Do you believe in God?

[TenEightyOne]

That's just it, man can't fly. Man can invent flying machines to carry them. But man can't fly.

I see what you did there

 

[mistersafeway]

I'm still not seeing how atheist equals tolerant, and that was what was said.

Suggesting that atheists have a monopoly on tolerance is about the same as religious people thinking they have a monopoly on morals.

There are no widely accepted atheist derived documents that claim certain people should be treated worse than others, unlike the majority of religions. Of course atheists can be as intolerant as anybody, but that's a personal choice, not derived from their choice of religion.

 

[Joel]

There are no widely accepted atheist derived documents that claim certain people should be treated worse than others, unlike the majority of religions. Of course atheists can be as intolerant as anybody, but that's a personal choice, not derived from their choice of religion.

Suggesting that atheists have a monopoly on tolerance is about the same as religious people thinking they have a monopoly on morals.

Good point.

There are no widely accepted atheist derived documents that suggest a moral code or a way of living that people should ascribe to as a core part of being an atheist. Clearly we can determine that the religious are morally superior to atheists, as their theism inherently involves a moral code, while atheism doesn't require a moral code. Of course, atheists can have strong morality just as much as anybody, but that's a personal choice, not derived from their atheism.

I would probably agree in a general sense that atheists are more tolerant than religious people (although I have no data to back that up), but that seems like correlation rather than causation. Atheism is more common in developed countries, and generally rates of atheism rise as standard of living, GDP per capita, and education standards rise in a country. It's not that atheists are more tolerant because they're atheists, but because places where atheists live are generally more tolerant and liberal than places where religion is a stronger aspect of culture.

 

[Imari]

That's just it, man can't fly. Man can invent flying machines to carry them. But man can't fly.

I was choosing to respond to what he should have said instead of nitpicking him to death. We already know how angsty he gets about that. Turns out his argument was pretty weak even if you give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Scaff]

And you prove your tolerance by not tolerating someone believing in god. Okay.

Not tolerate the beliefs of others. Is that what you think atheists do?

 

[Danoff]

...as their theism inherently involves a moral immoral code

FTFY

 

[LeMansAid]

FTFY

That's pretty ignorant. If anything it should be "...as their theism inherently involves a moral/immoral code".

I've got plenty of reason to be down on religion, and am. Doesn't mean that I ignore the positive things it inspires people to do. The whole "pile in and kick the dirty dog" thing is really quite juvenile.

 

[mistersafeway]

That's pretty ignorant. If anything it should be "...as their theism inherently involves a moral/immoral code".

I've got plenty of reason to be down on religion, and am. Doesn't mean that I ignore the positive things it inspires people to do. The whole "pile in and kick the dirty dog" thing is really quite juvenile.

Ignoring the obvious response about what that says of their moral compass if they need to be told to be nice, I'll post a related video to lighten the mood for a couple of minutes. Read into it what you all will, and be warned that there's some bad language.

 

[LeMansAid]

Ignoring the obvious response about what that says of their moral compass if they need to be told to be nice

I'm sure that (non religious) charity group members get more done because they are part of a group, with an ethos. Is each good deed that would have otherwise not happened a blight on their moral standards?

 

[Famine]

Is each good deed that would have otherwise not happened a blight on their moral standards?

It may be, but logic dictates that you are not responsible for any outcome in which you did not help - even if you could.

 

[Scaff]

Clearly we can determine that the religious are morally superior to atheists, as their theism inherently involves a moral code, while atheism doesn't require a moral code.

I disagree, simply because a religion imposes a moral code doesn't mean its a good code (the OT is a rather good example of imposed 'moral' values that are rather messed up), nor does it mean its followed. The pope himself has stated that around 5% of the catholic clergy have carried out sexual abuse. Now if the strike record for those who are supposed to role model this moral code is that bad then want does that say for the greater flock?

That's pretty ignorant. If anything it should be "...as their theism inherently involves a moral/immoral code".

I've got plenty of reason to be down on religion, and am. Doesn't mean that I ignore the positive things it inspires people to do. The whole "pile in and kick the dirty dog" thing is really quite juvenile.

Positive things that often (from my own experience) come with religious strings attached, often with charity being used as a drive for conversion or with very dangerous 'edicts' attached (HIV in Africa being a good example of religious charity and its strings being insanely dangerous).

 

[LeMansAid]

It may be, but logic dictates that you are not responsible for any outcome in which you did not help - even if you could.

I'm trying to work out when @mistersafeway thinks that people deserve credit for good deeds, and when they don't. It's not just about motive, but also impetus. Religion would sometimes provide an otherwise not present impetus for people to act on their morals, just as charity groups would. That someone draws impetus from religion shouldn't discredit their displays of morality.

When the religion is the only motivation I give no kudos though.

 

[mistersafeway]

I'm trying to work out when @mistersafeway thinks that people deserve credit for good deeds, and when they don't. It's not just about motive, but also impetus. Religion would sometimes provide an otherwise not present impetus for people to act on their morals, just as charity groups would. That someone draws impetus from religion shouldn't discredit their displays of morality.

When the religion is the only motivation I give no kudos though.

I did say if they have to be told to be nice, which obviously doesn't apply to everyone. On the other hand, if they would have done it anyway, where do their religion's moral teachings come into it?

 

[LeMansAid]

Impetus. I used it quite a few times in there.

It's what might often bring morals and deeds together.

Positive things that often (from my own experience) come with religious strings attached, often with charity being used as a drive for conversion or with very dangerous 'edicts' attached (HIV in Africa being a good example of religious charity and its strings being insanely dangerous).

Totally agree, even just the disingenuous "witnessing" with motives of gaining favour in the eyes of God are bad enough.

Still, sometimes people do bad things with good motives. White people took away Aboriginal babies from their parents through a certain era in Australia. As horrible and unwarranted as that was, it was done with pure motives. They thought the kids were being mistreated.

 

[jtv90069]

Still, sometimes people do bad things with good motives. White people took away Aboriginal babies from their parents through a certain era in Australia. As horrible and unwarranted as that was, it was done with pure motives. They thought the kids were being mistreated.

That's probably not the best example of "pure motives", certainly many individuals who adopted the children were doing so believing it to be the best, but the people who controlled and mislead the population had anything but "pure motives".

http://aso.gov.au/titles/documentaries/stolen-generations/clip2/

 

[LeMansAid]

That's probably not the best example of "pure motives", certainly many individuals who adopted the children were doing so believing it to be the best, but the people who controlled and mislead the population had anything but "pure motives".

http://aso.gov.au/titles/documentaries/stolen-generations/clip2/

Did they think they were doing a bad thing or a good thing? That's how simple the question of motives is.

 

[jtv90069]

Did they think they were doing a bad thing or a good thing? That's how simple the question of motives is.

As I said many of the people who adopted the children did think they were doing a good thing for the children. The people who were responsible for it all happening were not doing it for the benefit of the Aboriginal people.

 

[LeMansAid]

Not as a collective, but for the individual children, it's my understanding that their motives were genuine. Anyway, too OT, so you can make me look a fool in your next post and I'll just have to suck it up.

 

[jtv90069]

Not trying make you look or feel like a fool, I just didn't agree with the example and felt I should add a bit more information.

 

[Foxhound93]

Looking at the discussion in a few last pages I think they should teach the basics of science and scientific thinking in schools. Things such as logic, rational thinking, proper (and false as "not-to-do" thing) argumentation, respecting other people opinions etc. I had one course in university and I honestly think it made me a better person. Of course i have always tried to be as good as person as I can be but after that course I can admit that I am wrong more easily and accept valid arguments despite being against my views. The thing is, if they only teach it at university, most people will never get proper argumentation skills. And here among other threads we see the results.

 

[Danoff]

That's pretty ignorant. If anything it should be "...as their theism inherently involves a moral/immoral code".

That's literally ignorant. There is no religion on the planet that has a moral code, each is immoral in some form or another.

 

[LeMansAid]

That's literally ignorant. There is no religion on the planet that has a moral code, each is immoral in some form or another.

If the presence of any immorality cancels out any morality then all groups and individuals throughout the world are equal in that they have no morals.

You replaced moral with immoral, I added immoral to moral. I'm failing to see how my assessment is less accurate.

 

[Danoff]

If the presence of any immorality cancels out any morality then all groups and individuals throughout the world are equal in that they have no morals.

A code is either moral or it is not. If the code demands the stoning of homosexuals, it is not moral. End of story. I don't care what else it says that happens to be right.

 

[LeMansAid]

A code is either moral or it is not. If the code demands the stoning of homosexuals, it is not moral. End of story. I don't care what else it says that happens to be right.

Yet you were against the idea of The Bible being updated to reflect the way that views have changed en masse in modern times. It seems like you just want to keep it all locked up in a convenient and designated spot you have for it.

You - "Your code is immoral"
Them - "But there's lots of good stuff in there"
You - "Talk to the hand"
Them - "Can we change it then?"
You - "No"

 

[squadops]

NT vs OT it seems.

No one has a monopoly on morals and in reality all that is required is to follow whatever law of the land you live. Religion is a human right that most people have a right to practice.

None of this is regarding a belief in God however.

 

[LeMansAid]

No one has a monopoly on morals and in reality all that is required is to follow whatever law of the land you live.

Have you heard of a place called Saudi Arabia?

 

[dylansan]

I think what Danoff's getting at is that a moral code is useless if only some of it is moral and some isn't. At that point, you can't use the moral code to judge what is moral as you are now judging it by your own moral standards.

Are there good things in the bible? Yes, but we consider them good based on our own knowledge of morality, not simply because it's in the bible (Otherwise, we would have to assume stoning homosexuals was moral). At that point, it's best to cut out the middle man and just use our own moral compass for everything, since referring to the Bible will obviously not guarantee a good moral guide.

 

[squadops]

Have you heard of a place called Saudi Arabia?

Do you dislike Aribs? Perhaps you disagree with their governments or religions. I'm not seeing your point, I guess you find yourself more moral?

 

[LeMansAid]

Do you dislike Aribs? Perhaps you disagree with their governments or religions. I'm not seeing your point, I guess you find yourself more moral?

People can do horrific things and still be within the laws of the land in Saudi Arabia.

I think what Danoff's getting at is that a moral code is useless if only some of it is moral and some isn't.

Useless for the person that gets respite with church people after leaving an abusive relationship?

 

[Exorcet]

Useless for the person that gets respite with church people after leaving an abusive relationship?

A church wouldn't be the only option in that situation. And while that person might feel better being with the church, they may also pick up that churches beliefs. If that happens to be an anti homosexual stance and that person goes on to strain perfectly legitimate relationships, it doesn't make the church look good.

I know that churches and religious organizations can do good, but they are not the source for good. If you cut out everything except the donate to less fortunate bit or something, you're not left with much of a religion, but that doesn't sound bad to me.