Atheists, why do you care?

TheAwesomeJonesy · 2 months

I've heard this often, and it kinda rankles me - enough to where I'm close to deciding that this idea has to have been taught to someone rather than have been an original decision. I just don't understand how someone could really believe that, without a God, people will have no moral guidelines.

The reason is that you can't derive moral guidelines from empirical observation - you can't get an "ought" from an "is." In this thread, some of the posters state this: morality is a personal opinion, murder isn't wrong, etc. This doesn't validate religion, or remove the problems that might arise in religious moral systems. But it is a legitimate question.

Alphastar18 · 2 months

I would argue that the scientific method is simply a formalization of this

What I see on the religion and atheism subreddits are quite a number of atheists who will assert that they would never believe anything without scientific evidence, and that any conclusion that is not tested by the scientific method is not only wrong, but dangerous. The only reason this broad worldview is adopted appears to be that they reject religion. This seems to me unnecessary and naive. It is part of a narrative that religion is clashing with science, and one must lose.

It seems much more reasonable to simply say: I don't buy these tall tales, and I don't really have faith in something invisible, without the posturing about the scientific method, or how non-scientific views are dangerous. The problem is, that approach doesn't fit the narratives that certain atheists writers want to promote. Instead of an absence of belief, atheism ends up being presented as a competing philosophical system.

I would be less concerned with the unsupported beliefs of the religious if they were not so often treated as objective certainties.

But how else could one treat a belief? One can be more or less aggressive about promoting beliefs, but a belief is something accepted as true.

TheAwesomeJonesy · 2 months

I mentioned the other two for a reason. How did those affect your life and did they make you angry?

Now that I'm older and have really been able to think for myself and make my own conclusions I think to all the people I told that stuff to. How many of them were conflicted sexually? How many gay people did I hurt and shame? If it's even one (and I know there is as he's my best friend) then I feel bad about it.

How old were you? I wasn't a particularly nice kid, myself. I teased and tormented one particular fat kid, and no one told me to do that. I took my share of abuse from other kids.

I understand that you may partly blame others for your actions (and it that's the worse thing you do in your life, you're quite virtuous), but would you blame all of religion? When I was born, homosexuality was considered a disorder under APA guidelines (removed in 1973). The WHO didn't remove homosexuality as a disorder until 1990. Within my lifetime, and very near to the lifetimes of even the younger posters here, science justified discrimination against homosexuals. How could anyone reasonably expect that that conclusion would be immediately reflected in the culture? Is all religion to blame for your choice to express your former views in an insensitive way?

TheAwesomeJonesy · 2 months

Your view is:

Abortion is wrong, but should be available legally, but your church told you it was wrong and should be illegal.

Recreational drug use is fine, although not without dangers, but your Church told you it was wrong in all circumstances.

How are these lies that have affected your life enough to make you angry?

TheAwesomeJonesy · 2 months

Although I see that people may be angry about specific issues, in fact there is too much diversity in religious thought to characterize religion. The opposition to religion as a concept, as opposed to specific doctrines of specific faiths, is irrational and ill-informed.

Frequently it's politics, fashion, or wanting to feel superior to other people. Just as it is, frequently, with religious people.

There is also a resistance, in our consumer society, to anyone or anything that says you can't do what you want, that there are limits on proper behavior, other than the relatively legalistic priniciple of non-interference.

There is anger among some when they lose their faith, at believing they were lied to.

And dozens of other reasons, mostly not rational either.

I think the mistake to to take people too seriously, or think that there are rational motivations for their passions.

rainer511 · 2 months

in theory

and in intent

In this regard, I'm not an expert on morality, Catholic teaching, or the even the teachings on contraception. I can only say what I understand:

Catholic moral teaching isn't just based on scripture, and isn't based solely on personal virtue or intent. It is based on sacrament, which to non-Catholics, appear as ritual or symbolism. They aren't symbolism; they are realities that exist apart from our mental states.

For example, the doctrine of transubstantiation provides that the presence of Christ is in the eucharist. This is the case even if the priest isn't virtuous, or the laity isn't paying attention or doesn't believe that Christ is present.

You may go to confession, and told to pray the rosary. Does it matter if the rosary is a prayer you don't relate to? Can you substitute another prayer that is more meaningful to you, or, in your opinion, more directed at your particular transgression? No - you can add, but you still need to say your rosary.

Sex is thought to have a particular nature. That nature exists apart from our ideas about it. The presence of physical contraception is not in accord with that nature. So, contraception is out. I think this is at least understood, but I think non-Catholics are assuming that the intent is what makes the contraception an error. It isn't the intent, it is the objective nature of the act.

To take a Catholic example: if the Mass is given by a very virtuous layperson, Christ is not present, but if it is given by a not so virtuous priest, it is. To take a non-Catholic example: an actor might be distracted, but still say his lines correctly, and the play stays open, but if he misstates and flubs his lines, even if he is sincere and paying attention, the audience walks out.

Again, these are not precisely analogous, and I would probably be corrected by those who are more educated on the finer points of theology than myself. But this is how I understand the question.

Alphastar18 · 2 months

I don't understand why being an atheist is somehow tied to pledging fealty to the scientific method. People have disbelieved for ages: that's why the events in religious texts are called "miracles," and we have words like "supernatural," and theologians concocted proofs of God. Rejecting supernatural or unproved events isn't a product of science. People knew what the "laws of nature" were before we started calling them laws: the dead don't walk, God doesn't speak to us everyday, seas don't part to allow us to cross, etc.

....science is only a means for forming beliefs about what exists in the world, and that there are areas of knowledge outside of that. I disagree, however, with any claim that religion is one of these. Religions make claims that certain things exist and that the world works in a certain way, and these contradict observation at worst and have no basis in observation at best, for most religions.

I don't follow. You state that scientific knowledge is only one form of knowledge, but then you reject religion as a source of knowledge, not only when it contradicts observation, but also when it isn't based on observation. It appears you are accepting objective observation as the only way to establish knowledge, which would lead me to think you are accepting that science is the only form of knowledge.

jobeavs · 2 months

Not necessarily. You could accomplish pretty much all the same goals contractually between the parties, and the only role of the state would be to enforce the contract.

I don't think you could and I don't think that anyone who has observed what happens in relationships among any sampling of humanity could. I'm not a fan of contracts, anyway. Contracts aren't a way to freedom or independence; they are usually a means for the strong to exploit the weak, and they are nothing more than a status relationship imposed without any oversight or process. That goes for contracts formed out of an intimate relationship tenfold. When applied to anything other than commercial relationships, contracts deny our humanity, and they tend to deny our humanity in commercial relationships.

From your following comments you appear to take me for an SSM supporter.

I did, and you probably take me for a SSM opponent, which isn't necessarily the case either. I'm frustrated with the "debate" on both sides.

Although I take it that they're not actually holding both of those views simultaneously so much as arguing them in the alternative

Actually, my observation is that it is often simultaneous.

Alphastar18 · 2 months

Are you done avoiding the question?

rainer511 · 2 months

I'm not sure what you're asking. You can google Catholic moral theology if you want more information. Oddly I'm being down voted for correctly describing the rationale of the Church.

jobeavs · 2 months

I've never been a fan of state recognition of marriages.

There has to be state recognition of marriages. If two people make a lifelong commitment to one another, the state has to protect their expectations, through maintenance, property division, long term support. The state has an important role in maintaining the strength of marriage.

At the risk of repeating myself, there is a fundamental hypocrisy in the approach of many who favor gay marriage. They see marriage as nothing more than a contract between consenting adults. Marriage is nothing more than a legal relation, or a tradition, or a sentimental ceremony. There is a complete refusal to take marriage seriously, and perhaps a lack of knowledge that marriage can be taken seriously.

Which is fine. But if that's your attitude, then don't get self-righteous about people who care about marriage excluding people from this defunct institution. Don't pretend you're being incredibly enlightened by supporting the right of people to do something you don't value.

Fundamental right

The thing is, we don't know what the Courts will rule. Is marriage deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition? Sure. Were gays wrongly excluded, as the result of invidious discrimination? Depends on who writes the history.

The Supreme Court created an entirely different category for evaluating sex-based discrimination ("intermediate scrutiny"), even though it's blindingly obvious that sexism has had a major impact on women's opportunities in our history.

Intermediate scrutiny isn't very far from strict scrutiny, actually - it's certainly a long way for rational basis scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is too high a standard because some gender based discrimination might be justified by a legitimate physical gender difference.

daedius · 2 months

Everything is connected some way or another

Some things are connected causally, in a direct but-for sense.

Other things are connected just by virtue of inhabiting the same universe, or breathing the same air.

So, things are connected in strikingly different ways.

ethically relevant connections

As if this phrase has any meaning to anyone but you and the wall....

And I will repeat

Repeating the same premise over and over isn't a way to make an argument, but you can feel free to continue.

Tell me again, why don't you stab kittens? Is the connection of the knife "ethically relevant" to you, personally? Is a pellet guy less ethically relevant? Are roasted baby brains tasty if they are mixed in with your mashed potatoes, but just not palatable as a side dish on their own, looking all brainy and gross?

daedius · 2 months

You're referring to delineations regarding relevance as if they're impersonal.

No, I'm referring to facts as if I'm referring to facts. The connection between Bill Gates and my computer is factual.

jobeavs · 2 months

If the question of the right to marry arises, the Court will use strict scrutiny. So, if a university has an exclusionary policy, they are at risk. Agreed?

If that university - or even a church - carries those beliefs into employment decisions, they can be sued. If gay marriage is legal, then all the anti-discrimination laws concerning "marital status" come into play. Agreed?

Federal law currently prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, because the government considers sexual orientation to be "conduct that does not adversely affect employment."

And there's this:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1281281.html

Now, you'll note the Court dismissed the claim that merely having certain reading materials in the curriculum could create a hostile racial environment. But the Court held clearly that harrassment by peers could subject the school to liability for a hostile environment.

So, basically, the university can THEORETICALLY teach that homosexuality is wrong, but it can't do so by example in hiring professors who share that view, and if it does speak against homosexuality, and there is an anti-gay incident or claimed harrassmnt, it can be sued.

What is a little irritating about this debate is the insincerity in argument. On the one hand, someone will talk about marriage being a fundamental right, but then they will reveal that they don't see marriage as anything more than a civil union, or a piece of paper, or an outdated institution. On the one hand, they'll say that this is a fundamental human right, but on the other they'll say it won't be enforced against religious institutions because it isn't a compelling state interest.

In fact, many people believe the issue of gay marriage to be one of civil rights, every bit as important as issues of racial discrimination. It is quite reasonably expected that they will press it as a compelling interest, and make disapproval of homosexuality every bit as legally and socially unacceptable as racism. That's a great victory, if you buy the premise. For those that don't, it's oppression.

jobeavs · 2 months

So a Catholic University would lose its tax exempt status if it taught gay marriage was wrong.

That's pretty serious.

jobeavs · 2 months

Check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States

Currently, the church itself couldn't be penalized, but any other institution it runs could.

jobeavs · 2 months

I'm sorry, I thought this was a internet message board. Agreement is forbidden here.

I'll alert the moderators and have you banned if this continues.

jobeavs · 2 months

Ok. I think we understand one another. I'm not arguing for the wording of the other poster. I'm arguing that the logical extension of the definition is a fair topic.

jobeavs · 2 months

"Logical criteria" don't apply, period.

Actually, they do. If you are going to change the legal requirements for immigration, you need to explain the reasons, and then be open to those same reasons being expanded upon. This is pretty simple to understand.

boil down to a combination of appeal to (invalid, since the legal system doesn't recognize religious law) authority, or appeal to tradition

But the burden isn't on those who want to keep the definition the same. The burden is on those who want change. They need to answer "why," and then, "what is the new definition."

Appeal to law and tradition aren't "invalid." The Courts recognize appeal to tradition. They aren't conclusive, either. Traditons need to change. But to pretend they are irrelevant is unsupportable.

the gay community is not campaigning for gays to be married by churches who otherwise don't want to - merely the secular side.

Wait a second. Didn't you say this is JUST like interracial marriage? Isn't it reasonable to assume that ultimately the churches will be subject to the same sort of non-discrimination laws that apply to race.

jobeavs · 2 months

My definition

Well, it's nice you have a definition. We haven't used the Old Testament ones for some time. But it isn't really a question of what your definition is, or the Old Testament's is, but of what we are going to use now. And to question of "what are the limits" is entirely valid.

Which is why it is moronic to assume that one cannot come up with a definition

I don't think anyone has assumed that. The question is raised, "what are the definitions" and what are the consequences of changing certain aspects of the definitions. It isn't moronic to ask that question. Peter Singer has, in his own way, and doesn't have a clear answer:

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm

jobeavs · 2 months

it would do you well to reflect on the fact that your particular flavor of Christianity and your infallible leader do not speak for all others.

Of course not. But I wouldn't say that something is objectively religiously distasteful if I found that billions of religious people had a very different view.

What's your point?

We have a Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Europe, which is interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights. Rights, by their nature, are legal concepts. If you say, this is a matter of simple human rights, I assume that you mean something by it. That is, I assume that you understand what human rights are, and that there are such things as declarations of human rights, and bodies that determine what those mean. So, if you say that something is a human right, and the European Court of Human Rights says it isn't, you at least have to explain, in some detail, why that Court is wrong, and you are right, and most specifically - what your source of authority is. Otherwise you're just another bloviator on the internet.

Slavery was once legal, race mixing was once illegal.

To propose, as authority, a legal opinion, doesn't require the implication that the authority is the definitive word on the question. It does carry some presumptive effect, however. If, for example, I believe the healthcare mandate is Constitutional, but a judge who interprets the Constitution for a living says it isn't, it is at least incumbent on me to make an argument as to why he, who presumably has some credentials in the area, should be disregarded, and I, as just some guy on the internet, should be listened to.

jobeavs · 2 months

Depends on your definition of "marriage".

Exactly. And there used to be one understood marriage arrangement - one male, one female, in a monogamous, romantic and sexual relationship for life. That was understood to be both the legal and the religious defintion of marriage. That has been questioned in the last couple of decades.

So, when someone say they want to include other types of sexual relationships, the question then becomes "what are the logical criteria that are being applied?" Then, the somewhat offensive questions about animals.

daedius · 2 months

probably don't taste very good anyway

There's only one way to find out.

You could argue

There is a difference between argument and stating fact.

I don't view that participation as consequential.

Yes, and my windows laptop has no consequential connection to Bill Gates' fortune and my garbage has no consequential connection to the existence of landfills. Got it.

jobeavs · 2 months

Also this is moronic.

Not really. The question is whether there is a clear principle that defines the nature of marriage in today's society. The thing about the example is it's offensive, not that it doesn't have a point.

To take a different example: is there a "marriage" if two people enter into a roommate situation, and have no intention of ever having a sexual or romantic relationship, but want to be married so one can immigrate?

jobeavs · 2 months

Point out that in Germany

How about a link?

I don't know that it has much to do with gays, but I hadn't heard this.

MisterEddy

TROPHY CASE

MisterEddy

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login