Atheists Go to church for their kids
Replies
-
Well saying that you are going to continue to ridicule Patti and her religion sounds like a personal attack to me. You specifically even went on to say that it wasn't all Christians, just Patti. That combined with the trollish posting of the cartoons etc (which I personally found humorous) that were SOLELY posted JUST to troll Patti and bait her into a fight is what the issue is.
Like the guidelines say, heated debate is fine. Coming out swinging and attacking another poster and ridiculing them specifically is not.
Yes, because blaming all Christians for Patti's remarks would be as ridiculous as what she originally said. Like I said, go back to my original post, not a single inflammatory or rude remark. And I suspect others who are defending her are holding a grudge from another debate topic when I called her on her BS. Sorry, you don't get to call groups of rational logical people impoverished morally or that their children would see through their inadequacies and not get a fight from me.
Any atheist who saw that and did say "WTF" I think is either trying to be PC, spineless, or biased for some other reason. But it really doesn't matter, like it has already been stated before, over and over again, atheists all see a lack of evidence for a god. No rule set, no philosophy, no handbook, so we can all feel however we want about the Pattimeister's statements. I did not like them, therefore I will be here everytime it happens doing exactly what I am doing, and not hiding behind the forum rules. There is no difference between calling the morality of non-believers impoverished or lacking foundation and me saying that her faith is based on the fairy tales of mostly illiterate bronze age goat herders that practiced human sacrifice, rape, genocide and slavery. We are both crapping on the others belief system, I'm just the only one being honest. Like, I for one never said I was "out" like in previous debates only to keep coming back. I didn't say tht I consulted all my friends, had a pow wow after reading the article, wrote a response, all in 29 minutes.
If you are refering to me why would I be upset from the other topic,I never saw any BS being called there.
Im defending Patti because I didnt see anything ofensive in what she said.
But then again I dont run around trying to get offended by every little thing. I also belive athiests have no moral foundation,I fail to see what is so offensive about that. All that means to me is we didnt pull our ideas of right and wrong from a book we are not good because someone tells us to be, we do whats right because its the right thing.
Its funny because I agree alot of athiests come off as if they are very angry at religion,they go on and on about the things done in gods name and paint the whole relgion with it. Yes horrible things have happened in the name of religion,people use religion to do horrible things but it is not their religion that leds them to it its just what they use as an excuse for it. I like how you just assume she read the article for the first time when it was posted here,I know I for one had read it before it was linked here.
Infact this quote from the article
"In addition, church may provide a better understanding of morality and ethics" seems to me like its saying athiests have no moral foundation because if we did why would we need church to provide a better understanding of it.
As for the impovershed world views I can understand that as well. Lets say you are a christian,or a muslim or anyone that believes in heaven or an afterlife and you have compleat faith in your heart that when you die you go to this wonderfull place with everyone youve ever loved that went before you,and then there someone who belives that this is it,that this life is all you get and when your done your done if I was the person of faith I would see that as a little impovereshed as well.
So as an athiest I belive we have no moral foundation
and i compleatly understand how our views can seem a little poor
if you are offended by that,we thats more your problem than mine
No, atheism has no moral foundation. It is not a belief system. Atheist's (people) have moral foundations built upon different life experiences, philosophies and so on. With out a moral foundation you would be a personal anarchist in a state of near schizo being good one day, and a psychopath the next. Atheism is one sentence, "I see no evidence of a god". Atheist is a living breathing person who has built their own moral foundation. I'm not as much bothered by the arrogance of assuming that the non-religious have no moral foundation as much as offended by the pure idiocy of not being able to differentiate between the words atheist and atheism.
2nd, everything else you just said about not getting offended by every little thing could be completely and utterly flipped in this conversation and is therefore meaningless. You can't defend someone and pretend to be objective when, for whatever reasons, two people have offended eachother, and you advice to one is that their feelings on the matter are inconsiquential because you were not offended by the same thing. I can easily find Christians that love my cartoon pictures, and following your argument, that would give Patti no right to be offended. So I guess were back to sqaure one.0 -
Well saying that you are going to continue to ridicule Patti and her religion sounds like a personal attack to me. You specifically even went on to say that it wasn't all Christians, just Patti. That combined with the trollish posting of the cartoons etc (which I personally found humorous) that were SOLELY posted JUST to troll Patti and bait her into a fight is what the issue is.
Like the guidelines say, heated debate is fine. Coming out swinging and attacking another poster and ridiculing them specifically is not.
Yes, because blaming all Christians for Patti's remarks would be as ridiculous as what she originally said. Like I said, go back to my original post, not a single inflammatory or rude remark. And I suspect others who are defending her are holding a grudge from another debate topic when I called her on her BS. Sorry, you don't get to call groups of rational logical people impoverished morally or that their children would see through their inadequacies and not get a fight from me.
Any atheist who saw that and did say "WTF" I think is either trying to be PC, spineless, or biased for some other reason. But it really doesn't matter, like it has already been stated before, over and over again, atheists all see a lack of evidence for a god. No rule set, no philosophy, no handbook, so we can all feel however we want about the Pattimeister's statements. I did not like them, therefore I will be here everytime it happens doing exactly what I am doing, and not hiding behind the forum rules. There is no difference between calling the morality of non-believers impoverished or lacking foundation and me saying that her faith is based on the fairy tales of mostly illiterate bronze age goat herders that practiced human sacrifice, rape, genocide and slavery. We are both crapping on the others belief system, I'm just the only one being honest. Like, I for one never said I was "out" like in previous debates only to keep coming back. I didn't say tht I consulted all my friends, had a pow wow after reading the article, wrote a response, all in 29 minutes.
If you are refering to me why would I be upset from the other topic,I never saw any BS being called there.
Im defending Patti because I didnt see anything ofensive in what she said.
But then again I dont run around trying to get offended by every little thing. I also belive athiests have no moral foundation,I fail to see what is so offensive about that. All that means to me is we didnt pull our ideas of right and wrong from a book we are not good because someone tells us to be, we do whats right because its the right thing.
Its funny because I agree alot of athiests come off as if they are very angry at religion,they go on and on about the things done in gods name and paint the whole relgion with it. Yes horrible things have happened in the name of religion,people use religion to do horrible things but it is not their religion that leds them to it its just what they use as an excuse for it. I like how you just assume she read the article for the first time when it was posted here,I know I for one had read it before it was linked here.
Infact this quote from the article
"In addition, church may provide a better understanding of morality and ethics" seems to me like its saying athiests have no moral foundation because if we did why would we need church to provide a better understanding of it.
As for the impovershed world views I can understand that as well. Lets say you are a christian,or a muslim or anyone that believes in heaven or an afterlife and you have compleat faith in your heart that when you die you go to this wonderfull place with everyone youve ever loved that went before you,and then there someone who belives that this is it,that this life is all you get and when your done your done if I was the person of faith I would see that as a little impovereshed as well.
So as an athiest I belive we have no moral foundation
and i compleatly understand how our views can seem a little poor
if you are offended by that,we thats more your problem than mine
No, atheism has no moral foundation. It is not a belief system. Atheist's (people) have moral foundations built upon different life experiences, philosophies and so on. With out a moral foundation you would be a personal anarchist in a state of near schizo being good one day, and a psychopath the next. Atheism is one sentence, "I see no evidence of a god". Atheist is a living breathing person who has built their own moral foundation. I'm not as much bothered by the arrogance of assuming that the non-religious have no moral foundation as much as offended by the pure idiocy of not being able to differentiate between the words atheist and atheism.
2nd, everything else you just said about not getting offended by every little thing could be completely and utterly flipped in this conversation and is therefore meaningless. You can't defend someone and pretend to be objective when, for whatever reasons, two people have offended eachother, and you advice to one is that their feelings on the matter are inconsiquential because you were not offended by the same thing. I can easily find Christians that love my cartoon pictures, and following your argument, that would give Patti no right to be offended. So I guess were back to sqaure one.
Well lets see I never said it was ok for her to get offended but not you. I didnt find the pictures offensive,and I think that by her being offended all she did was react the way you were hoping she would. I for one have not seen one thing I personally consider offensive in this thread. I said I was not offended ,I said I dont run around trying to get offended by every little thing....attempt to flip that however you want since I was speaking of myself there.
I never advised anyone on anything . I never said that you shouldnt have posted the pictures because it might offend Pattie...I said I considered it a childish way to debate your point of veiw And I stand by that statement. Yes the pictures were funny I giggled at a few of them but this wasnt a funny picture thread.
Many people in this thread have stated their viewpoints very eloquently (poisngirl,bahet,casper) I may not agree with what they found offensive but they stated their case in a very grown up manner...I dont think you have.0 -
You called my childish. I'm offended and I think you need to check the forum rules because that was indeed a personal attack.0
-
Well saying that you are going to continue to ridicule Patti and her religion sounds like a personal attack to me. You specifically even went on to say that it wasn't all Christians, just Patti. That combined with the trollish posting of the cartoons etc (which I personally found humorous) that were SOLELY posted JUST to troll Patti and bait her into a fight is what the issue is.
Like the guidelines say, heated debate is fine. Coming out swinging and attacking another poster and ridiculing them specifically is not.
Yes, because blaming all Christians for Patti's remarks would be as ridiculous as what she originally said. Like I said, go back to my original post, not a single inflammatory or rude remark. And I suspect others who are defending her are holding a grudge from another debate topic when I called her on her BS. Sorry, you don't get to call groups of rational logical people impoverished morally or that their children would see through their inadequacies and not get a fight from me.
Any atheist who saw that and did say "WTF" I think is either trying to be PC, spineless, or biased for some other reason. But it really doesn't matter, like it has already been stated before, over and over again, atheists all see a lack of evidence for a god. No rule set, no philosophy, no handbook, so we can all feel however we want about the Pattimeister's statements. I did not like them, therefore I will be here everytime it happens doing exactly what I am doing, and not hiding behind the forum rules. There is no difference between calling the morality of non-believers impoverished or lacking foundation and me saying that her faith is based on the fairy tales of mostly illiterate bronze age goat herders that practiced human sacrifice, rape, genocide and slavery. We are both crapping on the others belief system, I'm just the only one being honest. Like, I for one never said I was "out" like in previous debates only to keep coming back. I didn't say tht I consulted all my friends, had a pow wow after reading the article, wrote a response, all in 29 minutes.
If you are refering to me why would I be upset from the other topic,I never saw any BS being called there.
Im defending Patti because I didnt see anything ofensive in what she said.
But then again I dont run around trying to get offended by every little thing. I also belive athiests have no moral foundation,I fail to see what is so offensive about that. All that means to me is we didnt pull our ideas of right and wrong from a book we are not good because someone tells us to be, we do whats right because its the right thing.
Its funny because I agree alot of athiests come off as if they are very angry at religion,they go on and on about the things done in gods name and paint the whole relgion with it. Yes horrible things have happened in the name of religion,people use religion to do horrible things but it is not their religion that leds them to it its just what they use as an excuse for it. I like how you just assume she read the article for the first time when it was posted here,I know I for one had read it before it was linked here.
Infact this quote from the article
"In addition, church may provide a better understanding of morality and ethics" seems to me like its saying athiests have no moral foundation because if we did why would we need church to provide a better understanding of it.
As for the impovershed world views I can understand that as well. Lets say you are a christian,or a muslim or anyone that believes in heaven or an afterlife and you have compleat faith in your heart that when you die you go to this wonderfull place with everyone youve ever loved that went before you,and then there someone who belives that this is it,that this life is all you get and when your done your done if I was the person of faith I would see that as a little impovereshed as well.
So as an athiest I belive we have no moral foundation
and i compleatly understand how our views can seem a little poor
if you are offended by that,we thats more your problem than mine
I agree with this entirely. :flowerforyou:0 -
I don't understand the logic behind going to the church with your kids. If it's about exposing them to religion, why do they choose one specific religion? They make it sound like they want to give their kids a choice but they're only offering a choice between atheism and Christianity. Sounds hypocritical to me.0
-
I don't understand the logic behind going to the church with your kids. If it's about exposing them to religion, why do they choose one specific religion? They make it sound like they want to give their kids a choice but they're only offering a choice between atheism and Christianity. Sounds hypocritical to me.
I don't think anyone said they were only going to expose their children to Christianity OR Atheism. I'm an atheist married to a christian however, so it wouldn't make much sense for my wife to take the children and expose them to Islam at this point.0 -
Again, (and again and again),,, what kind of church are they taking the sprouts to? Not every church teaches dogma. Not every church tells you what to believe.I don't understand the logic behind going to the church with your kids. If it's about exposing them to religion, why do they choose one specific religion? They make it sound like they want to give their kids a choice but they're only offering a choice between atheism and Christianity. Sounds hypocritical to me.0 -
Well saying that you are going to continue to ridicule Patti and her religion sounds like a personal attack to me. You specifically even went on to say that it wasn't all Christians, just Patti. That combined with the trollish posting of the cartoons etc (which I personally found humorous) that were SOLELY posted JUST to troll Patti and bait her into a fight is what the issue is.
Like the guidelines say, heated debate is fine. Coming out swinging and attacking another poster and ridiculing them specifically is not.
Yes, because blaming all Christians for Patti's remarks would be as ridiculous as what she originally said. Like I said, go back to my original post, not a single inflammatory or rude remark. And I suspect others who are defending her are holding a grudge from another debate topic when I called her on her BS. Sorry, you don't get to call groups of rational logical people impoverished morally or that their children would see through their inadequacies and not get a fight from me.
Any atheist who saw that and did say "WTF" I think is either trying to be PC, spineless, or biased for some other reason. But it really doesn't matter, like it has already been stated before, over and over again, atheists all see a lack of evidence for a god. No rule set, no philosophy, no handbook, so we can all feel however we want about the Pattimeister's statements. I did not like them, therefore I will be here everytime it happens doing exactly what I am doing, and not hiding behind the forum rules. There is no difference between calling the morality of non-believers impoverished or lacking foundation and me saying that her faith is based on the fairy tales of mostly illiterate bronze age goat herders that practiced human sacrifice, rape, genocide and slavery. We are both crapping on the others belief system, I'm just the only one being honest. Like, I for one never said I was "out" like in previous debates only to keep coming back. I didn't say tht I consulted all my friends, had a pow wow after reading the article, wrote a response, all in 29 minutes.
Okay look. Let me put it this way....even if I DO agree with you and how you perceive Patti's remarks, I am a mod for the group so it would be a tad inappropriate for me to join in on the attacking.
That said, if you aren't willing to at least TRY to abide by the group guidelines (which are VERY lenient might I add), then this might not be the place for you. Patti has attempted many many times to explain what she meant by what she said, and how it was not phrased in a way that correctly conveyed her message. She's been more than civil by not resorting to passive-aggressive posts, pictures, or name-calling (calling her "Pattimeister" is indeed name-calling, even if it's not vulgar). She said she was OUT in regards to debating with you specifically, not that she was out for the whole debate entirely.
I get that you were offended, and I get that you are more than willing to fight for what you believe as well. But there are right ways and wrong ways to go about it, and when the way you choose results in trollish behavior, name-calling, and personal ridicule, then that's where it becomes a problem.
All that aside, you are a very valuable member of this board and I really would hate for you to leave. I am just asking (from a mod standpoint) to try and keep things civil.0 -
Well saying that you are going to continue to ridicule Patti and her religion sounds like a personal attack to me. You specifically even went on to say that it wasn't all Christians, just Patti. That combined with the trollish posting of the cartoons etc (which I personally found humorous) that were SOLELY posted JUST to troll Patti and bait her into a fight is what the issue is.
Like the guidelines say, heated debate is fine. Coming out swinging and attacking another poster and ridiculing them specifically is not.
Yes, because blaming all Christians for Patti's remarks would be as ridiculous as what she originally said. Like I said, go back to my original post, not a single inflammatory or rude remark. And I suspect others who are defending her are holding a grudge from another debate topic when I called her on her BS. Sorry, you don't get to call groups of rational logical people impoverished morally or that their children would see through their inadequacies and not get a fight from me.
Any atheist who saw that and did say "WTF" I think is either trying to be PC, spineless, or biased for some other reason. But it really doesn't matter, like it has already been stated before, over and over again, atheists all see a lack of evidence for a god. No rule set, no philosophy, no handbook, so we can all feel however we want about the Pattimeister's statements. I did not like them, therefore I will be here everytime it happens doing exactly what I am doing, and not hiding behind the forum rules. There is no difference between calling the morality of non-believers impoverished or lacking foundation and me saying that her faith is based on the fairy tales of mostly illiterate bronze age goat herders that practiced human sacrifice, rape, genocide and slavery. We are both crapping on the others belief system, I'm just the only one being honest. Like, I for one never said I was "out" like in previous debates only to keep coming back. I didn't say tht I consulted all my friends, had a pow wow after reading the article, wrote a response, all in 29 minutes.
Okay look. Let me put it this way....even if I DO agree with you and how you perceive Patti's remarks, I am a mod for the group so it would be a tad inappropriate for me to join in on the attacking.
That said, if you aren't willing to at least TRY to abide by the group guidelines (which are VERY lenient might I add), then this might not be the place for you. Patti has attempted many many times to explain what she meant by what she said, and how it was not phrased in a way that correctly conveyed her message. She's been more than civil by not resorting to passive-aggressive posts, pictures, or name-calling (calling her "Pattimeister" is indeed name-calling, even if it's not vulgar). She said she was OUT in regards to debating with you specifically, not that she was out for the whole debate entirely.
I get that you were offended, and I get that you are more than willing to fight for what you believe as well. But there are right ways and wrong ways to go about it, and when the way you choose results in trollish behavior, name-calling, and personal ridicule, then that's where it becomes a problem.
All that aside, you are a very valuable member of this board and I really would hate for you to leave. I am just asking (from a mod standpoint) to try and keep things civil.
Fine, but just because you asked nicely....poisongirlmeister.0 -
Well saying that you are going to continue to ridicule Patti and her religion sounds like a personal attack to me. You specifically even went on to say that it wasn't all Christians, just Patti. That combined with the trollish posting of the cartoons etc (which I personally found humorous) that were SOLELY posted JUST to troll Patti and bait her into a fight is what the issue is.
Like the guidelines say, heated debate is fine. Coming out swinging and attacking another poster and ridiculing them specifically is not.
Yes, because blaming all Christians for Patti's remarks would be as ridiculous as what she originally said. Like I said, go back to my original post, not a single inflammatory or rude remark. And I suspect others who are defending her are holding a grudge from another debate topic when I called her on her BS. Sorry, you don't get to call groups of rational logical people impoverished morally or that their children would see through their inadequacies and not get a fight from me.
Any atheist who saw that and did say "WTF" I think is either trying to be PC, spineless, or biased for some other reason. But it really doesn't matter, like it has already been stated before, over and over again, atheists all see a lack of evidence for a god. No rule set, no philosophy, no handbook, so we can all feel however we want about the Pattimeister's statements. I did not like them, therefore I will be here everytime it happens doing exactly what I am doing, and not hiding behind the forum rules. There is no difference between calling the morality of non-believers impoverished or lacking foundation and me saying that her faith is based on the fairy tales of mostly illiterate bronze age goat herders that practiced human sacrifice, rape, genocide and slavery. We are both crapping on the others belief system, I'm just the only one being honest. Like, I for one never said I was "out" like in previous debates only to keep coming back. I didn't say tht I consulted all my friends, had a pow wow after reading the article, wrote a response, all in 29 minutes.
Okay look. Let me put it this way....even if I DO agree with you and how you perceive Patti's remarks, I am a mod for the group so it would be a tad inappropriate for me to join in on the attacking.
That said, if you aren't willing to at least TRY to abide by the group guidelines (which are VERY lenient might I add), then this might not be the place for you. Patti has attempted many many times to explain what she meant by what she said, and how it was not phrased in a way that correctly conveyed her message. She's been more than civil by not resorting to passive-aggressive posts, pictures, or name-calling (calling her "Pattimeister" is indeed name-calling, even if it's not vulgar). She said she was OUT in regards to debating with you specifically, not that she was out for the whole debate entirely.
I get that you were offended, and I get that you are more than willing to fight for what you believe as well. But there are right ways and wrong ways to go about it, and when the way you choose results in trollish behavior, name-calling, and personal ridicule, then that's where it becomes a problem.
All that aside, you are a very valuable member of this board and I really would hate for you to leave. I am just asking (from a mod standpoint) to try and keep things civil.
Fine, but just because you asked nicely....poisongirlmeister.
Ohhhhh baby, talk dirty to me. LMAO!0 -
OK, I guess I have a different dictionary and obviously a different interpretation of some phrases.
"Maybe also these atheists see how impoverishing the atheist world-view really is. "
"Since religion addresses such matters that atheists cannot, it makes sense to me that loving parents, even if they have trouble believing, secretly hope their kids will find something that will give them a more fulfilled life than their own."
And then there was the whole "atheists don't have a moral foundation" quote--I lost track of the specific reference, but I think we all know the phrase.
I can understand that a religionist would support these ideas, since they are consistent with the inherent conceit that accompanies many religions. However, I am still mystified as to why these ideas would be accepted by so many others who consider themselves "non subscribers".
How do you define "moral foundation"? "Impoverished (or non-impoverished) word view? "Religion addresses such matters that atheists cannot"?
People here who describe themselves as atheist or agnostic--are you really going to accept the idea that "moral foundation" only refers to religious beliefs? That's what it sounds like from some of the comments I have read.
(and I am not bringing this up to attack the person who originally posted these comments--as I said, they are not exclusive to her).
I summarily reject the idea that those who subscribe to any formal religious beliefs are in any way more moral or have higher ethical values than those who do not. I reject the idea that any formal religion provides any higher moral guidelines or insight than any other philosopher or any higher than the moral codes have arisen by evolution through the interplay of biology and culture--long before any religions we know came into existence.
I don't think that religion is even remotely necessary to develop a "moral foundation" --in fact, I think that more often than not, it gets in the way.
And there is no more "impoverished" world view than that of a narrow-minded, self-righteous, intolerant religious believer. (And let me be clear--that is not a general description of all religious believers--just restating the fact that religion, per se, does not confer ANY higher moral position).
In most cases, people are good and "moral" because they are good and moral. They are that way in spite of religion, not because of it. As I have said before, a good and moral person can choose to use religion as the "vessel", if you will by which they manifest their goodness, but it is they who elevate the character of their religion, not the other way around.0 -
^^ this is what I've been trying to say. Thanks for summing that up Azdak!OK, I guess I have a different dictionary and obviously a different interpretation of some phrases.
"Maybe also these atheists see how impoverishing the atheist world-view really is. "
"Since religion addresses such matters that atheists cannot, it makes sense to me that loving parents, even if they have trouble believing, secretly hope their kids will find something that will give them a more fulfilled life than their own."
And then there was the whole "atheists don't have a moral foundation" quote--I lost track of the specific reference, but I think we all know the phrase.
I can understand that a religionist would support these ideas, since they are consistent with the inherent conceit that accompanies many religions. However, I am still mystified as to why these ideas would be accepted by so many others who consider themselves "non subscribers".
How do you define "moral foundation"? "Impoverished (or non-impoverished) word view? "Religion addresses such matters that atheists cannot"?
People here who describe themselves as atheist or agnostic--are you really going to accept the idea that "moral foundation" only refers to religious beliefs? That's what it sounds like from some of the comments I have read.
(and I am not bringing this up to attack the person who originally posted these comments--as I said, they are not exclusive to her).
I summarily reject the idea that those who subscribe to any formal religious beliefs are in any way more moral or have higher ethical values than those who do not. I reject the idea that any formal religion provides any higher moral guidelines or insight than any other philosopher or any higher than the moral codes have arisen by evolution through the interplay of biology and culture--long before any religions we know came into existence.
I don't think that religion is even remotely necessary to develop a "moral foundation" --in fact, I think that more often than not, it gets in the way.
And there is no more "impoverished" world view than that of a narrow-minded, self-righteous, intolerant religious believer. (And let me be clear--that is not a general description of all religious believers--just restating the fact that religion, per se, does not confer ANY higher moral position).
In most cases, people are good and "moral" because they are good and moral. They are that way in spite of religion, not because of it. As I have said before, a good and moral person can choose to use religion as the "vessel", if you will by which they manifest their goodness, but it is they who elevate the character of their religion, not the other way around.
If you need religion to have a moral foundation then you aren't really a moral person. If you can't understand how someone can have a moral foundation without reading it from a special book, then you aren't really a moral person. If you summarily insult a group of people, apologize.0 -
No one ever said that a narrow-minded, self-righteous, intolerant religious believer didn't have an impoverished world view. This topic was not about that. It was about why some atheists would attend church with their children.And there is no more "impoverished" world view than that of a narrow-minded, self-righteous, intolerant religious believer
No one here claimed anyone to have a "higher" moral position.(And let me be clear--that is not a general description of all religious believers--just restating the fact that religion, per se, does not confer ANY higher moral position)
Again, this was never disputed here.In most cases, people are good and "moral" because they are good and moral. They are that way in spite of religion, not because of it. As I have said before, a good and moral person can choose to use religion as the "vessel", if you will by which they manifest their goodness, but it is they who elevate the character of their religion, not the other way around.0 -
Huh? Do you even know what a moral "foundation" is in this discussion? So, someone who is religious, therefore has a moral "foundation", isn't really moral? That statement makes no sense to me.If you need religion to have a moral foundation then you aren't really a moral person
Get over it, Bahet. I think we've clearly seen that only certain people were offended by what I typed. The more I read of this thread, the more I see that no matter how many times I try explaining my statement, the fact that I'm a Christian giving MY opinion on why SOME atheists take their children to church will piss people off. Not many seemed to notice that I said "perhaps" and "maybe", or that I was only referring to certain atheists. I've even granted that the placement of those words could have been better. I'm not going to subscribe to YOUR method of saying, "I'm sorry someone may have gotten offended by something I typed".If you summarily insult a group of people, apologize.0 -
I know what you THINK a moral foundation is. The fact that you cannot comprehend that someone who doesn't have a special story book can still have a moral foundation only serves to prove my point. If you didn't have your special book, you don't think you'd have any basis for morality. Doing good because you want to be good or not harming someone because you aren't an *kitten* doesn't count. Having parents who teach you morals doesn't count. Having a society, extended family, and friends who show you through their actions what morality is all about means nothing. It's weird.
Religion isn't necessarily a moral foundation at all. Did your kids have a moral foundation when they were toddlers? Or did they run around stealking candy bars and hitting other kids? Do you really think they understood religion when they were still too young to know the difference between cartoons and reality? Or, perhaps, did YOU give them a moral foundation?
No one gives a s*** that you are Christian and that's not what has people ticked off. It's your holier than thou attitude and not so subtle attacks on the character of millions of people. I get that you don't give a darn about apologizing when you insult someone. Not very Christian, but whatever.0 -
Patti, I think what he meant by "If you need religion to have a moral foundation then you aren't really a moral person" could be stated differently. Try it this way:
"If you really want to do horrible things, and you only abstain from doing them because you fear punishment in the afterlife, then you aren't really a moral person".
I think that's what Az was trying to say. My $.o20 -
You're speaking for who here? Because there are people on this thread and who have read this thread who do not consider me to have a "holier than thou" attitude. Maybe YOU do, but you're ticked off that I'm not going to concede to you.It's your holier than thou attitude and not so subtle attacks on the character of millions of people. I get that you don't give a darn about apologizing when you insult someone.
Not a very original insult. In fact, it's very common to throw this out at a Christian to whom one disagrees.Not very Christian, but whatever.0 -
"If you really want to do horrible things, and you only abstain from doing them because you fear punishment in the afterlife, then you aren't really a moral person"
Yes, that's what I guessed. So, let's explore that. We all have it in us to do horrible things. We all choose to either do them or not. So, if someone chooses to do "good" because they want to go to heaven and they fear hell, are they any less moral? She's saying "they're not really moral". That makes no sense to me.0 -
No ma'am, we actually don't "all have it in us to do horrible things". If I was given a free pass to do anything I wanted without recrimination, I would act pretty much the way I do now. I do not abstain from raping/killing/stealing/molesting/abusing because of any particular laws or religious teachings. I do not "choose not to do them",,, I don't want to do them, can't even imagine it.
I abstain from these things because I am capable of empathy. I have been stolen from and abused, and I can imagine (or maybe not) what it would be like to victim to other crimes. I do not want to harm others, I do not want to make someone else have that horrible experience, so I don't do those things and would not under any circumstance. I don't need to be told,,, and that's morality.
Any person who has to be commanded and restrained has very questionable morality (and honestly, questionable mental health - google "sociopath" sometime).0 -
No ma'am, we actually don't "all have it in us to do horrible things". If I was given a free pass to do anything I wanted without recrimination, I would act pretty much the way I do now. I do not abstain from raping/killing/stealing/molesting/abusing because of any particular laws or religious teachings. I do not "choose not to do them",,, I don't want to do them, can't even imagine it.
I meant that we are all capable of doing horrible things. We all have our reasons for not doing horrible things. If someone's is religion, why are they "not really a moral person"?0 -
So if a guy spends all his days wanting/needing/desiring/daydreaming about molesting kids,,, and he restrains himself from doing it 'cause he believes he'll burn in hell for it,,, then he's a "moral person"? As healthy and moral and upright as Ned Flanders? Really?
Surely you can see the disconnect there.
sociopath [( soh -see-uh-path, soh -shee-uh-path)] (n) Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others.0 -
You do realize that pedophiles have a mental illness, right? So, if a person is predisposed to pedophilia, but he retrains himself for whatever reason, he's doing "good". No?So if a guy spends all his days wanting/needing/desiring/daydreaming about molesting kids,,, and he restrains himself from doing it 'cause he believes he'll burn in hell for it,,, then he's a "moral person"?
I know what a sociopath is. I don't get the point here?sociopath [( soh -see-uh-path, soh -shee-uh-path)] (n) Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others.0 -
I think the point is that a person who wants to do horrible things and harm other people is probably a sociopath - and therefore profoundly immoral or amoral. A sociopath who does not act on his urges for whatever reason - including possible fear of divine judgment - may be behaving in a morally responsible manner under duress, but that person is still a sociopath, and therefore still profoundly immoral or amoral.
So the religious faith has not actually provided a "moral foundation",,, it has only provided a price that the would be perpetrator is unwilling to pay. It's a fairly fine point, and it may be functionally irrelevent, but it's a point nonetheless.
I just threw the definition up there so we're all talking apples & apples. I figured you'd know.0 -
I showed this thread to 50 Christians in the past 30 minutes and they said you have a holier than thou attitude. It's an opinion.
You're speaking for who here? Because there are people on this thread and who have read this thread who do not consider me to have a "holier than thou" attitude. Maybe YOU do, but you're ticked off that I'm not going to concede to you.It's your holier than thou attitude and not so subtle attacks on the character of millions of people. I get that you don't give a darn about apologizing when you insult someone.
Not a very original insult. In fact, it's very common to throw this out at a Christian to whom one disagrees.Not very Christian, but whatever.
It's also pretty (extremely, often incessantly) common for some Christians to cry persecution over every little thing.0 -
I went off on my own path, but I originally started to get people to define what "moral" and "moral foundation" meant. I especially wanted to why some people, whose comments suggested they were sympathetic or even in agreement with agnostic or atheistic beliefs, would then turn around and agree with the statement that atheists "have no moral foundation".
To me, for someone who professes to be agnostic or atheist to agree with ANY of the statements that I started off with represents such a cognitive dissonance, that it is apparent that their definition of "morality" is completely different than mine. That's what really puzzled my.
I would expect that those who profess a traditional faith, especially on a simplistic level, would automatically equate "morality" with "religious belief" and see the two as inseparable. I am wondering why anyone else would.0 -
Thoughts on this Az?I think the point is that a person who wants to do horrible things and harm other people is probably a sociopath - and therefore profoundly immoral or amoral. A sociopath who does not act on his urges for whatever reason - including possible fear of divine judgment - may be behaving in a morally responsible manner under duress, but that person is still a sociopath, and therefore still profoundly immoral or amoral.
So the religious faith has not actually provided a "moral foundation",,, it has only provided a price that the would be perpetrator is unwilling to pay. It's a fairly fine point, and it may be functionally irrelevent, but it's a point nonetheless.0 -
I'll give it a whirl AZDak, as I think there's a chance you might be asking me.
"Moral Foundation", as far as I can tell from how we've been discussing it here, is a pretty meaningless concept to me. I even think it may be a negative thing.
I have morals, we all do, no one is arguing against that at all. For me that's what matters. When Patti brings up religion as a moral foundation for her beliefs, well I equate it with a believer saying the Holy Spirit guides their lives or something like that. Without being offensive, which may not work, but I consider it to be nonsense. I dismiss it with an eye roll or snarky comment if I'm really in a mood.
I don't believe in a higer power-moral foundation. I don't even believe in objective morality. I think our morality is ever changing and that's a good thing! Because as a species we clearly started out with a morality that could use some improvement.
I believe morality is subject to the world we live in. That can be attacked, "Oh you're only good when it's convenient for you!" But it's just the reality of life. Stealing is wrong, we all know that. But do you condemn a person who's family is literally starving for stealing a loaf of bread?
We live lifes of comfort never known in the history of the world. So it's easy for us to talk about what moral people we are. Let a few nukes fall and watch how it all changes. You'll see good, caring, decent people killing each other for survival. Take away all our comforts and conveniences and believe me everything we pride ourselves will change in an instant. Good or bad it's simply the truth.
Also I'm ok with it because it leaves room for improvement. If our morality came from a higher power that dictated morality to us long ago, well let's take a look at that moral foundation shall we? Does it come from the bible? Because that book is pretty full of atrocity and genocide. How can you have an unchanging moral foundation that says nothing against slavery or rape, even goes as far as to condone it?
I know that I haven't always been as understanding and moral as I am now. I've learned, I've grown. I very much hope for that to continue. Both with me personally and as a species. It's called progress and it gives me hope for us. If we have a morality that comes from above and has always been there...well.. that's limiting to me.
And for my last point (sorry for the ramble) I know Patti and we get along surprisingly well for people of conflicting beliefs. I know that she's a good person who doesn't mean to offend. She simply believes differently than myself. She's a Catholic and I'm an atheist. We're going to disagree. Period. So should we just yell at one another? Attacking each other with little points, hoping to score a victory? It doesn't work like that. I'm quite sure that nothing I could say would get her to drop her beliefs all of a sudden. Same on my end. But we can talk, we can have a dialogue. Through discussion we can find common ground. We can learn from one another. That's more productive to me. Others can see what we say here and decide for themselves who's using better logic, or making more sense, or whatever. We know we aren't going to change based on an internet debate, but we can have an understanding.
People have been trying for thousands of years to prove that their belief system (or lack of one) is "right". They've used some pretty awful methods too. But since there are as many if not more religions now than ever, and lack of belief is on the rise, well clearly you can't force someone to believe as you do. You can only talk with them and try to get closer to whatever the truth might be. It's a good thing. It's crucial in the world we live in. I HATE the thought of religion being forced on me, so I won't force my atheism on anyone else. I ask only that we be able to talk to one another, openly and without fear of persecution. When EITHER side loses that we all lose.
Again, sorry for the long message. Probably didnt' even answer the question...:embarassed:0 -
I think the point is that a person who wants to do horrible things and harm other people is probably a sociopath - and therefore profoundly immoral or amoral. A sociopath who does not act on his urges for whatever reason - including possible fear of divine judgment - may be behaving in a morally responsible manner under duress, but that person is still a sociopath, and therefore still profoundly immoral or amoral.
So the religious faith has not actually provided a "moral foundation",,, it has only provided a price that the would be perpetrator is unwilling to pay. It's a fairly fine point, and it may be functionally irrelevent, but it's a point nonetheless.
I just threw the definition up there so we're all talking apples & apples. I figured you'd know.
I don't know that it's a question of "sociopath vs non-sociopath".
I think a lot has to do with how people relate to society and the world in general. It's related to the idea of locus of control. Those with an external locus see, well, "external" things as being more responsible for their destiny and tend to rely on external legal/moral structures to guide behavior. Those with an internal locus see themselves as having more control over their destiny.
I think it also relates to concepts such Kohlberg's stages of moral development. In earlier stages, people are more likely to base behavior on fear of punishment, maintaining social order, respecting authority, etc. At higher stages, people display more empathy, a belief that, while laws are necessary, they should be agreed upon by the group, and ultimately relying on a universal set of moral and ethical principles, and internalized principles of justice.
To me, these levels of "moral development" have evolved over time, just as our physical features have evolved, and are inherent in our species.
At any point on this developmental scale, a person can use religion as a way to express their moral development, but religion itself is not the prime factor that determines moral development.0 -
Thoughts on this Az?I think the point is that a person who wants to do horrible things and harm other people is probably a sociopath - and therefore profoundly immoral or amoral. A sociopath who does not act on his urges for whatever reason - including possible fear of divine judgment - may be behaving in a morally responsible manner under duress, but that person is still a sociopath, and therefore still profoundly immoral or amoral.
So the religious faith has not actually provided a "moral foundation",,, it has only provided a price that the would be perpetrator is unwilling to pay. It's a fairly fine point, and it may be functionally irrelevent, but it's a point nonetheless.
I guess I see the idea of a "sociopath" as being an extreme example and therefore I don't know that you can use it as an example of one thing or another. Sociopaths, almost by definition, are inherently "broken" in such a way that they aren't going to fit any conventional definitions.
In basic terms, all I am saying is that I don't believe that religious belief is necessary for one to have either "morals" or a "moral foundation" Human beings have an inherent and evolved set of "morals" -- in my opinion, it's those inherent "morals" and the need to codify them in order to have a more efficiently functioning society that is the basis of most religious "morals"--not the other way around.0 -
In basic terms, all I am saying is that I don't believe that religious belief is necessary for one to have either "morals" or a "moral foundation" Human beings have an inherent and evolved set of "morals" -- in my opinion, it's those inherent "morals" and the need to codify them in order to have a more efficiently functioning society that is the basis of most religious "morals"--not the other way around.
I believe exactly this, and that's something I can say nice and quick!0
This discussion has been closed.