On Friday 26 January 2024 at 02:07:50 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 9:37:40 PM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
(snip)
If you understood why murder is morally wrong, you would not ask]the question,
or wonder why atheists and theist typically agree that (many forms of)
murder are wrong.
ISTM B.Rogers hit it on the nose elsethread:
***********************************
You seem to think that admitting we are animals means that there's no
reason to behave morally. That's nonsense. You seem to share with a >>>>>>> number of evangelicals I have known the idea that if we are not the >>>>>>> special creation of a personal God, the purpose for which the universe
was created, then life had no meaning and there's no morality. That's
your own failure of imagination, not a consequence of the theory of >>>>>>> evolution.
**********************************
In history and perhaps even today, tribes of people who kill and eat >>>>>> other people. How do we apply our morality to people who practice >>>>>> cannibalism. Is this immoral; if so why? After all, we are nothing more
than animals that evolved along with and from other animals. Do you >>>>>> think that people involved in cannibalism had any moral concerns, more
so than than animals.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=people+who+eat+people+facts&va=b&t=hr&ia=web
we are nothing more than evolved animals, so can you
condemn cannibals on their practice of killing and eating humans? No, >>>> you cannot! You have _NO_ moral grounds to do so!
Of course I can condemn cannibalism. I say that all people should be treated as we would treat our own group. Killing people and eating them is not how we would treat our friends and family. It's wrong.
But you do _not_ say why it's wrong if it were to serve _our purpose.
This is your opinion, but do you have the right to force your opinion on >> people who practice cannibalism? If you think so. on what moral grounds? >> It nothing more than your opinion, which you are entitled to as it
applies to you and your life. But there is _no_ moral basis for it.
I'll remind you that many groups who actually practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism on a large scale did so without the benefit of the theory of evolution and did it on the basis of religious justification.
Paganism! Not all religions are the same. I personally think deistism is >> the _ only_ rational position to have. For the simple we _cannot_ CAN
NOT know.
In any case, I am perfectly free to condemn cannibalism, whether or not you think I have a proper justification for doing so.
OK, but this is not so much about you think, since your thoughts have
absolutely _no_ bearing upon what people who practice cannibalism think >> and practice, So it's pointless. You have no moral justification to
impose your opinion on such people. IOW you cannot claim they have no
right to engage in this practice. So, in reality, you have nothing to
say about it.
And this has caused me some personal discomforts, I see myself in the
much same light because of what I know and what I think I know.
My guess is that you endorse things that some religions consider cannibalism. Members of these religions also think that their religion gives them the moral right to force you to abide by their rules.
Do you think the fact that they are theists entitles them to that position?
Of course not! I stand in opposition to organized religion, so why would
I think any religion has the right to force anyone to do anything? But,
I'm convinced that religion, unfortunately, does take control over
peoples lives, and religion accomplishes this by their proclaimed _authority_. A person or the leaders claims to have been given the
_sole_ and the exclusive right by God to represent him on Planet Earth.
They send out missionaries who use this bully pulpit to create doubt
even distress in other church members which they term "non-believer". I entertained three "missionaries" who
out of the blue, came knocking on my front door a few months ago. I knew something about this sect, but I wanted to hear their message, It did
not go well and after two different times they left.
You may be baptized, taken the sacraments in your religion. But the "missionaries" will insist your baptism and sacraments were unrecognized
by God because they were not performed by an authorized representative
of God. Certain religions use this idea or authority, as a threat that's above people's head like Damascus's sword, that's held by a thread.
People who become convinced by these missionaries are the re-baptized
and accept the power and authority of the church leaders, to have
control over their minds, their thoughts, their lives and their futures.
They force people who accept this claim of "authority" into submission
or obedience to them, IE their laws and their rituals and obedience to
these authorities as God's representatives. I think this applies mainly
to religions with a figure head at the top.
I think back to the time I heard the Christian message. There was
nothing about authority. According to what I had learned, was that Jesus Christ was crucified, suffered and died on the cross strictly for our benefit - that is for the forgiveness of our sins. And sin alone is sufficient to remove one from the presence of God forever. In order to
be saved, it took nothing more than belief or faith in Christ and his sacrifice for ones salvation. And "authority" is totally unnecessary.
In my opinion, religious authority is nothing more than a power grab!
Personally, I completely abandoned Christianity during my younger days.
I became a doubter, a questioner, but I did have very serious doubts,
maybe I became agnostic, but I was never a full blown atheist, There are things that's happened in my life that causes me to re-think my
position. To some degree TO has been instrumental in my considerations. There are too many things that I've learned that are not rationally answered, yet they are real. I have no faith that a natural cause or explanation will ever happen.
Science does not try to suggest what you should do or avoid doing,
who you should believe or how you should behave. It does not claim
that theism is wrong or that God does not exist. It only collects and systematises facts about our world and tries to find out working
relations between those facts. Science does not answer where it
does not have answers. Lack of answer is normal and default
situation for science.
Anti-theistic world-views and philosophies compete with theism.
These give you answer. "God is nonsense. Folklore. There are no
such thing. Only idiots think that someone watches very closely
what you do, never communicates with you but after you die
punishes you." That is philosophical-political answer, not
scientific.
So your three mistakes:
1) You want to argue with anti-theistic philosphies using that
science denial garbage. Most of them do not care about
biology. Their position is that your God is full idiocy. And
that YOU have no science that shows that it is not.
2) You accuse science not giving you detailed answers to every
question. Science is not meant to.
3) You avoid studying answers given to you. It is not fault of
science that the books are too thick, articles too complex and
your time too short.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)