Help me understand the message on this church sign

[Hardtail]

liberal minded guitar players being outspokenly anti - religion ... didn't see that coming

[ComOp]

liberal minded guitar players being outspokenly anti - religion ... didn't see that coming

I am not really "outspokenly anti-religion" even though I'll throw out the occaisional jab at religions on an anonymous forum like this from time to time. Like most other real life atheists, I find it's much less of a headache for me if I just stay quiet and keep to myself when people around me start holy rolling. The relationships that work best for me tend to be with other atheists because the topic of religion NEVER comes up and I don't have to feel awkward about staying out of the conversations.

[Cflat]

liberal minded guitar players being outspokenly anti - religion ... didn't see that coming

Most posts in this thread that could be considered anti anything, were ridiculing the message of the sign in question. It deserves ridicule.

But what I saw coming, was you posting in here only to play the victim and not actually say anything or argue against anything you disagree with.

Ideas or beliefs that seem to require that adherents play the victim and avoid criticism at all costs, should be considered suspect.

[madryan]

liberal minded guitar players being outspokenly anti - religion ... didn't see that coming

Religion is potentially the most destructive social force in the world.

"Faith" is the vehicle by which man tosses reason under the bus. Reason is the basis for everything which knowledge is comprised of. Without reason we can't begin to form any sort of ethical relationships with our fellow man because through blind faith man can rationalize any act as valid.

The 911 hijackers were completely justified in their actions, at least in their own minds.

Timothy McVeigh was completely justified in his own actions, at least in his own mind.

You see the pattern...

So roughly 60 years ago we harnessed the power of the atom. We developed weapons which have the power to destroy us all. Unfortunately we've still got our prehistoric religions hanging around causing us problems. Unfortunately, a huge percentage of the world is still blindly following an ideology which condones wiping out the "folks over there" because they're unbelievers. Even more alarming is the fact that now we posses the destructive power to wipe out much of mankind should the wrong people get hold of it.

So this is why I'm really not a fan of religion, at least not the 3 Abrahamic religions which emphasize tribalism so heavily.

[draelyc]

liberal minded guitar players being outspokenly anti - religion ... didn't see that coming

I play guitar & I'm extremely liberal ... and I'm very pro-religion.

In fact, I'm as liberal as I am because of my Christian faith.

[draelyc]

liberal minded guitar players being outspokenly anti - religion ... didn't see that coming

Religion is potentially the most destructive social force in the world.

"Faith" is the vehicle by which man tosses reason under the bus. Reason is the basis for everything which knowledge is comprised of. Without reason we can't begin to form any sort of ethical relationships with our fellow man because through blind faith man can rationalize any act as valid.

The 911 hijackers were completely justified in their actions, at least in their own minds.

Timothy McVeigh was completely justified in his own actions, at least in his own mind.

You see the pattern...

So roughly 60 years ago we harnessed the power of the atom. We developed weapons which have the power to destroy us all. Unfortunately we've still got our prehistoric religions hanging around causing us problems. Unfortunately, a huge percentage of the world is still blindly following an ideology which condones wiping out the "folks over there" because they're unbelievers. Even more alarming is the fact that now we posses the destructive power to wipe out much of mankind should the wrong people get hold of it.

So this is why I'm really not a fan of religion, at least not the 3 Abrahamic religions which emphasize tribalism so heavily.

It's not religions causing the problems, dude. It is human beings who mis-use religion that cause the problems. If religious folks would actually follow the teachings of their respective faiths, most of the problems you refer to would cease to exist.

Just sayin', it's easy to blame religion; it's harder ~ but more accurate ~ to blame ourselves.

[madryan]

liberal minded guitar players being outspokenly anti - religion ... didn't see that coming

Religion is potentially the most destructive social force in the world.

"Faith" is the vehicle by which man tosses reason under the bus. Reason is the basis for everything which knowledge is comprised of. Without reason we can't begin to form any sort of ethical relationships with our fellow man because through blind faith man can rationalize any act as valid.

The 911 hijackers were completely justified in their actions, at least in their own minds.

Timothy McVeigh was completely justified in his own actions, at least in his own mind.

You see the pattern...

So roughly 60 years ago we harnessed the power of the atom. We developed weapons which have the power to destroy us all. Unfortunately we've still got our prehistoric religions hanging around causing us problems. Unfortunately, a huge percentage of the world is still blindly following an ideology which condones wiping out the "folks over there" because they're unbelievers. Even more alarming is the fact that now we posses the destructive power to wipe out much of mankind should the wrong people get hold of it.

So this is why I'm really not a fan of religion, at least not the 3 Abrahamic religions which emphasize tribalism so heavily.

It's not religions causing the problems, dude. It is human beings who mis-use religion that cause the problems. If religious folks would actually follow the teachings of their respective faiths, most of the problems you refer to would cease to exist.

Just sayin', it's easy to blame religion; it's harder ~ but more accurate ~ to blame ourselves.

That's exactly my point though.

Encouraging people to rely on "faith" vs. any sort of reasoned out position is just asking for it. If you read the OT it's full of all sorts of crazy stuff. People still pick and choose what they want to persecute folks over (gays anyone?) yet they don't typically run down and stone folks at Red Lobster for eating shellfish. I find it laughable that you find legislation in our country targeting people which is based on stuff which is at best implied or mentioned in passing in the bible, and yet people ignore things which are spelled out in black and white. This is the legacy of relying on faith vs any sort of logical paradigm.

Religion isn't the problem, but it gives people a psychological "pass" to act any way they want and feel justified. Obviously most of us here in the western world have gotten past this but all it takes is the wrong group of nutters getting hold of the wrong device and we're all dragged kicking and screaming back to the 7th century, at least for a time.

[ComOp]

It's not religions causing the problems, dude. It is human beings who mis-use religion that cause the problems. If religious folks would actually follow the teachings of their respective faiths, most of the problems you refer to would cease to exist.

Just sayin', it's easy to blame religion; it's harder ~ but more accurate ~ to blame ourselves.

Interesting idea... Kind of the "guns don't kill people, people do" argument. I think the problem though is that religions aren't opt in for most people. The family, peers, community, etc raise people in that religion and actively indoctrinate them through threats (or acts in some cases) of not being allowed to belong in the community up to and including in some countries violence against anyone who chooses to not belong. Sure, you can blame the people, the problem is that the people in that religion were molded to that religion from children on and learned that to question that religion is like touching a hot stove.

I have read a lot of your blogs/posts over the years on the subject, but I am willing to bet that you were indoctrinated yourself as a child and much of your own defensiveness about religion comes from the fact that at your core you find the idea of questioning religion to be the same as touching that hot stove.

[madryan]

It's not religions causing the problems, dude. It is human beings who mis-use religion that cause the problems. If religious folks would actually follow the teachings of their respective faiths, most of the problems you refer to would cease to exist.

Just sayin', it's easy to blame religion; it's harder ~ but more accurate ~ to blame ourselves.

Interesting idea... Kind of the "guns don't kill people, people do" argument. I think the problem though is that religions aren't opt in for most people. The family, peers, community, etc raise people in that religion and actively indoctrinate them through threats (or acts in some cases) of not being allowed to belong in the community up to and including in some countries violence against anyone who chooses to not belong. Sure, you can blame the people, the problem is that the people in that religion were molded to that religion from children on and learned that to question that religion is like touching a hot stove.

I have read a lot of your blogs/posts over the years on the subject, but I am willing to bet that you were indoctrinated yourself as a child and much of your own defensiveness about religion comes from the fact that at your core you find the idea of questioning religion to be the same as touching that hot stove.

This...

People are raised with a chosen deity and tend to stay there.

Religion is very much a social construct. Historically different ones have popped up and been a vehicle to control society. The Abrahamic religions are super tribal which is my problem. Everyone in Christianity/Islam/Judiasim tends to think of the world in terms of "This is us, everyone else is Wrong/Evil/The Enemy/etc." Not all religions are that way.

[frumiousbandersnatch]

"... Unfortunately, a huge percentage of the world is still blindly following an ideology which condones wiping out the "folks over there" because they're unbelievers...."

Yeah, and them Mooslims are pretty bad, too.

[madryan]

"... Unfortunately, a huge percentage of the world is still blindly following an ideology which condones wiping out the "folks over there" because they're unbelievers...."

Yeah, and them Mooslims are pretty bad, too.

Exactly...

GWB started the war. Sure, the yahoos on 911 flew the planes into the WTC but the fuckwad in the White House decided to make it into some sort of holy crusade and invade countries which weren't even involved.

[draelyc]

Interesting idea... Kind of the "guns don't kill people, people do" argument. I think the problem though is that religions aren't opt in for most people. The family, peers, community, etc raise people in that religion and actively indoctrinate them through threats (or acts in some cases) of not being allowed to belong in the community up to and including in some countries violence against anyone who chooses to not belong. Sure, you can blame the people, the problem is that the people in that religion were molded to that religion from children on and learned that to question that religion is like touching a hot stove.

First, you're missing the point entirely. My point was not whether or not people are indoctrinated into religion. My point was that people's behavior 9 times out of 10 fails to live up to the ideals, tenets, and requirements of the religions they espouse, and therefore it is preposterous to blame religion for the misdeeds of folks who are failing to follow the teachings of said religoin.

I have read a lot of your blogs/posts over the years on the subject, but I am willing to bet that you were indoctrinated yourself as a child and much of your own defensiveness about religion comes from the fact that at your core you find the idea of questioning religion to be the same as touching that hot stove.

Lol! I'm willing to bet that you think that about me because you really have a deep-seeded, subconcious psychological fear of actually confronting any of the points I make.



How does it feel?

But seriously, folks, you don't know me, nor do you have any idea what my spiritual journey has been. You don't know how much time I've spent immersed in belief systems so far from those of my parents that they might as well have come from other planets. You don't know how many years I spent *knowing* that there was no point to anything, because human beings are nothing more than mindless chemical reactions crawling over the surface of an inert rock hurtling through space. In short, you have no idea how it is that I came to espouse the religious views that I hold. The fact is, I wouldn't believe any of the things that I believe were it not for direct, first hand experiences that I have had.

You also obviously haven't read many of my posts on the subject, as well, or you'd realize that when one has actual spiritual experiences, it is almost invariably easier to express and discuss those experiences in one's native language. But the language does not ~ cannot ~ create those experiences, my friend.

[draelyc]

liberal minded guitar players being outspokenly anti - religion ... didn't see that coming

Religion is potentially the most destructive social force in the world.

"Faith" is the vehicle by which man tosses reason under the bus. Reason is the basis for everything which knowledge is comprised of. Without reason we can't begin to form any sort of ethical relationships with our fellow man because through blind faith man can rationalize any act as valid.

The 911 hijackers were completely justified in their actions, at least in their own minds.

Timothy McVeigh was completely justified in his own actions, at least in his own mind.

You see the pattern...

So roughly 60 years ago we harnessed the power of the atom. We developed weapons which have the power to destroy us all. Unfortunately we've still got our prehistoric religions hanging around causing us problems. Unfortunately, a huge percentage of the world is still blindly following an ideology which condones wiping out the "folks over there" because they're unbelievers. Even more alarming is the fact that now we posses the destructive power to wipe out much of mankind should the wrong people get hold of it.

So this is why I'm really not a fan of religion, at least not the 3 Abrahamic religions which emphasize tribalism so heavily.

It's not religions causing the problems, dude. It is human beings who mis-use religion that cause the problems. If religious folks would actually follow the teachings of their respective faiths, most of the problems you refer to would cease to exist.

Just sayin', it's easy to blame religion; it's harder ~ but more accurate ~ to blame ourselves.

That's exactly my point though.

Encouraging people to rely on "faith" vs. any sort of reasoned out position is just asking for it. If you read the OT it's full of all sorts of crazy stuff. People still pick and choose what they want to persecute folks over (gays anyone?) yet they don't typically run down and stone folks at Red Lobster for eating shellfish. I find it laughable that you find legislation in our country targeting people which is based on stuff which is at best implied or mentioned in passing in the bible, and yet people ignore things which are spelled out in black and white. This is the legacy of relying on faith vs any sort of logical paradigm.

Religion isn't the problem, but it gives people a psychological "pass" to act any way they want and feel justified. Obviously most of us here in the western world have gotten past this but all it takes is the wrong group of nutters getting hold of the wrong device and we're all dragged kicking and screaming back to the 7th century, at least for a time.

But that's exactly one of the things I'm on about: Christianity (at least, before it came to America) actually has a long and glorious tradition of REASON, of critical thinking applied to Scripture, applied to theology, applied to questions of living out "the faith" in the world. Now, to look around at modern American versions of Christianity, you'd never, ever suspect that, and that is maddening.

But on a larger scale, lots of things give people a "psychological 'pass' to act any way they want and feel justified." Consider the many horrific atrocities committed in the Eastern Bloc during the Communist era, and those spurred on by entirely secular "excuses." Compare that history of totalitarian brutality to the Communist Manifesto that Marx actually wrote, and you'll see exactly the same pattern of twisting, corrupting, warping, and outright IGNORING the original message in order to justify de-humanizing "the other" so that it's "okay" to commit genocide against that less-than-human group. No religion involved, mang.

No, economic inequality (and the attempt to maintain such an equality) has much more to do with the evils we do to each other than does any abstract philosophy or belief, in the final analysis.

[ComOp]

You also obviously haven't read many of my posts on the subject, as well, or you'd realize that when one has actual spiritual experiences, it is almost invariably easier to express and discuss those experiences in one's native language. But the language does not ~ cannot ~ create those experiences, my friend.

Perhaps your "experiences" are simply misunderstandings or your own delusions? Have you considered that your indoctrination to a religion has clouded your own ability to approach those very same experiences with any kind of logic or reason?

Also go back and read what I wrote one more time, this time take your own defensive mindset and put it aside... You'll note I did address your point, you just didn't like my "attack" on your cherished belief. See, if people aren't allowed to grow up free of preconcieved notions and are allowed to approach a religion as a free thinking individual, at that point they are 100% culpable for how they interpret that religion's structure. When they are indoctrinated as children (like you) then they learn that to question that religion's authority (the messanger) is to question their very belief. When the leader of their organization calls for action, implies a call for action or simply hammers one subsection of the belief over and over again it incites the kind of thing we are discussing.

Religions based on being good to neighbors suddenly become justification for all kinds of negative behaviours. Violence, calls for restrictions on freedom, etc.

Also, which particular point that you made were you hoping we would discuss? You seemed a little hurt I chose to talk about indoctrination instead of something else.

[Hardtail]

^^ I literally lol'd at your purposeful use of inflammatory language. I don't care what the topic of conversation, when you confront a person with such language, it's tough to not be offended - and I quote ... "delusion", "indoctrination - 3x in one post", "cherished belief" - obviously sarcastic. I get you don't have any use for religion. Hope that works out for you. My point is it doesn't help when you try to carry on a dialogue/debate in such a patronizing tone ... unless your point is to just throw stones .

[ComOp]

^^ I literally lol'd at your purposeful use of inflammatory language. I don't care what the topic of conversation, when you confront a person with such language, it's tough to not be offended - and I quote ... "delusion", "indoctrination - 3x in one post", "cherished belief" - obviously sarcastic. I get you don't have any use for religion. Hope that works out for you. My point is it doesn't help when you try to carry on a dialogue/debate in such a patronizing tone.

Oh yeah? You "heard" a tone while reading that? You disagree that you were indoctrinated into religion as a child I take it, what word would you use to describe that process instead?

[Hardtail]

when I hear the word indoctrinated, I think of the Nazi Youth

[draelyc]

You also obviously haven't read many of my posts on the subject, as well, or you'd realize that when one has actual spiritual experiences, it is almost invariably easier to express and discuss those experiences in one's native language. But the language does not ~ cannot ~ create those experiences, my friend.

Perhaps your "experiences" are simply misunderstandings or your own delusions? Have you considered that your indoctrination to a religion has clouded your own ability to approach those very same experiences with any kind of logic or reason?

Also go back and read what I wrote one more time, this time take your own defensive mindset and put it aside... You'll note I did address your point, you just didn't like my "attack" on your cherished belief. See, if people aren't allowed to grow up free of preconcieved notions and are allowed to approach a religion as a free thinking individual, at that point they are 100% culpable for how they interpret that religion's structure. When they are indoctrinated as children (like you) then they learn that to question that religion's authority (the messanger) is to question their very belief. When the leader of their organization calls for action, implies a call for action or simply hammers one subsection of the belief over and over again it incites the kind of thing we are discussing.

Religions based on being good to neighbors suddenly become justification for all kinds of negative behaviours. Violence, calls for restrictions on freedom, etc.

Also, which particular point that you made were you hoping we would discuss? You seemed a little hurt I chose to talk about indoctrination instead of something else.

Wow. Misses my point entirely. Then misses all my specific responses to his points. Then repeats all the same points to which I just replied, only louder and with greater condescension.

Good times. . .

[Cflat]

But that's exactly one of the things I'm on about: Christianity (at least, before it came to America) actually has a long and glorious tradition of REASON, of critical thinking applied to Scripture, applied to theology, applied to questions of living out "the faith" in the world. Now, to look around at modern American versions of Christianity, you'd never, ever suspect that, and that is maddening.

Tradition of reason? Where? I haven't even found one good reason to believe any it, let alone reason coming from it.

But on a larger scale, lots of things give people a "psychological 'pass' to act any way they want and feel justified." Consider the many horrific atrocities committed in the Eastern Bloc during the Communist era, and those spurred on by entirely secular "excuses." Compare that history of totalitarian brutality to the Communist Manifesto that Marx actually wrote, and you'll see exactly the same pattern of twisting, corrupting, warping, and outright IGNORING the original message in order to justify de-humanizing "the other" so that it's "okay" to commit genocide against that less-than-human group. No religion involved, mang.

Chris, you of all people should be above this favorite and silly tactic of theists to invoke Hitler, Stalin, and co. as some form of rebuttal. If you look closely at all of those regimes, you will find them much, MUCH closer related to a theocracy than anything humanists and secularists promote. The head of the state becomes the deity to be worshiped unquestionably. It's just one god removed. Stalin's Lysenkoism, Nazi eugenics,...This isn't secularism. This isn't the promotion of critical thinking and being critical of unjustified beliefs. These were cultures in a state that was ripe for the picking for any charismatic character to come along and take advantage of such credulity. Can anyone honestly say that they believe Stalin or the Nazis could have risen to power in a country of people that were overly critical of unjustified beliefs?

No, economic inequality (and the attempt to maintain such an equality) has much more to do with the evils we do to each other than does any abstract philosophy or belief, in the final analysis.

You are missing the point. Humans have a propensity toward good and bad deeds. It is up to us as a society to set up a system in which the good deeds thrive. The Judeo-Christian religions do no such thing. They are themselves based on unjustified beliefs. It's almost like an attempt to reform Naziism to be suited for good deeds. That's not the best place to start from. It's not that religion causes bad deeds. It just makes it that much easier to justify them and makes it so we cannot criticize bad deeds that come from unjustified beliefs without being hypocritical or appealing to consequences.

[draelyc]

But that's exactly one of the things I'm on about: Christianity (at least, before it came to America) actually has a long and glorious tradition of REASON, of critical thinking applied to Scripture, applied to theology, applied to questions of living out "the faith" in the world. Now, to look around at modern American versions of Christianity, you'd never, ever suspect that, and that is maddening.

Tradition of reason? Where? I haven't even found one good reason to believe any it, let alone reason coming from it.

Of course you haven't. You're looking wrongly, as I've explained to you. But to answer your question with the most glaringly obvious example, two words: Thomas Aquinas. That's the tip of a very, very large iceberg, btw.

But on a larger scale, lots of things give people a "psychological 'pass' to act any way they want and feel justified." Consider the many horrific atrocities committed in the Eastern Bloc during the Communist era, and those spurred on by entirely secular "excuses." Compare that history of totalitarian brutality to the Communist Manifesto that Marx actually wrote, and you'll see exactly the same pattern of twisting, corrupting, warping, and outright IGNORING the original message in order to justify de-humanizing "the other" so that it's "okay" to commit genocide against that less-than-human group. No religion involved, mang.

Chris, you of all people should be above this favorite and silly tactic of theists to invoke Hitler, Stalin, and co. as some form of rebuttal. If you look closely at all of those regimes, you will find them much, MUCH closer related to a theocracy than anything humanists and secularists promote. The head of the state becomes the deity to be worshiped unquestionably. It's just one god removed. Stalin's Lysenkoism, Nazi eugenics,...This isn't secularism. This isn't the promotion of critical thinking and being critical of unjustified beliefs. These were cultures in a state that was ripe for the picking for any charismatic character to come along and take advantage of such credulity. Can anyone honestly say that they believe Stalin or the Nazis could have risen to power in a country of people that were overly critical of unjustified beliefs?

Oh, horseshit. If y'all get to be some intellectually dishonest as to blame religion for warfare and atrocity, you don't in the same breath get to call secular totalitarianism and brutality "as good as the same as religion" just because such secular examples invalidate your "thesis" completely. Try again ~ and harder.

No, economic inequality (and the attempt to maintain such an equality) has much more to do with the evils we do to each other than does any abstract philosophy or belief, in the final analysis.

You are missing the point. Humans have a propensity toward good and bad deeds. It is up to us as a society to set up a system in which the good deeds thrive. The Judeo-Christian religions do no such thing. They are themselves based on unjustified beliefs. It's almost like an attempt to reform Naziism to be suited for good deeds. That's not the best place to start from. It's not that religion causes bad deeds. It just makes it that much easier to justify them and makes it so we cannot criticize bad deeds that come from unjustified beliefs without being hypocritical or appealing to consequences.

No, you're missing the point. The ethical teachings alone of the Judeo-Christian tradition (forget for the moment all the spiritual stuff) represent a pinacle of morality that subsequent generations in the West have yet to improve upon. The Sermon on the Mount alone, without any other teaching, suffices as such a pinacle. It makes no difference whatsoever, from your point of view (at least, it shouldn't, if you're intellectually honest), whether such teachings were uttered by a man or a god ~ the teachings themselves are profoundly moral and, if truly enacted, would be the foundation of precisely the kind of society you're on about. "Unjustified beliefs" is merely your own personal hobgoblin, and it criples your mind and prevents you from seeing the situation objectively.

[Cflat]

Of course you haven't. You're looking wrongly, as I've explained to you. But to answer your question with the most glaringly obvious example, two words: Thomas Aquinas. That's the tip of a very, very large iceberg, btw.

Right. It's always the fault of the nonbeliever because they didn't use the proper methods to come to your conclusion, even though you can't demonstrate any of it or give a rational reason to believe it. And please explain to all of us just how reasonable Thomas Aquinas was, and maybe some examples of his critical thinking skills as it pertained to his beliefs. Maybe try and tie that in with how he believed non-christians should be killed, or his nonsensical 5 proofs that are filled will logical fallacies.

Oh, horseshit. If y'all get to be some intellectually dishonest as to blame religion for warfare and atrocity, you don't in the same breath get to call secular totalitarianism and brutality "as good as the same as religion" just because such secular examples invalidate your "thesis" completely. Try again ~ and harder

What is horseshit is your reading comprehension skills. Please show me where I have ever said that religion is solely to blame for warfare and atrocity. And why didn't you just say, "I know you are but what am I?". You're only a step away from that sort of childishness. "Secular Totalitarianism and brutality", as you've so defined it, had absolutely nothing to do with secularism and humanism that I, or any other atheist you most likely have ever come across, have proposed. Not even close. That's not being intellectually dishonest, it's knowing what the fuck I'm talking about. You should try it some time.
Please explain how Stalin or the Nazis had anything to do with the values that I'm always pretty clear about finding important. Being critical of unjustified beliefs, using actual critical thinking, logic, reason, and skepticism. Then apologize for your ridiculous nonsense about Hitler and Stalin using those secular and humanist values to commit atrocities in the name of atheism. Especially when they resemble a theocracy from top to bottom.
The atrocities committed by christianity have been committed in the name of christianity, using the teachings of christianity as justification. There is a huge difference there. But like I said before, it's not religion that caused the atrocities (even though you love using that strawman). It's that religion makes it easier to justify them. And one can't address the root of the problem, which I consider to be unjustified beliefs, if one also holds unjustified beliefs.

No, you're missing the point. The ethical teachings alone of the Judeo-Christian tradition (forget for the moment all the spiritual stuff) represent a pinacle of morality that subsequent generations in the West have yet to improve upon. The Sermon on the Mount alone, without any other teaching, suffices as such a pinacle. It makes no difference whatsoever, from your point of view (at least, it shouldn't, if you're intellectually honest), whether such teachings were uttered by a man or a god ~ the teachings themselves are profoundly moral and, if truly enacted, would be the foundation of precisely the kind of society you're on about. "Unjustified beliefs" is merely your own personal hobgoblin, and it criples your mind and prevents you from seeing the situation objectively.

The teachings of christianity were the pinacle (I think you meant "pinnacle") of morality that the west has yet to improve upon?
Which part? God's cure for Leprosy? How about what god and jesus have to say about slavery? Or maybe another good example of morality would be visiting the sins of the father unto the children. Or teaching people that they are born sick, commanded to be well, and told that they needed a bloody torture fest and human sacrifice to be forgiven. There's very little in the teachings of christianity that can be considered moral by our current standards and unique to christianity. Even that golden rule thing that christians love to claim as their own preceded christianity by centuries. And I could rip apart the Sermon on the Mount as well. There's some good advice in there, and some really bad advice. Any moral person not riddled with biases would be able to clearly see that. Then again, that's what happens when one assumes a conclusion and then tries to fit the evidence together in such a way to support it.

Unjustified beliefs are not my hobgoblin at all. You know what I would do if anyone were to point out that a belief I had was unjustified? I'd stop believing it. Regardless of whether or not I was raised to believe it or I just so happened to be lucky enough to find that the one true religion was the one most prominent in the country I was born. The only crippling going on here is in your mind. But I'm used to your projection biases. It's typical of people with unjustified beliefs.

[madryan]

I never singled out a specific religion although I did mention the Tribal aspects of the Judeo-Christian and Islamic faiths as being a problem and they are, but instead the tendency for huge groups of people to unquestionably believe whatever is told to them by their leaders, whether political or spiritual without any empirical evidence. That's the very definition of faith in the modern world. People just take the intellectually lazy way out and "Believe" something is true and that it's all good.

Unfortunately it makes it easy for folks like Hitler and Stalin to take power. It makes learning on a large scale slow down. Were it not for the active curtailing of knowledge by the church we'd likely be exploring the solar system and possibly the Galaxy by now. Thanks for that guys. Several centuries of enforced ignorance because Science and learning was anathema to the church teachings.

[Rant-On]
That's why I get pissed at the prospect of some halfwit trying to enforce their version of "Science" on my kid in public schools. I'm an ex Bio-Chem major so I understand very well how genetic information gets disseminated and I understand how evolution works. Don't try and teach my kid that there's some sort of valid scientific "theory" whereby a deity whom nobody has any empirical evidence proving the existence of directed the process using bunk science.
[Rant-Off]

[madryan]

BTW...

Here's a crazy thought...

The only valid ethical paradigm must begin with a foundation of empathy. This is why I like to think, and I suspect I'm correct, that all morality is subjective, while ethics are absolute.

[Cflat]

BTW...

Here's a crazy thought...

The only valid ethical paradigm must begin with a foundation of empathy. This is why I like to think, and I suspect I'm correct, that all morality is subjective, while ethics are absolute.

I know this might be a bit off-topic in a sense. But since you brought up morality, I'd like to briefly say something about that. Especially since this more than anything else seems to be what many theists use as their trump card. "Where do you get your morals from?" is a question many theists think will stump atheists into piety or something. No one in this thread brought it up so I'm not directly talking to anyone in particular. There seems to be this issue of theists claiming that there must be objective morals and atheists can't account for them. This is really silly. Like usual, they point out a problem that's not really a problem, and then offer a solution that doesn't solve the problem.

Morality has subjective and objective aspects to it. It's not quite as simple as to just say that they are subjective only. We regard morality in terms of well-being and harm. Something that causes as little unnecessary harm and the most well-being possible would be considered moral. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that to get started. The criteria I listed above about harm and well-being might be subjective (although most would agree with it), but our actions can be objectively labeled moral or immoral based on that criteria. You can think of it like a game of chess. While the rules of chess may be arbitrary and subjective, each move with respect to those rules is objective.

You can also think of it in terms of "If ____, then _____. The 'if' in that case is subjective. The 'then' is objective. Theistic morality doesn't solve their supposed problem. They claim that objective morals come from god. But you can clearly see the problem with this line of thought by the statement, "I do not care". For example, "Murder is objectively wrong because god says so." But if you do not care about what god says, it is not objectively wrong for you to murder. It should be reworded as such;
"If you care about what god commands, then murder is objectively wrong". So theistic morality isn't solving this supposed problem because the 'if' is still necessarily subjective. "Ought" statements are predicated on "If" statements.

I believe that using the criteria above, which should be almost universally agreed upon, morality can be objective. It's just predicated on the subjective 'If' (criteria above).

Ok. End side note rant

[psychwarfare]

I grew up Catholic and went to Catholic school and have my own thing with God now. I don't attend church and I don't consider myself to be religious and to an extent I go so far as to not fully support standard 12 step programs because I think they rely too much on faith and that it can function as a crutch (this is sacrilege in my field).

So...the sign for me...

When you've reached the point where you cannot reason out a decision...you must have faith in yourself and make a decision based on intuition and see it through...go with your guy sort of thing...