Sunday School June 18th 2017
June 18, 2017 at 11:19 am #3208
In America does more education imply less religious belief?
It is now legal in Texas to allow Christians to use their religious privilege to discriminate against the children of other citizens.
Catholics believe the craziest things.
This weeks’ Woo: Advanced Civilizations that have disappeared.
Who cares if the religious are offended by dangerous ideas? If not Darwin, then whose ideas would we have? We should enjoy the challenge of new ideas because what your parents told you does not don’t really matter.
What do you think of the Moral Argument for god?
Reading articles by religious apologists is a good way to spot fallacious arguments.
While you are waiting for the kettle to boil.…..June 18, 2017 at 11:21 am #3209
Have a great week everyone!!
If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in a quite different world. Christopher Hitchens.June 18, 2017 at 12:17 pm #3210
Thanks, Reg!June 18, 2017 at 1:40 pm #3211
Glad to see articles like this, just as a reminder that there are people trying to reform the practice of Islam.
Muslim Reformers Versus Islam Apologists: A Brief Field GuideJune 18, 2017 at 2:44 pm #3212
Many Christians can see secular attempts to curtail religious privileges that allow for discrimination against other citizens (“The Religious Freedom Act”), as an attack on their faith. It is also true that Muslim fundamentalists see any intolerance of their creed and laws as an attack on their faith. This is where the nonsense word “Islamophobia” is often uttered, often by people with little or no understand of the issues.
When Ayann Ali Hirsi called for a reform of Islam she was given the death penalty (Fatwa) and even called an “Islamophobe” by many. Fundamentalists just can’t take any criticism of their ideologies. They have rights but their ideas do not.June 18, 2017 at 3:59 pm #3214
Thank you Reg!!!!!!!! Have a great week 🙂June 18, 2017 at 8:21 pm #3216
What the Mormon fellow says isn’t by itself unreasonable. However, it also neglects that in fact religion does venture into the arena of science. In fact, his religion is pretty notorious for claiming it’s holy text has a true account of life among the ancient Americans, though science says otherwise. So yes, science is not the be all end all, but if religions make scientific claims, they are fair game.
June 19, 2017 at 12:21 am #3221
- This reply was modified 1 year ago by Mcc1789.
Thanks for the class,Reg! 🙂June 21, 2017 at 3:40 pm #3249
“What do you think of the Moral Argument for god?”
– if the “moral argument for God” is
Premise 1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
then I refute it in premise 1: if we define “objective” moral values as “normal” or “universal”, then we can provide plausible explanations for how these evolved from nature.
But it seems that the religious argument invokes the meaning of “objective” as “pre-existing in nature”, which just means in reality “belonging to God”. This is a big assumption and is just given as axiomatic. But its use in this argument should be questioned.
If we expose this assumption, then the argument becomes
Premise 1: If God does not exist, “God-given” moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: “God-given” moral values and duties do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
Which is clearly, a load of fanny. In other words, the assumption that God exists is built into the premises, and also stated in the conclusion, therefore the argument is circular.
I don’t know if there are other subtleties hidden within the argument: if so, I haven’t spotted them.June 21, 2017 at 6:12 pm #3254
I would like to know one objective moral ‘rule’. Could it be “thou shall not Kill?” Clearly not. People kill all the time, self defense, war, accidents. How about “do no harm”. Define harm. Just by living we harm. How about “love God”. WTF does that even mean. Objective morality, sin, justice and forgiveness are all man-made social constructs that have no meaning to the universe. There are consequences, sure…but they are all socially imposed. It is so ironic that an apologetic would prey on our evolved sense of social justice to try to prove god exists, don’t ya think ?June 21, 2017 at 6:36 pm #3255
You would like to know one objective moral rule.
1. Does your moral code contain the word “steal”?
2. Is your preferred dictionary the OED?
3. Do you consider a dictionary as descriptive or prescriptive, and not an unstated combination of descriptive and prescriptive?
Re #1. The OED defines “steal” as ‘taking [anther’s property] without permission or legal right and without intending to return it”. QED.
Re #2. QED.
Re #3. I won’t enter your debate until this is decided.
: ))June 21, 2017 at 7:17 pm #3258
Nature has no problem with stealing, a crow will steal a French fry right out of your hand.
There are many cases when “stealing” is acceptable to society as well. The rules are as subjective about “ownership” and stealing as anything else. Possession is 9/10’ths of the law ya know. So do the Native American feel like they were ripped off? You bet. Did the settler’s care? hell no. In fact by their morality they were doing god’s work, driving the heathen off their ancestral lands. People can sure ruin my air or water quality legally. In my mind they are stealing my water, my tuna fish, my oil and coal, or do you think they really “own” all of that? So if “ownership” is subjective, so is stealing. Hey now, return all of those pens in your drawer to their real owners.
Just go and visit the British museum. Talk about stolen goods.June 21, 2017 at 7:32 pm #3261
Thou shalt not kill. This is not an example of objective morality. It is an example of absolute morality. If you can think of an exception that allows for a person to kill another person then it immediately moves from being absolute to being relative. All morality is relative morality. It is subject to the circumstances at a particular time or within a particular culture. Because the application of the “rules” are subject to such change then morality is not only relative but it is entirely subjective. There is no objective morality. Of course that does not prove the Catholic God does not exist but it is a stupid argument to bring forth in the first place.
It is a weakness of theism to not understand this. It makes faith based morality seem paltry. It is also a weakness of theism to consider it better to have a supernatural derived set of principles. Don’t swallow your moral code in tablet form!June 21, 2017 at 9:44 pm #3267
Actually, there have been pacifists who felt killing is always wrong (like the Jains of India). Plus there have been other acts also universally condemned by some groups and moral theories. It’s safe to say they’re the minority.
I’d like to hear some good arguments in favor of/against objective morality. Thus far I’m not seeing it. I do know talk like this is exactly what disturbs people in regards to atheism.
June 21, 2017 at 10:28 pm #3271
- This reply was modified 12 months ago by Mcc1789.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.