Should atheism be suppressed?

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

If prosperity allowed atheism as you suggest, while theism reduced crime, then prosperous religious countries should have even less crime than prosperous atheistic ones. This is not so.

That sounds correct. I can't think of anywhere else to take the opposite argument. The only possible residual that might remain is almost a reversal of Plato's idea that only a few could be trusted to reason for themselves - i.e. that mostly people can reason for themselves but there might be some few who cannot be trusted.

Scofflaw wrote:

If you have ever tried to persuade someone else into an act of immorality where there is no chance of being caught, you will know that this is not the case.

I'm not confident on this point. What's on my mind partly comes from noticing when visiting relatives in a rural location the extent to which roadside dumping of household waste seems quite common. I know you can argue that people who do this probably feel morally justified in avoiding waste disposal charges, and I agree that people will go to enormous lengths to persuade themselves that what they are doing is not wrong. But it seems hard to think that someone casually dumping their rubbish on the side of a country road think they are doing right.

I suppose its possible to broaden that out to the wider Irish experience. I don't sense it to be so much a case of people thinking they are doing right, and more people seeing no point in doing right if others are doing wrong.

Scofflaw wrote:

In the case of drugs, it seems ridiculous to claim that they are 'immoral', unless one can prove that the use of drugs harms others in the absence of criminalisation. As far as I am aware, all the evidence points firmly the other way.

You'll understand, the specific point at issue isn't whether drugs are wrong or not - its just an illustrative example of crime that's currently in the news. It can indeed be replaced with tax evasion or human trafficking or extortion if preferred. The point is more where we see some public good that does require individual honesty where there is no fear of penalty.

I'd say I agree with the general approach that, mostly and in most things, people will not individually do what they deem to be wrong. Also, theism is no block on people persuading themselves that the wrong they want to do (say, dumping that old sofa in a ditch) is perfectly right.

karen3212 wrote:

So I think that if plato had all of our research, he wouldn't have needed to keep religion, as we now have better solutions and I suspect Norway is using them.

Fair points. Have you anything specific in mind regarding the Norwegian experience?

karen3212

Originally Posted by karen3212
So I think that if plato had all of our research, he wouldn't have needed to keep religion, as we now have better solutions and I suspect Norway is using them.

Schubart
Have you anything specific in mind regarding the Norwegian experience?

I'm afraid I'm not all that well read, but I have a cousin who was born with Aspergers Syndrome in Norway. His parents have been given a mountain of knowledge on the subject, he has had health visitors come and talk to his parents since he was three. At the age of 15 it looks like he is on the road to becoming a specialist in whatever he chooses to do, and a very very valuable member of society. Contast that to what might have happened in an African tribe who might have taught he was born with the devil in him. I suspect he would not have lived to the age of 15.

PDN

karen3212 wrote:

Originally Posted by karen3212
So I think that if plato had all of our research, he wouldn't have needed to keep religion, as we now have better solutions and I suspect Norway is using them.

Schubart
Have you anything specific in mind regarding the Norwegian experience?

I'm afraid I'm not all that well read, but I have a cousin who was born with Aspergers Syndrome in Norway. His parents have been given a mountain of knowledge on the subject, he has had health visitors come and talk to his parents since he was three. At the age of 15 it looks like he is on the road to becoming a specialist in whatever he chooses to do, and a very very valuable member of society. Contast that to what might have happened in an African tribe who might have taught he was born with the devil in him. I suspect he would not have lived to the age of 15.

So you think the difference between his treatment in Norway rather than Africa is due to Norway having a higher percentage of atheists?

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

So you think the difference between his treatment in Norway rather than Africa is due to Norway having a higher percentage of atheists?

I'm sure any such assertion would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove. All the evidence can only show correlation, not causation. Norway has a high proportion of organic atheism, and it is a well-run and prosperous society - but whether one or other leads to the other, or both correlate with being Norwegian, we can't say.

As said, though, the high prevalence of atheists in well-run societies suggests that Plato's thesis is false.

cordially,
Scofflaw

karen3212

PDN wrote:

So you think the difference between his treatment in Norway rather than Africa is due to Norway having a higher percentage of atheists?

I am saying that it took people that continued to ask why, why, why to find out why he was the way he was,
rather than people who accepted that he was different and religion could be used to suppress him and keep him from the wrong road. If his treatment had consisted of prayers and fear of God do you think his talents would soon be put to good use.

PDN

karen3212 wrote:

I am saying that it took people that continued to ask why, why, why to find out why he was the way he was,
rather than people who accepted that he was different and religion could be used to suppress him and keep him from the wrong road. If his treatment had consisted of prayers and fear of God do you think his talents would soon be put to good use.

So you think that if someone believes in God that means that they substitute prayers for medical treatment?

Of course he received better treatment in Norway than he would have in an isolated village in Africa. Just as he would receive better treatment if he had been born in Tennessee (where there is a high concentration of theists) than if he had been born in an impoverished village of atheists in China.

To argue that atheism is the reason for Norway giving better medical care than an African country is about as sensible as ascribing it to the Norwegians' fair hair, or even their white skin.

karen3212

PDN wrote:

So you think that if someone believes in God that means that they substitute prayers for medical treatment?

Of course he received better treatment in Norway than he would have in an isolated village in Africa. Just as he would receive better treatment if he had been born in Tennessee (where there is a high concentration of theists) than if he had been born in an impoverished village of atheists in China.

To argue that atheism is the reason for Norway giving better medical care than an African country is about as sensible as ascribing it to the Norwegians' fair hair, or even their white skin.

I'm sorry but I feel you have completely misinterpreted what I meant.
I am trying to answer the question: do we need religion to keep certain people in society from doing harm, and therefore a breakdown of society.
I think if we look at who in society ends up causing harm, then we begin to find out why they do it. With all of modern research we are better able to work on solutions for those people, so I am saying that using religion and fear of God to suppress such people is no longer necessary. We can help them, if spotted early, to work on fulfilling their potential, great that it can be. Please I am not comparing a tribe in Africa to Norway, just trying to work out whether religion is good enough anymore. Sorry if my posts were confusing

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

So you think that if someone believes in God that means that they substitute prayers for medical treatment?

Of course he received better treatment in Norway than he would have in an isolated village in Africa. Just as he would receive better treatment if he had been born in Tennessee (where there is a high concentration of theists) than if he had been born in an impoverished village of atheists in China.

To argue that atheism is the reason for Norway giving better medical care than an African country is about as sensible as ascribing it to the Norwegians' fair hair, or even their white skin.

While that is applicable in the specific instance, I think there is a more general thesis behind it that merits consideration: that untheistic pursuit of empirically verifiable truths has led to better outcomes than would have been possible if the pursuit of such truths was conducted only within Biblical limits.

I don't wish to make the claim that Christianity and science are necessarily opposed. It is clear that the origins of science in the West are intimately bound up with the Christian idea of a rational Creator. However, had scientific enquiry been constrained by the need to accept, for example, a 'literal' interpretation of Genesis, then I doubt we would have made as much progress in science as we have done.

It is demonstrable that religion influences or constrains research - consider stem cell research, for example. While it might be argued that this is ethical constraint of scientific research, the ethics in question are religious. Religious doctrines cannot improve the pursuit of empirical knowledge as such, because they are limits, not tools.

So, as a general statement, secular scientific enquiry is probably more productive than religiously constrained scientific enquiry. Insofar as atheists are unlikely to be personally constrained by religious bounds, they are probably personally better suited to the pursuit of secular science. Insofar as a country is populated more by atheists, it will be the more willing to accept the results of empirical research, rather than only accepting those findings which accord with doctrine.

Overall, then, a contributory factor in better treatment in Norway is likely to be Norway's greater willingness to accept empirical truths, without subjecting them to religious scrutiny.

cordially,
Scofflaw

karen3212

Yes, I was thinking more of the questioning that non-accepting people do.

Also doesn't the idea of free will at least in the Bible stifel questioning of why people behave in certain ways. I mean if people are born with certain conditions that lead to bad choices, then they are not born with as much free will as others. I mean most religious people I know tell me that people make choices, their own choices, they are completely accountable.

I mean if you don't ask why someone does something, and simply accept that they are bad/evil and freely choosing the wrong way, then nobody would have realised that my cousin has communication problems. Nobody would have informed his parents or his peers, that he was not bad, he was just different and didn't really see the world as others might.

And the people of the society would not have been willing to sacrifice some of their money to help "bad" kids fulfill their potential.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

While that is applicable in the specific instance, I think there is a more general thesis behind it that merits consideration: that untheistic pursuit of empirically verifiable truths has led to better outcomes than would have been possible if the pursuit of such truths was conducted only within Biblical limits.

I don't wish to make the claim that Christianity and science are necessarily opposed. It is clear that the origins of science in the West are intimately bound up with the Christian idea of a rational Creator. However, had scientific enquiry been constrained by the need to accept, for example, a 'literal' interpretation of Genesis, then I doubt we would have made as much progress in science as we have done.

It is demonstrable that religion influences or constrains research - consider stem cell research, for example. While it might be argued that this is ethical constraint of scientific research, the ethics in question are religious. Religious doctrines cannot improve the pursuit of empirical knowledge as such, because they are limits, not tools.

So, as a general statement, secular scientific enquiry is probably more productive than religiously constrained scientific enquiry. Insofar as atheists are unlikely to be personally constrained by religious bounds, they are probably personally better suited to the pursuit of secular science. Insofar as a country is populated more by atheists, it will be the more willing to accept the results of empirical research, rather than only accepting those findings which accord with doctrine.

Overall, then, a contributory factor in better treatment in Norway is likely to be Norway's greater willingness to accept empirical truths, without subjecting them to religious scrutiny.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Undoubtedly there is truth in what you say. Remove theistic ethical restraints and you can conduct forms of scientific research that you would otherwise be unable to conduct. The classic example of this would be Dr Joseph Mengele, who used gypsy children and Jews for human experimentation purposes in Auschwitz. However, I suspect this might stengthen rather than weaken Plato's argument.

Insofar as a country is populated more by atheists, it will be the more willing to accept the results of empirical research, rather than only accepting those findings which accord with doctrine.

Of course this would only apply when a country is populated and controlled by one particular form of theism (or in your example of those who take Genesis literally, one subset within one form of theism). Indeed, you must admit it is theoretically possible that atheists doctrinal presuppositions blind them to future scientific discoveries which hinge on belief in God. Therefore the population mix that is most likely to produce scientific innovation would be a mix of various kinds of theists with a sprinkling of atheists.

Godwinly,
PDN

Fallen Seraph

PDN wrote:

Undoubtedly there is truth in what you say. Remove theistic ethical restraints and you can conduct forms of scientific research that you would otherwise be unable to conduct. The classic example of this would be Dr Joseph Mengele, who used gypsy children and Jews for human experimentation purposes in Auschwitz. However, I suspect this might stengthen rather than weaken Plato's argument.

This, I think, is certainly a fallacy. You've hopped from removing theistic ethical restraints to removing ALL ethical restraints. Which are two very different things. Atheists still have morals.

PDN

Fallen Seraph wrote:

This, I think, is certainly a fallacy. You've hopped from removing theistic ethical restraints to removing ALL ethical restraints. Which are two very different things. Atheists still have morals.

Not at all, Mengele did not operate under no ethical restraints, simply under a different series of ethics. For example, it would have been considered unethical for him to have experimented on an Aryan child.

Also, the Nazis still had morals - in fact in many areas they were more moralistic than most of their opponents.

Of course the problem was that they rejected the Genesis creation account which, whether you take it literally or symbolically, affirms that all mankind is created by God and in the image of God.

Fallen Seraph

PDN wrote:

Not at all, Mengele did not operate under no ethical restraints, simply under a different series of ethics. For example, it would have been considered unethical for him to have experimented on an Aryan child.

Also, the Nazis still had morals - in fact in many areas they were more moralistic than most of their opponents.

Fair enough, but I still think it's going rather far to argue that many atheists would condone such experimenting; I mean science does already have some pretty tough ethical restraints as it is.

Also it's a bit much to argue that one needs to believe in the bible to be appalled by the behaviour of the nazis...

I also think you'll find that there has been plenty of theologial debate in the past over whether or not the bible does, in fact, say everyone is equal.

Dades

Thought this was fitting:

The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge.
Daniel Boorstin

PDN

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Fair enough, but I still think it's going rather far to argue that many atheists would condone such experimenting; I mean science does already have some pretty tough ethical restraints as it is.

I did not argue that many atheists would condone such experimenting. Most atheists still retain a large amount of moralism that is inherited from theism. I was simply agreeing with Scofflaw that if you remove theistic ethical restraints from science then you are free to conduct research from which you would otherwise be prevented.

Also it's a bit much to argue that one needs to believe in the bible to be appalled by the behaviour of the nazis...

Ah, I quite agree with you there. Therefore I would advise you to actually find someone who has argued that one needs to believe in the bible to be appalled by the behaviour of the nazis (which, of course, I never argued or implied) and then you may put that excellent point to them.

I also think you'll find that there has been plenty of theologial debate in the past over whether or not the bible does, in fact, say everyone is equal.

Again, a very good point - or at least it would be if I had mentioned anything about everyone being equal (which I didn't).

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Most atheists still retain a large amount of moralism that is inherited from theism.

That's a ridiculous statement. I for one, certainly didn't inherit the morals of the crusades, the inquisition, the morals of the OT. My morals certainly didn't derive from the maxim that people can suffer external torment after death.

PDN wrote:

The classic example of this would be Dr Joseph Mengele, who used gypsy children and Jews for human experimentation purposes in Auschwitz.

What about the classic example of the hero of the reformation, Martin Luther and his nasty racist piece of work:

"On the Jews and their Lies".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

Luther hated Jews and he preached in that book to hate and despise them.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Undoubtedly there is truth in what you say. Remove theistic ethical restraints and you can conduct forms of scientific research that you would otherwise be unable to conduct. The classic example of this would be Dr Joseph Mengele, who used gypsy children and Jews for human experimentation purposes in Auschwitz. However, I suspect this might stengthen rather than weaken Plato's argument.

It might, if Menegele hadn't been a Roman Catholic.

Of course, your argument is actually a straw man, as well as begging a question.

First, the straw man. I haven't argued for the removal of all ethical restraints from the ways in which one conducts research - I have argued for the removal of arbitrary religious restraints on research.

Second, the obvious question you're begging. Can you prove that it was theistic ethical constraints that Menegele was lacking?

Third, the less obvious question you're begging. That you and I disagree about the arbitrariness of religiously motivated ethical restraints is pretty much a given, and is a separate argument, so you'll excuse me, I hope, if I don't simply accept your assumptions that the only available ethics are religious ethics, or that they are non-arbitrary.

Mengele's research, contrary to popular belief, was not scientifically worthwhile in any case. It was rather more the self-indulgences of a sadist than anything else. It is also, of course, rather illustrative of the dangers of the dominance of arbitrary ideologies.

So, rather than your rather unique, and indeed Godwinly, example, consider instead the extent to which religious custom impeded the development of medical science.

PDN wrote:

Of course this would only apply when a country is populated and controlled by one particular form of theism (or in your example of those who take Genesis literally, one subset within one form of theism).

So, like the US then? No - it is quite sufficient for the country's elections to be dominated by a vocal minority.

PDN wrote:

Indeed, you must admit it is theoretically possible that atheists doctrinal presuppositions blind them to future scientific discoveries which hinge on belief in God.

The most obvious answer to that is that since science by definition excludes supernatural explanations, it is difficult to see what form such discoveries could take.

However, I accept your point. When the supernatural becomes scientifically measurable/detectable, of course, it moves into the realm of the natural, rather than being an escape hatch for the unprovable. There may, therefore, be such discoveries as you assert, and indeed if we are doctrinaire in our atheism we would of course miss them.

PDN wrote:

Therefore the population mix that is most likely to produce scientific innovation would be a mix of various kinds of theists with a sprinkling of atheists.

Well, all we need ensure is that the population is not dominated by any arbitrary set of religious constraints. A secular society is most suitable for this, whether largely populated by atheists or not.

PDN wrote:

Godwinly,PDN

Quite so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph

PDN wrote:

I did not argue that many atheists would condone such experimenting. Most atheists still retain a large amount of moralism that is inherited from theism. I was simply agreeing with Scofflaw that if you remove theistic ethical restraints from science then you are free to conduct research from which you would otherwise be prevented.


Ah, I quite agree with you there. Therefore I would advise you to actually find someone who has argued that one needs to believe in the bible to be appalled by the behaviour of the nazis (which, of course, I never argued or implied) and then you may put that excellent point to them.


Again, a very good point - or at least it would be if I had mentioned anything about everyone being equal (which I didn't).

Apologies if I read too far into your statement; but I thought the assertion that ALL mankind was created in the image of god was a pretty clear impication of equality.

PDN wrote:

Of course the problem was that they rejected the Genesis creation account which, whether you take it literally or symbolically, affirms that all mankind is created by God and in the image of God.

And suggesting that the problem was the rejection of genesis is, as I understood it, implying that one needs to believe the bible to find fault with the nazis behaviour. I can think of a myriad of other things that might have been the problem but you have explicitly stated that lack of genesis was the cause.

Also, as Time pointed out, it's quite debatable that people inherited morals from theism; I'd argue that they were, for the most part, inherited from our evolution and are an ingrained part of our pysche; independant of culture.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

whether you take it literally or symbolically, affirms that all mankind is created by God and in the image of God.

And...?

That didn't stop people in the Bible killing a lot of other people, and it certainly doesn't stop people who read the Bible killing a lot of other people.

Once again you are getting your morals the wrong way around.

If someone already believes that killing is morally wrong they can find a justification in the Bible to support this (God created all humans so like him so all humans should be treated equally).

But if someone believes that killing isn't morally wrong they can equally find a justification in the Bible to support this (God sent his chosen people out to destroy corrupt and evil peoples to make the land pure again. In fact more than once)

To a believer the Bible will always appear to support the morals they already have. Its one of the reasons its so appealing to some people

Its like one of those painting where the eyes seem to follow a person around the room so that no matter where they are standing it looks like the painting is looking at them.

Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Apologies if I read too far into your statement; but I thought the assertion that ALL mankind was created in the image of god was a pretty clear impication of equality.

When Adam delved, and Eve span, who then was the gentleman?

Fallen Seraph wrote:

And suggesting that the problem was the rejection of genesis is, as I understood it, implying that one needs to believe the bible to find fault with the nazis behaviour. I can think of a myriad of other things that might have been the problem but you have explicitly stated that lack of genesis was the cause.

Also, as Time pointed out, it's quite debatable that people inherited morals from theism; I'd argue that they were, for the most part, inherited from our evolution and are an ingrained part of our pysche; independant of culture.

Yes, I think PDN is rather assuming that it is lack of Christian morals (of his particular variety, although I am sure he would argue that they are universal) that give rise to difficulties - something I look forward to him actually trying to prove, if he will. He seems to be ignoring the Japanese, for some reason.

Specifically, PDN is arguing that "man made in the image of God" would have prevented Mengele from experimenting - a reasonable point superficially, but one that rather neglects the question of the definition of 'man'. If the Nazis believed, say, that Jews and Gypsies were actually sub-human, they they wouldn't see them as being made in the image of God, but perhaps rather more in mockery of humanity. Curiously enough...

Of course, the thing with the "man in the image of God" argument is that it is exactly the one that prevented disssection for medical research in Europe (think Burke and Hare). It's also an argument that you can take to some wonderfully bizarre places - making tattoos and piercings an offense, for example, or arguing that it only applies to men rather than women, or that you shouldn't have an amputation even if you have gangrene of a limb...

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

What about the classic example of the hero of the reformation, Martin Luther and his nasty racist piece of work:

"On the Jews and their Lies".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

Luther hated Jews and he preached in that book to hate and despise them.

Hmm, another well reasoned post. :rolleyes:

So maybe you would expand on why you think Martin Luther is a classic example of how science can experiment more when theistic restraints are removed?

I'm starting to understand your friends, Tim.

Cardinal

The very idea that something which could be called "christian morals" is a false one. The morals of christianity have changed so much with the times that they have few or no defining features which set them apart from whatever the generally accepted morals of the day are.
I'm not saying that christians have no morals, but that the moral standards of any given christian are far more a reflection of the time and place they are brought up in than of the religion to which they subscribe. The same can be said of any religion.
So, if morals don't come from religion, they must come from somewhere else, somewhere equally accessible to those without a religion.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

That's a ridiculous statement. I for one, certainly didn't inherit the morals of the crusades, the inquisition, the morals of the OT. My morals certainly didn't derive from the maxim that people can suffer external torment after death.

Let's see.

The Inquisition believed that they were right and that therefore they should attack the beliefs of those who thought differently instead of showing them any toleration or respect.

The Inquisition were unable to admit that they were wrong, even when confronted with the truth.

The Inquisition showed a poor grasp of logic because their presuppositions made them determined to always come to a conclusion that supported their own position.

The Inquisition tried to debate with their opponents about the Bible, even though they were woefully ignorant of how to interpret the Bible.

The Inquisition resorted to personal abuse when they began to lose arguments.

Actually Tim, I think you've inherited an awful lot from the Inquisition.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

And...?

That didn't stop people in the Bible killing a lot of other people, and it certainly doesn't stop people who read the Bible killing a lot of other people.

Once again you are getting your morals the wrong way around.

If someone already believes that killing is morally wrong they can find a justification in the Bible to support this (God created all humans so like him so all humans should be treated equally).

But if someone believes that killing isn't morally wrong they can equally find a justification in the Bible to support this (God sent his chosen people out to destroy corrupt and evil peoples to make the land pure again. In fact more than once)

To a believer the Bible will always appear to support the morals they already have. Its one of the reasons its so appealing to some people

Its like one of those painting where the eyes seem to follow a person around the room so that no matter where they are standing it looks like the painting is looking at them.

If this was a debate about whether it's right to kill people or not, then your remarks would have some relevance.

However, we were discussing medical experimentation. In all the works of Church History I have ever read I have never heard of anyone, no matter how barmy, claiming that the Bible justifies using another human being for the purposes of medical experimentation. Yet Christians have routinely justified animal experimentation on the grounds that animals are not made in the image of God.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Hmm, another well reasoned post. :rolleyes:

So maybe you would expand on why you think Martin Luther is a classic example of how science can experiment more when theistic restraints are removed?

I'm starting to understand your friends, Tim.

Well let's revert to your argument:

Remove theistic ethical restraints and you can conduct forms of scientific research that you would otherwise be unable to conduct.

This is a cause and effect argument:
Cause: Removal of theistic ethical restraints
Effect: conduct forms of scientific research that you would otherwise be unable to conduct.

The problem with it of course is, what exactly are "theistic ethical restraints"?
Can they be objectively defined?
Well would you agree with the ethics of Luther or Calvin? Leaders and theological heros of the reformation? No.
So they can't be objectively defined. So you argument falls apart before it can even be analysed to see if you have a valid cause and effect or if you have a post hoc, ergo propter hoc and a logical fallacy.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

The Inquisition believed that they were right and that therefore they should attack the beliefs of those who thought differently instead of showing them any toleration or respect.

The Inquisition were unable to admit that they were wrong, even when confronted with the truth.

The Inquisition showed a poor grasp of logic because their presuppositions made them determined to always come to a conclusion that supported their own position.

The Inquisition tried to debate with their opponents about the Bible, even though they were woefully ignorant of how to interpret the Bible.

The Inquisition resorted to personal abuse when they began to lose arguments.

Actually Tim, I think you've inherited an awful lot from the Inquisition.

A ridiculous, pathetic piece of tripe. Only attacking me and nothing to do with my argument or this debate. How can you accuse me of "resorting to personal abuse" when that is all you have done yourself in that post?

Hopefully, the mods will be a bit more impartial this time round.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

If this was a debate about whether it's right to kill people or not, then your remarks would have some relevance.

However, we were discussing medical experimentation. In all the works of Church History I have ever read I have never heard of anyone, no matter how barmy, claiming that the Bible justifies using another human being for the purposes of medical experimentation. Yet Christians have routinely justified animal experimentation on the grounds that animals are not made in the image of God.

Well, let's see. Biblical justifications were certainly offered for slavery - particularly the curse of Ham - which allowed people what they perceived to be a Biblical justification for considering negroes sub-human. That assignment of sub-humanity in turn justified the use of negroes in medical experimentation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

A ridiculous, pathetic piece of tripe. Only attacking me and nothing to do with my argument or this debate. How can you accuse me of "resorting to personal abuse" when that is all you have done yourself in that post?

Hopefully, the mods will be a bit more impartial this time round.

But you brought your own personality into the debate. You said:

That's a ridiculous statement. I for one, certainly didn't inherit the morals of the crusades, the inquisition, the morals of the OT. My morals certainly didn't derive from the maxim that people can suffer external torment after death.

If you wanted us to stick to the subject of the debate then why bring your own person and morality into the thread? Or, like your link about Luther, was it just a random thought unconnected with the debate and therefore not relevant for discussion?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

But you brought your own personality into the debate. You said:

If someone speaks about their own morals (i.e. not yours or anyone elses) in a context that is relevant (does atheism inherit morals from theology) you take it as justification to retort with some immature character assassination. Are you trying to say you know my own morals better than me? Or are you trying to shift the debate away from morals completly? The latter appears the case!

If you wanted us to stick to the subject of the debate then why bring your own person and morality into the thread? Or, like your link about Luther, was it just a random thought unconnected with the debate and therefore not relevant for discussion?

The link about Luther isn't just random. It's concerned with the context of theism, theology, morals and ethics. I posted another thread and detailed the relevance. Why don't you counter argue that instead of you just concluded it's "random" or "unconnected"?

Dades

PDN wrote:

Actually Tim, I think you've inherited an awful lot from the Inquisition.

Okay I thought this was somewhat uncalled for. I'm aware there's a history here, but lets try to stay on topic.

Behind all this there's a good thread going on. Neither myself nor the other users want to have to wade through it to find it - so lets all (PDN and TR) press our 'reset' buttons and address a relevant point.

I'll have this standing by.