had a reason for making some behaviors capital offenses. As I've come study the Bible more in depth, I've come to a better understanding of the whys and wherfores behind His 'edicts'.

"the Bible condones sin as a moral framework by which to judge such 'crimes' thus again, the crimes are punished as sacrifices to God and not based on justice..."

I do not have a clue what you meant.

"really what it means is 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not."

Science for some period of time has gone on the pre-supposition that there's no intelligent designer. To even postulate another viewpoint is anathema to the scientific community at-large. If you want to see a group that won't accept any criticism or even consider an opposing viewpoint, you can look to science.

This kind of arrogance leads to: 'Since I've already condemned the document out-of-hand, I don't need to seriously study it, or any other co-incidental historical or archeological information to confirm my presupposition.'



"Then of course, many Christians will excuse the Old Testament and say, "yes, but the new testament is not so bad"... Really? ...It is not till we are introduced to Jesus... gentle, meek and mild that the concepts of heaven and hell are introduced..."

I'll not make any excuses for anyone, including Christians, and you, for their ignorance of what's in the Bible, or its significance.

"if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'Fine, I respect that'."

Hey, its his light bill. If he wants to not touch a light switch, fine with me. Your analogy of taxes and religious observances is faulty. Raising taxes could affect me. His touching a light switch on a certain day?

Not.

Craig Secularman said...

"Condoning what essentially is capital punishment? Well, two things...I personally accept capital punishment as valid. From my perspective, I accept that God had a reason for making some behaviors capital offences. As I've come study the Bible more in depth, I've come to a better understanding of the whys and wherfores behind His 'edicts'."

Well fine you condone capital punishment.... But you seem to have a skill of debating off topic. Every time I say something, you miss the point and go down a side street. The reason I discussed capital punishment in the first place, is not to make the point of whether capital punishment was justified or not, but whether the Bibles concept of 'justice' through sin was moral... But you seemed to be arguing about points that I have not made. Now you just said... "I never said that" ...Well OK, but your arguing against things I haven't said either. I was not even debating the morality of capital punishment I was debating the concept of sin.

Now you say that God has reasons for making some offences capital... Like gathering sticks on Sundays, for example... That is why I said the Christian God is a monster and he is not supposed to be loved but feared. Indeed, even religious leaders say that one should have fearful respect of God. Well.

Are you joking... Scientists won't accept criticism. Have you been in a room full of palaeontologists and biologists... I have, they disagree all the time and the are hyper critical. Science by nature is also very critical. I'll just give you one example. Intelligent Design/Creationist advocates, often use the tactic of saying some dodgy fossils were found... that were found to be fake. They then go on about fraud in the scientific community and even go as far as to say "Darwinism is a conspiracy. But they fail to mention the main point... When fakes are discovered it is not Intelligent design advocates that uncover these fakes, it is scientists. Science by its very nature, has an inbuilt error correcting mechanism. The one thing that you cannot say about science is that it is not open to criticism, a scientist would laugh in your face at such a statement... Science relies on critical analysis... What do you think the peer review process is for.

It is the opposite, it is religion that is closed to criticism. As far as a theist is concerned "I am right you are wrong" ...end of argument.

You keep talking about historical and archaeological evidence... OK 'put your money where your mouth is'... show it to me.


"Hey, its his light bill. If he wants to not touch a light switch, fine with me. Your analogy of taxes and religious observances is faulty. Raising taxes could affect me. His touching a light switch on a certain day?"


Unless, you are going to respond seriously to my points then why bother... The taxes statement has to be a joke right? Is gathering sticks any worse than this "crime by the way"?


Now I know I keep coming back to this point of context and I'm sorry to be boring, but this is important. You just said something very telling. You said:

"I personally accept capital punishment"

Well, so far so good... I am happy to say in certain circumstances I am happy with it too. I didn't shed any tears when Saddam Hussein was strung up.

But this is where it gets problematic... You go on to change context of mere capital punishment to capital punishment as laid down through Gods laws... by saying... As I've come study the Bible more in depth, I've come to a better understanding of the whys and wherfores behind His 'edicts'."

Your first point in saying you accept capital punishment is one thing but, do not hold capital punishment and capital punishment as passed down by God to be one and the same thing, they are not. Capital punishment based on justice for the victim or victims is not the same as capital punishment as handed down by a dictator in the sky". This comes back to what I said in an earlier post. We make judgements in courts of law based on evidence of a real objectively definable crime being committed. The 'justice' in the Bible is a barbaric justice based on God's whim.

So, you cannot say.. as you seem to be implying... You accept capital punishment, capital punishment is laid down by God.... Therefore the capital punishment of the Bible is just. The reason it is not just, is because God in these moments of dishing out punishment seems to do it on a whim and it has nothing to do with justice and more to do with Gods anger... Indeed, God seems to spend much of his time being angry.

Guitanguran said...

Well, Chris, you are part of large group that have a problem with 'sin' as its usually described in the Bible. You say the sin concept is immoral. I honestly don't get that. Essentially all of what we consider our justice system and body of laws coincide with the 'secular' parts of the ten commandments...perjury, theft, murder etc. Evidently passing laws concerning those behaviors has served us well in maintaining a well-ordered society. OK, let me take a second, and scroll some of these posts:

OK, this seems to be the crux of your argument related to sin.

"Sin on the other hand, is the antithesis of justice. Individuals are judged based on scriptural context which is uncoupled from evidence, they are judged based on religious edicts that are non-contextual. Thus, in less civilized societies, they stone women to death, they cut off hands and feet and they do so not based on justice, but based on religious interpretations."

Doggone it! Out of time. Let me try to address that for you later.

Craig Secularman said...

Well how convenient... When you say that "Essentially all of what we consider our justice system and body of laws coincide with the 'secular' parts of the ten commandments...perjury, theft, murder etc."

It seems you are happy to say what about the 'secular laws' ...But don't mention the others... why not mention the others? They are part of the commandments too. Why is it that modern society has 'cherry picked' murder, theft and perjury and modern society does not hold up the other commandments as laws to follow. Nobody is put in prison for apostasy and blasphemy in countries where there is a separation of Church and State... But that is exactly what "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" and "Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of thy God" are, they are commandments against blasphemy and apostocacy. The only reason such 'laws' are not followed, is because we do not recognise them as objectively definable in civilized society. If you lived in Iran or Somalia as just two examples, these are held up as laws to follow and the punishment for not following them can be severe.

...and What about the commandments you missed from the list "Thou shalt have no other gods before me", "Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol", "Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of thy God", "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy Honor thy Mother and Father", ...It is strange that you only picked the commandments that do happen to coincide with secular laws, but you failed to mention the others... This reminds me of a point that Richard Dawkins made that "to the degree that we do get anything moral from the Bible, such as the Golden Rule, we cherry pick" ...That ability to cherry pick is available to all of us, religious or not and is not because of religion, it is purely coincidental.

Secular laws such as those based around theft and murder are exactly that, they are secular. Such laws are hard won in a civilized society and has already been noted by philosophers, the moral Zeitgeist moves forward, as societies become more civilized and we come to a better understanding of mans physical, psychological and philosophical nature. The simple reason that we know that killing is wrong, is because it is not a good strategy for living in civility with others... The fact that "Thou shalt not murder" is in the Bible is hardly a point in a theists favor... Simply from the fact that most civilized individuals know innately that murder is wrong... and don't need a commandment from God to remind them not to go round murdering.

As I have already said, there is no evidence that the Bible is anything else, than a book written by ordinary men... The fact that ordinary men were able to write "Thou shalt not steal", "Thou shalt not bear false witness", "Thou shalt not murder" simply proves my point, that mankind already has an innate sense of what is the right thing to do. As for the less savoury commandments such as those based around blasphemy and apostasy, well all this shows is that the priests of the church were also capable of manipulating the masses by indoctrinating them with religious baloney.

Guitanguran said...

"It seems you are happy to say what about the 'secular laws' ...But don't mention the others... why not mention the others? They are part of the commandments too. Why is it that modern society has 'cherry picked' murder, theft and perjury and modern society does not hold up the other commandments as laws to follow."

Its not cherry picking as you put it. At least as far as our Constitution goes, the First Amendment is there to keep things peculiar to any one religion, out of government hands. The flip side is that it gives citizens the right to adhere (or not) to whatever commandments they like, as long as they're abiding by the law.

Jesus Christ was a little ahead of the curve some 2,000 years back in Matthew 22:21.When asked about paying taxes, "Then he said to them, 'Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's.'"

As to the cherry picking, I'd say that atheists essentially make a career out taking Scripture out of context. It suits their argument about discrediting the Bible.


I'd be the last one to discourage anybody from adhering to the behaviors the Ten Commandments proscribes, even those not in our current body of laws. IF everyone did, there'd be a lot less trouble.

"The fact that "Thou shalt not murder" is in the Bible is hardly a point in a theists favor... Simply from the fact that most civilized individuals know innately that murder is wrong... and don't need a commandment from God to remind them not to go round murdering."

This is really the crux of it for me. All along you've declared that we're all 'innately good'. Through whatever process, we're born with or programmed to automatically do the right thing, without some type of external fiat from God or anyone else. Yet there's nothing empirical to back that up. You've also declared that prohibition creates more of the bad behavior. The logical conclusion would be that we should remove all prohibitions to minimize all the behaviors we don't want happening. Are you sure you want to hold to that position?

The last part about "most civilized individuals know innately that murder is wrong". You're right about that, but innately knowing 'good' and innately being 'good' are two different things.

What it boils down to is this:

People say they have an intellectual, or scientific, or psychological, or sociological, or some other problem with the idea of 'sin' that prevents them from buying into that concept.

In reality, it is in fact a sin problem that they have.

Strip away all the arguments, organized religions of all stripes, man-made institutions, and religious denominations of all kinds, and get right down to where its you and the God you don't believe in.

Ask Him yourself.

You can say out loud, "Hey, this is all bunk and you don't exist. IF you're there, prove it!I dare you!"

See what happens...

Craig Secularman said...

Sorry you have an incorrect interpretation of the meaning of the constitution. While the constitution does hold up the right to freely practice religion, as long as it is not at the expense of someone else's freedom, that is not the same as what you have just said... You said:

"the First Amendment is there to keep things peculiar to any one religion, out of government hands."

Well, I don't know whether this is what you intended, but the way that sounds, is that you mean, that this is the specific purpose of the constitution.... If that's your meaning, you are wrong. Now it is true that religion should be kept out of government hands... But from what you say, this implies that this is the underlying main purpose of the constitution.

The founding fathers believed that the only just role of government, was as the protector of individuals and the nation from the initiation from force from an aggressor.

What the founding fathers meant by this, is that individuals had innate rights to freedom, independent of government... and they held these rights because of their INNATE NATURE as human beings and this innate nature brings them certain universal rights that can be universally identified. The constitution is a secular document and not a religious one. The founding fathers were certainly not theists, they were at best deists.

Jefferson was an extraordinary polymath and had a brilliant scientific mind... He could not understand how fossils could get so high up on the rocks. He died before Darwin had made his discoveries and this would have given him the explanation he was looking for.

For an accurate interpretation of the constitution read:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0801a.asp

To find out how the US constitution is now being ripped apart by religious fundies watch this video:

The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1323,The-Present
-Threat-of-the-Religious-Right-to-Our-Modern-Freedoms,Edward-Tabash

You may have to couple this URL together properly in your browser, so it works.

"As to the cherry picking, I'd say that atheists essentially make a career out taking Scripture out of context. It suits their argument about discrediting the Bible."

Do you think I am now criticizing religion for fun or because I get a kick out of it. Ten years ago I happily ignored religion, because it ignored me. But now we live in a World which is being ripped apart by religion. Whether it is religious fascists blowing people up, or religious extremists trying to undermine science with religious dogma. I wouldn't even care so much about what is happening in the US as I live in the UK... But these Intelligent Design 'wingnuts' are importing their garbage into the UK and schools promoting Intelligent Design are starting to appear here.

There is a serious shift in the moral zingiest occurring and atheists and even agnostics are starting to stand up against religious bullying. I am doing my small bit, by writing a Blog... But thousands of these Blogs are starting to appear. The trouble is that these religious idiots will not and cannot keep their religion private, they are not happy until they are forcing and dictating they're views onto others. I am not going to stand by and do nothing while religious fundies strip away my freedom. There has even been an attempt in the UK to force through blasphemy law against criticising religion. These religious fanatics don't give a damn about freedom of speech... all they care about is their religious agenda.

Guitanguran said...

Well, as I was referring only to the First Amendment and not the whole Constitution, I don't see the problem. Government doesn't have any business creating or sponsoring religion, or preventing individuals from same.

Speaking of the 1st Amendment and your crack about deists, I did find a quote from George Mason. He is considered the 'father of the bill of rights'

"My soul I resign into the hands of my Almighty Creator, whose tender mercies are all over His works, who hateth nothing that He hath made, and to the justice and wisdom of whose dispensations I willingly and cheerfully submit, humbly hoping from His unbounded mercy and benevolence, through the merits of my blessed Savior, a remission of my sins."

I dunno. 'blessed Savior' and 'remission of my sins'sound kinda 'christian-y' to me, especially for a guy that wanted the government outa the religion biz.

Matter of fact, if someone twenty years ago had quoted me on my opinion of God and religion, sin, and all that, they might have mistaken me for you. People do change. They also can change what they believe.

So...

Have you asked Him yet?

Craig Secularman said...

I am happy to concede to you that George Mason was a theist... I should of qualified my statement by saying most of the founding fathers were desists. But even if I did not qualifying that point and we started from the premise that all the founding fathers were theists... that would not change the fact that the constitution is secular and not theistic and that includes the Bill of Rights.

The constitution is not there to protect the religious alone... It is there to protect everyone religious or not. But as Hitchens has identified, what the Christian fundies want is to tear down that protection and apply it to Christians alone... Everyone else can "go to hell" ...Is basically what they're are saying.

Since you quoted Madison I will quote Jefferson:

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

And without wishing to overkill... He also said:

"If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God."
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

This last quote rather aptly ties up with my point that morality is innate.

Well I agree. Some of my opinions have changed over the years. But nothing over the years has drawn me to opinions based on mysticism... I can never see myself believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy for example, for the same reason I will never believe in God. Of course if someone did produce evidence for God or Santa Claus then I would have to accept it, but I hardly think that is likely. Like I have said in previous posts they are arbitrary concepts. The only reason that God is held up by adults to be real, more than Santa Claus is, it simply based on numbers of subscribers, it is certainly not based on evidence. What is the difference between the God of the Bible and every other God that has ever existed... Thor, Wotan, Allah. Well I think they have more in common than anything that distinguishes them. If you lived in ancient Greece, I suspect you'd believe in Zeus and with the same conviction that you Believe in the God of the Bible. There is really no reason whatsoever to hold one God up above another, they are all equally nonsensical.

Guitanguran said...

Well, actually I never quoted Madison. The quote was from Mr. Mason, our bill of rights guy. And to that point, Mr. Mason was definitely Christian in his viewpoint rather than merely theistic.

Taking out Jefferson and Franklin, pretty much everyone else was Christian in some denominational membership or other, as one would ordinarily expect in that day. Up to the time the Constitution was being put together, there were some states that prohibited atheists from holding office.

Don't bother bringing up all those quotes from founding fathers X, Y, and Z that debunk Christianity. I've got a ton from the same X, Y, and Z, that as are much out context as yours, extolling the virtue of Scripture, etc. Its just going to wind up being a spitting contest on quotes.

Still doesn't mean we're innately good, Mr. H., just innately conscious of the difference.

BTW, have you asked Him yet?

Craig Secularman said...

Oh sorry Freudian slip, I'd got Madison Square Gardens spinning round my head for some reason... I hope that doesn't mean your going to 'dock brownie points'.

How interesting... You've done it again. The main point I made in the whole post, that it is largely immaterial whether they were deists or theists or not, we could argue over that all day. The main point I made that it was immaterial and the constitution is a secular document and you fail to respond to it and that was my main point, in my last post.

Well I am actually considering doing exactly that and bringing up some quotes from the founding fathers... Because there are some important points that show it is a secular constitution and not a religious one.

In fact, watch my Blog... I may write an article on it.

Guitanguran said...

Secular document. Doesn't mention God.

Score!

Debated on and approved by secular men?

Not.

Have you asked Him yet?