badnewz - Member
I agree. I'd also ask the question: where do we get our sense of right and wrong from?
I think we get it from the moral commandments as relayed from Judaism (with some revision) to what was Pagan Europe via Christianity.
Sorry, but attributing moral/ethical values to religion is nonsense.
It's the other way around.
But then there is a separate history, the history of sainthood - people like William Wilberforce, who understood more clearly the Christian message and undertook to abolish the slave trade.
So non Christians were incapable of seeing the evil inherent in slavery?
In conclusion, like it or not, we are the products of post-Enlightenment Christianity.
Christianity is the product of humanity.
So before Christianity can't to pagan Europe nobody knew right from wrong??!?!?
I would argue that the natural law meant they had some understanding of a moral law.
Do you have a shred of proof for this assumption?
Yes, considering much of the Pagan world was based upon a brutal system of slavery and imperial politics. Child sacrifice was practiced and I think that only became an ethical issue after Christianity, which placed revolutionary emphasis on the value of the individual human being.
Yes, considering much of the Pagan world was based upon a brutal system of slavery and imperial politics.
Thank God for burning of heretics, the crusades and systematic sexual abuse! Oh.
But then there is a separate history, the history of sainthood - people like William Wilberforce, who understood more clearly the Christian message and undertook to abolish the slave trade.
Christianity was also used to justify the slave trade.
Thank God for burning of heretics, the crusades and systematic sexual abuse! Oh.
Please pay attention. Christianity places emphasis on man's fallen nature - it does not say Christians will be above sin; but Christianity contains within it an ethical system which means it can be reformed over time by Saintly people. The pagan world did not have such an internal ethical system and hence was unable to reform itself.
So did jesus not like black people or did he think that they were exceptionally good workers or what?
@wrecker - http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav1.htm
Although Jesus never said a word about slavery apparently - maybe he was ambivalent about it.
Yes, considering much of the Pagan world was based upon a brutal system of slavery and imperial politics.
When Rome converted to Christianity under Constantine the Great in about 325AD, the brutal slavery and Imperial politics continued apace.
When Rome converted to Christianity under Constantine the Great in about 325AD, the brutal slavery and Imperial politics continued apace.
There are certainly major issues with the Donation of Constantine. Some people (mainly Protestants) argue it was a mistake as it polluted the faith with Roman power politics. Others (mainly Catholics - no surprise) argue that it enabled the long term renewal of Europe along progressively less brutal lines.
I'm not sure either way, but the point stands that Christianity emphasises man's fallen nature, so it stands to reason it will become polluted on contact with politics.
Christianity places emphasis on man's fallen nature - it does not say Christians will be above sin; but Christianity contains within it an ethical system which means it can be reformed over time by Saintly people.
Admittedly, it only took 1800 years or so for Christians to stop trading slaves. When do you think the systematic sexual abuse will stop?
Many athiests (sic) use the moral ethical system of Christianity to criticise the religion itself, e.g. how Christians have used religious and political persecution, but surely we wouldn't think persecution was such a bad thing were it not for the ethical system as laid out in the Sermon on The Mount
I was raised agnostic atheist and to date understand my (profoundly negative) feelings towards persecution to arise from such things as empathy, reasoning and sympathy?
Additionally - I couldn't tell you off the top of my head what was alleged to have been said on 'The Mount'.
*Edit*. Ok I googled it. 'Blessed are the persecuted'? What a vile notion.
Grum, that's a really shit story. Canaan gets slavery because his dad saw his grand daddy in the altogether?
I though Noah was a happy old soul, caring for animals and whatnot. He's always kind in the films.
By today's secular and religious standards:cursing all of an individual's innocent descendents into perpetual slavery because of an inappropriate act by an ancestor is immoral.
No shit! I wonder why?!?
Admittedly, it only took 1800 years or so for Christians to stop trading slaves
Was it only christians?
@ransos, I don't think slavery will ever end, unfortunately, not in this world anyhow.
@malvern It's an interesting one - can there be a morally ethical athiest? The answer is normally yes, of course, most theists would also concede this. But I'm not so sure. Athiesm has no moral law, it is the absent of truth.
I'd argue your sense of empathy, sympathy, respect etc were probably in you to begin with through your conscience (implanted by God), and it has benefited from your being raised in a culture where those things were passed along as values.
Socrates is the example many athiests use to argue against this, but aside from him being a remarkable individual, he had also lived in a culture which was beginning to puzzle out an ethical system based on a type of theism (that is Platonism).
And another thread bites the religious dust.
The events were in Kôln in Germany in 2015 and 2016 and we still don't know if the culprits are in any way religious. We do know they have a bad attitude towards women. That's what I hope the Germans will deal with.
WTF 😯But I'm not so sure. Athiesm has no moral law, it is the absent of truth.
The fundamental bill of human rights is not a religious document so presumably it has not moral basis to offer anyone any guidance on these sorts of issues
.
There is no evidence for god following the facts does not make truth absent only faith does that.
you can put forward any illogical mumbo jumbo you wish but it wont make it true.I'd argue your sense of empathy, sympathy, respect etc were probably in you to begin with through your conscience (implanted by God)
can you explain those innate characteristics in relation to what god says to do to homosexuals?
Its really ot helpful to pretend their is no moral code at work here. All cultures have moral codes and they all differ. Obviously the one you have picked is the one you think is best so the debate is pointless.
But I'm not so sure. Athiesm has no moral law, it is the absent of truth.
Alternatively, atheists are capable of working our stuff for themselves, and don't need an old book to tell them what to do.
Grum, that's a really shit story. Canaan gets slavery because his dad saw his grand daddy in the altogether?
Ridiculous innit!
Christians trying to claim a monopoly on morality can do one, frankly.
indeed one does not have to have faith in a god to see why murdering is wrong
The fundamental bill of human rights is not a religious document so presumably it has not moral basis to offer anyone any guidance on these sorts of issues
Do I have to keep going over old ground? Verily, verily, I say to you, human rights were created by Christianity in the first place.
can you explain those innate characteristics in relation to what god says to do to homosexuals?
This depends on what your attitude to scripture is. Some christians consider it to be the word of God. I think that is a mistake. Jesus is the word of God, truly understood. And he said nothing about homosexuals.
So there is the possibility that the passages which are commonly read from the NT to argue against homosexuality are wrong and the intolerance is down to the fact that Christians place too much emphasis on the truth being fully understood by fallen human beings (an argument actually made by the writer of the contentious passages, Paul).
What about murdering a little piggy for some bacon? Surely that's OK? We all love a bit of bacon don't we? 😉
Alternatively, atheists are capable of working our stuff for themselves, and don't need an old book to tell them what to do.
Ok rancos, tell me as an atheist, what is truth?
Ok rancos, tell me as an atheist, what is truth?
Oh god.... 🙄
(see what I did there 😉 )
@malvern It's an interesting one - can there be a morally ethical athiest(sic)?
That rather depends upon your agreed definition of those two words (moral + ethical) doesn't it? A bit like the word 'marriage' -ie it seems that some religious folks claim words and concepts simply on account of a long tenancy/affiliation when in fact history/anthropology traces such things as ethics and ritual pairings back to way before Christianity.
Maybe one for another thread.
This depends on what your attitude to scripture is.
ah right so you dont believe it then except when it suits you to believe in it ?
tell that to the slaves, the homosexuals, the woment ah you get the picture. Human rights was never a large part of scripture that is why we have the 10 commandments and not a declaration of inalienable rights.Verily, verily, I say to you, human rights were created by Christianity in the first place.
FWIW you can say what you like and you can keep changing what you said as well but it just makes you look incoherent and silly.
so apparently atheists dont have morals and if we did its because christians gave us them
Hell you people of faith really do love the untestable circular arguments.
FWIW the declaration was created globally from those of different faiths and different cultures. I am sure you still wish to claim that god did but hey what can i do as i have only facts at hand and you have faith,
The membership of the Commission was designed to be broadly representative of the global community, served by representatives from the following countries: Australia, Belgium, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Chile, Republic of China, Egypt, France, India, Iran, Lebanon, Panama, Philippines, United Kingdom, United States, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Uruguay, and Yugoslavia.[9] Well-known members of the Commission included Eleanor Roosevelt of the United States (who was the Chairperson), René Cassin of France, Charles Malik of Lebanon, P. C. Chang of the Republic of China,[11] and Hansa Mehta of India.[12] Humphrey provided the initial draft which became the working text of the Commission.
Ok rancos, tell me as an atheist, what is truth?
The word of god, obviously. Now if you'll excuse me, I must get home and work out how much to sell my daughters for.
Yes, considering much of the Pagan world was based upon a brutal system of slavery and imperial politics. Child sacrifice was practiced and I think that only became an ethical issue after Christianity, which placed revolutionary emphasis on the value of the individual human being.
And still you offer absolutely no proof about the morality of pre Christian Europe
Other than some vague notions to prop up youre own religious bias
so apparently atheists dont have morals and if we did its because christians gave us them
My point is atheism has no room for truth, and without a transcendent truth, there is no reason for an ethical system in the first place. The history of morality started with religion.
But I've also pointed out natural law, which suggests people have a sense of conscience in the first place. So no, individual atheists are not necessarily immoral, in the same way that Christians are not all moral. But morality reaches its zenith among religious saints and it reaches the bottom under atheistic states like Stalinist Russia and the Nazis.
Rubbish.
'The history of morality started with religion'.
Mate, this is the kind of arrogant, ignorant nonsense that makes many people unwilling to engage with those of faith.
You hide your rudeness under the cloak of belief, which you assume gives you the right to insult the rest of us.
My point is atheism has no room for truth
Atheism is the absence of belief in a God, not a philosophical framework.
badnewz - that's just gibberish dressed up as philosophy, sorry.
badnewz has added himself to chewy and jamba in my Chrome ignore list.
I'd argue your sense of empathy, sympathy, respect etc were probably in you to begin with through your conscience (implanted by God)
I'd argue that conciousness is a non adaptive evolutionary by product, but hey ho.
I've read this thread from the start and been angered, offended and bewildered by some of the comments, in particular the assumptions about atheists and agnostics morality.
I can only assume that some of the posters (you know who you are) have their heads shoved so far up their own arses that all the can hear is the echo of their own voice ranting into their colon.
e events were in Kôln in Germany in 2015 and 2016 and we still don't know if the culprits are in any way religious. We do know they have a bad attitude towards women. That's what I hope the Germans will deal with
@Edukator. You are correct in that the most important issue at play here is culture. IMO there are huge cultural differences towards women amongst Muslim countries and within them. As a case in point you see that very clearly between Western and Eastern Turkey and I wager excatky the same applies between say Damascas and Raqqa pre IS. I would also say IME that the diffetences between North African Arabs and Bangladeshis or Indonesians are quite marked. The other very important point is that more observant Muslims tend to have a very outdated attitude to women.
If it transpores large numbers of those responsible came from, say, Eastern Syria they would have not been atvall used to seeing women out and about celebrating a festival. To them the only such women would by definition be whores.
badnewz has added himself to chewy and jamba in my Chrome ignore list.
That funtionality doesnt seem to work very well then as you're constantiy replying to my posts. At least JY claims he doesn't read them even though he replies.
have their heads shoved so far up their own arses that all the can hear is the echo of their own voice ranting into their colon.
That's sadly the general direction of these threads and probably why most STWers can't be bothered
At least JY claims he doesn't read them even though he replies.
its is exactly what I do #jambyfact
That funtionality doesnt seem to work very well then as you're constantiy replying to my posts. At least JY claims he doesn't read them even though he replies.
It works fine but I come across your BS on my phone.
Are badnewz and jambalaya not the same person under a different log-in?
Don't know about Pagans, but if you go back 40,000 years...
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/oct/10/bright-idea-neanderthals-evolution ]Neanderthals could show compassion[/url]
An example for Neanderthals is of a man found in the Shanidar cave in Iraq with one withered arm, deformities in both legs and a crushed skull which probably made him blind in his left eye. We think he survived for between 20 and 35 years, a length of time which shows that there must have been conscious care from the community, most likely undertaken by a group of people.The long-term care of others is something that we may think of as being a modern human characteristic and for a long time the issue was quite contentious. At Sima de los Huesos in Spain, a Homo heidelbergensis [an ancestor of modern humans] child was found who suffered from lambdoid single suture craniosynostosis, where parts of the skull fuse together. He would have had a strange appearance and probably reduced mental capacity. However, the age of the child at death is estimated at between five and eight years, so this proves he would have been looked after for at least five years of his life by others in the same way as a normal child.
"What a load of shit" as Nan Tate would say, sexual advances on women dresed up and blamed on religion, imigrants, womens dress, colour of the perpetrators etc.
It happened because there where not enough police intrested or staffed to take any action.
[quote=yunki ]Are badnewz and jambalaya not the same person under a different log-in?
not sure ask badnewz if they ever get anything wrong.
not sure ask badnewz if they ever get anything wrong.
I get plenty wrong. I use this forum to test ideas/concepts in the battle of debate. I suppose the anonymity makes me more forthright than I would be in face-to-face conversations.
Anyhow, I'm always careful to keep it civil and know when to pull an "Exit Badnewz pursued by a bear". I understand how people get irritated by the endless God vs atheism debates, and in fairness we've kept a bit of a lid on it recently overall!
And I'd point out yet again (for the umpteenth time) that I was not saying atheists are immoral. I was saying that atheism doesn't have the capacity on its own to produce a system of ethics / a code of morality, because it doesn't have the room for a lawgiver/truth/sense of transcendence.
But it is interesting, given how much abuse there is sent from this forum to the way of theists, at how given to overreaction many of you are. After all, plenty of you are happy to call religious believers bonkers.
Anyhow my time on this thread is up, so it truly is, exit Badnewz pursued by an (outraged-how-dare-you-call-me-immoral) bear.
fear not no one is forced to read the threads and all those comments are are people highlighting their stupidity.
we are all more forthright on here and despite my views I have a number of very close friends who are deeply religious.
One of my best mates i have known since school is an RE teacher. He is a fence sitter on it all but does attend church with his wife and kids.
And I'd point out yet again (for the umpteenth time) that I was not saying atheists are immoral. I was saying that atheism doesn't have the capacity on its own to produce a system of ethics / a code of morality.
The British Association of Counsellors and Psychotherapists (BACP) have a very decent Ethical Framework that doesn't mention God at all.
It appears my aunt didn't make it up...
