Wizardry

That’s not a contradiction. Something can be reasonable without involving reasoning.

Reasoning is a process. Reasonability is a property of a proposition which does not depend on the reasoning used to reach that conclusion.

For example, if I say that the sky is blue because I heard it on the radio, that is not reasoning. The proposition itself, that the sky is blue, is not necessarily ridiculous even though the reasoning is.

In this case, I am saying that the Judeo-Christian moral system is a good place to begin constructing a morality. The fact that this system was developed with little other rationale behind it other than “God said so” does not diminish its abilty to allow the construction of a stable society. It’s not all reasonable, though. Some of its principles cannot be rationally defended, and it lacks some fairly important principles. Rational inquiry is supposed to reinforce the parts of a system that work, eliminate the parts that do not, and add parts that should be there.

In other words, the Christian system is faulty but salvagable.

Who am I leading? I think we should all be trying to see for ourselves.

What atheistic propaganda is that?

Who am I defending? I thought that I was explicitly not defending the morality of ancient peoples, but rather the rational inquiry of morality.

By the way, who are these people supposedly committing mass infanticide?

Neither did the Hebrews.

I know, even when it was Christian.

That’s because slavery was already illegal in Russia in 1917. It remained illegal, though.

First of all, in Europe and the Americas, the United States was one of the last to outlaw slavery. Only Brazil took longer.

Secondly, this is the nineteenth century we’re talking about. If Christianity was opposed to slavery, it wouldn’t have taken until the 1800’s to abolish the institution.

What are you talking about.

While you may not accept Allah’s authority, it is there.

See how pointless that is?

The only thing that atheism opposes is the existence of God. Most secular moralities do reject the oppression of women, though.

And those who supported it were Christian more than anything else. That’s because there were more Christians in general than anything else. However, there were more secular abolitionists than secular slave-holders.

Well I can’t defend that. Although I would like to point out that the Civil Rights movement would probably never have happened without the trailblazers who came before, many of whom had a rationalistic outlook and a willingness to change the status quo.

As to MLK, I have a great respect for him. I like someone who is willing to change that which needs to be changed and do so without violence.

Sure we do. There aren’t a lot of people left that support a statist society. We’ve learned that authoritarian regimes, no matter the underlying ideology are extremely dangerous. The idea of a “dictatorship of the proletariat” that will usher in a new world order through revolution has been virtually extinguished. Marxism is largely discredited, having failed in the Soviet Union.

I am not responsible for the thoughts and behavior of all atheists just as you are not responsible for that of all Christians. I am sure I could dredge up some statements by Christians that were equally bad.

They are not representative of all atheists.

We do so criticize Marxists. Drop by the Political Forums and see if you can find who agrees with Konarmia or JM/M.J/Little War. You will see that we criticize them a great deal. It’s only that Marxists are rare on this board and elsewhere and if we did go out of our way to post critiques, there would be little if any disagreement. It’s the same reason there aren’t a lot of topics on Buddhism around here.

Are you saying that you have it, or you think I have it?

I do think infanticide is wrong. I also disagree with Dr. Singer on a number of his fundamental premises that lead him to his conclusion. I have reasons for disagreeing with Dr. Singer, based on my conceptions of the origins of morality.

I was just asking you if you actually had a reason for opposing infanticide other than percieved divine command.

I only consider euthanasia to be murder if it is involuntary. If it’s voluntary, it’s suicide.

Doesn’t the fact that we are the only intelligent animals, or that we are humans ourselves count for anything? It does for me.

It’s not really an issue of “my morality” versus “your morality”. There is a pool of values that we share with other members of our society. That is the standard of morality to which we adhere under penalty from society.

Murder is one of those values that is commonly viewed as wrong. Violating the prohibition of murder will result in penalty from the society.

First of all, this is not my rationally developed morality. It’s not like I’ve developed a system with a bunch of laws that everybody must follow. As I’ve said before, dictated morality is a bad thing. Why would I go and create as system like that of my own?

Rational inquiry into morality is not a task undertaken by a single individual. It is the collective act of a society, through discussion among its members, asking itself whether or not the moral constraints it places on itself make sense. Take Women’s Lib as an example. It’s not as if someone wrote a book one day called The Complete Guide to Rational Morality where it was plainly deduced that women should be given the right to vote. Society changed gradually as people found themselves unable to support the contention that women should not be allowed to vote or be educated.

It wasn’t a monolithic change in society either. There were radicals on both sides who wanted more than either was willing to give up. Dialectic is a vital part of the process. In fact, that’s part of the reason that Dr. Singer’s ideas are not necessarily a bad thing. They contribute to the process, leading to a stronger end product.

No. If they are good ideas, society will adopt them on its own.

I don’t know of anyone who takes the position you described. In any case, it does not follow from atheism per se, so it really can’t be deemed a failure of atheistic morality. There are a number of atheists who oppose abortion.

I am not “afraid” to accept your challenge. I just think it is a foolish thing to request. Your challenge is like insisting that a capitalist convince Karl Marx of his error and embrace capitalism. Extremely difficult if not impossible and unreasonable to boot.

It is not up to you or me or even Dr. Singer as to whether his ideas succeed or fail. Society will decide whether or not Dr. Singer is correct. I highly suspect they will disagree.

I am doing no such thing.

Peace out.

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: Wizardry ]</p>

Typhon

I would not let Christian apologists get off so easily. It has been a very short time historically speaking, since the canonical church of the Christian faith could wipe the liters of blood from her sleeves.

Take the birth of the Inquisition in southern France, and the wholesale slaughter of the heretical Cathars or Albegensians. These people who the saintly Bernard of Clairvaux himself once called a people who lived basically good lives, if heretical, were placed under the sword and axe of the church and all those who would do their dirty work for promised worldly gain and spiritual favor. Fuelled by the greed of the northern French lords, the wealthy Languedoc region of the south was eventually over-run by the forces of the Crusade sent by Pope Innocent III.

The war was led by greedy and bloodthirsty adventures and fanatical papal legates. Innocent soon after boasted that five hundred towns and castles were taken from the heretics, where every man, woman and child were butchered, noble ladies and young daughters tossed down wells where they were stoned and knights put to the gibbets in batches of eighty. Thousands were killed, tortured, and murdered, with little regard for sex, age, or even innocence of heresy.

Arnold Aimery, the Papal Legate at the siege of Beziers, famously ordered his men: "Show mercy neither to order, nor to age, nor to sex....Cathar or Catholic, Kill them all... God will know his own....". It is chronicled that over 20,000 men, women, and children were massacred at Beziers, and in the name of the Christian faith.

At Lavaur among those slain in the taking of city, 400 Cathars are burned to death. At Marmande another 5,000 or more are slain in yet another massacre under the authority of the papal legates.

By the time of the fateful siege of Monsegur in 1244, where yet another 200 or more Cathars burned at the stake, thousands upon thousands had been killed and the once noble and cosmopolitan culture of the Occitan civilization, unrivaled perhaps in all of Europe, was in ruin, once the heir to a vibrant and enlightened mixing of Arabs, progressive Christians, and Jews. Catholic leaders bragged that they had put over 40,000 to the sword or to the flame, man, woman, and blameless babe. Considering that it was held that over a 1,000 cities had originally been "lost to Rome" and that it took over 220,000 soldiers years to eliminate the heretics, many estimate that well over 100,000 and as many as perhaps a quarter of a million men, women, and children were brutally slaughtered.

From this cauldron of blood and fire would be born the Inquisition, and those that died in Languedoc would pale in comparison to the collective numbers lost to subsequent crusades and the fighting between Catholics and Protestants in the centuries to come.

Add to this the many other crusades and pogroms against both heretics and non-Christians, including among them the woeful sack of Constantinople in the 4th Crusade, from which the center of the Eastern Roman empire and Christendom, never recovered, eventually leading to the taking of this most Christian of cities by the Ottoman Turks.

Even before the modern era, the litany of strife, bloodshed, murder, and slaughter perpetuated, vindicated, blessed, or allowed by the great faiths of the world is staggering. Religion is a river whose banks are constantly washed in the blood of not just their followers and martyrs, but the blood of countless innocents and non-believers as well.

Gang warily where gods walk.

.T.

Synaesthesia

Is God the biggest mass murder of all time? I don't know, but he undoubtedly holds the record for the most prolific use of justifiable homicide.

Jack the Bodiless

From the Bible:
Obviously, "killing every male among the little ones" is totally different from "committing mass infanticide". Only a victim of intense atheist propaganda has a mind so warped as to confuse these quite distinct concepts.

The women, of course, are kept alive to become nuns.

hal9000

Interesting posts here by Wizardry, Typhon, Jack the Bodiless. The Fundies can't get any traction on this thread.

Tristan Scott

David Payne wrote:

I don't think it is an intellectual excersise at all. I think it is something that everyone, especially religionists should face.

With the exception of the communists in this century practically every case of mass murder in history has been carried out by leaders relying on the religious fervor of their subjects to carry out the deed.

All any of us need to commit murder is the will to do so. If we happen to believe in some deity that tells us through his agents to commit murder, that may be all the will we need.

No, I think as long as we are killing each other off in the name of our gods, discussing this stuff is essential.

David M. Payne

Tristan, I agree that this is more than an intellectual exercise, it is a forum for persuading those on the fence that there is another path to follow in relation to how one leads ones life. In addition, the mass murders committed by those not following Gods direction were in effect following a regime that resembles religion so closely, that they may as well have been doing their work in the name of God. You know Hitler, Stalin, and Mao etc all were looked upon as infallible leaders who were godlike in their follower’s eyes. Fanaticism and authoritarian belief have transcended God and now can be used by anyone with enough charisma to appeal to the downtrodden masses. It’s scary, and as 9/11 shows us it’s a long way from over.

Kassiana

Why I have avoided this post is listed below.

"Is God the biggest mass murder of all time?"

Of course God isn't the biggest mass murder of all time! The biggest mass murder would be whatever is the largest number of humans murdered at one time, usually by fellow humans. God may be the biggest mass MURDERER of all time, but God is not a mass of innocent humans who were massacred by their fellows. At least, not in any religion I know of.

David? Since you've edited the post topic several times now, could you please correct "murder" to "murderer"? I'm the daughter of an English major, and it hurts my eyes to see it. Thanks.

David M. Payne

Kassiana, thanks for the heads up. I don't know how I missed that, kind of embarrassing. Perhaps that explains why our resident theists haven’t had much input into this thread. Surely it isn’t the question, which should be easly answered by luvluv Atticus et al.

hal9000

Dp there is no answer to your post, thats why the Theist fundies don't play on this thread!