Reason vs. Morality

[Derideo_Te]

1. Genesis 9:6 prescribed the death penalty for murder when it said that if a man “shed the blood” of another man, by man must his blood be shed. The only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament.

2. Exodus 21:12-14
Leviticus 24:17 and 21
Numbers 35:16-18 and Numbers 35:31
Deuteronomy 19:11-13

How come atheist are anti murder ?

If I understand your query, you are asking, if one is not of the Judeo-Christian persuasion, how can they be a 'good person'?

If that is your point.....you're not serious, are you?




1.Now for the idea that the rational, the common sense method is better than religious morality. Can a human being be good without reference to God? As the saying goes, ‘Going to church doesn’t make you a good Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.’

2. Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. While it is true that one can be moral and good and not religious, the idea does not work for all or even most.

3. Why? Because there is no force behind reason. Take murder as an example. There is no rational way to convince the murder that he shouldn’t kill his fellow man if the individual stands in his way of making a profit, of solving some problem, or, simply because he enjoys same.

4. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer. Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.
Reason supports a lot of things, as for example, a very liberal position on abortion. If there is no God, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is just a good idea. That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God."
I, God, tell you to be decent to other people.


Either one accepts that there is something more than themselves, or one lives based on his /her desires alone.
Which is better?

Utter nonsense!

 

[dilloduck]

That always depends on the person. Just because they don't believe in God does't mean they don't have an ethics code.

I understand that. I'm trying to acertain what that code would be based on.

My rights end where yours begin and vice versa. I am obliged to uphold your rights and you are obliged to uphold mine even though neither of us necessarily agree on anything else other than that each of us has certain rights.

I'm not talking rights here. I'm asking the purpose for secular morals.
One answer was is "to avoid chaos"
Do you have another ?

 

[Derideo_Te]

1. Reason or Morality....Which one should guide society?
Either our ability to use logic and reason, or obedience to the morality forged in the crucible of millennia of human interactions and experience?

I know....both would be nice. But, with secularism in the ascendancy, the cultural battle rarely allows for compromise.


So....where, then, is the great change, the great difference between the bending of the knee to what we call God, or the bending of the knee to the god called reason?

And, is the world better due to this change?

Ignoring the factual errors in the OP and sticking to the primary question only because it is a false dichotomy.

The motivation for this false dichotomy is the same one the PoliticalSpice always uses because she has her religious agenda and this is her way of promoting that agenda.

Basically she is stating that Good = God & Moral while Bad = Reason & Immoral.

This is patently absurd because we have plenty of current instances of those who profess to believe in God committing immoral acts while those who uphold reason are doing so on a moral basis.

There is no black or white question here.

What we have in this nation today is a working example of a 3rd viable and pragmatic option.

The Constitution of We the People with the Bill of Rights as the moral equivalent of the 10 Commandments.

Reason AND Morality living side by side with a stipulated partition separating religious beliefs from secular government.

How can you conclude that is is reason and morality side by side without even being able to identify the foundational beliefs of secularism ?

Did you miss the part about the Constitution, We the People and the BoR?

 

[dilloduck]

Ignoring the factual errors in the OP and sticking to the primary question only because it is a false dichotomy.

The motivation for this false dichotomy is the same one the PoliticalSpice always uses because she has her religious agenda and this is her way of promoting that agenda.

Basically she is stating that Good = God & Moral while Bad = Reason & Immoral.

This is patently absurd because we have plenty of current instances of those who profess to believe in God committing immoral acts while those who uphold reason are doing so on a moral basis.

There is no black or white question here.

What we have in this nation today is a working example of a 3rd viable and pragmatic option.

The Constitution of We the People with the Bill of Rights as the moral equivalent of the 10 Commandments.

Reason AND Morality living side by side with a stipulated partition separating religious beliefs from secular government.

How can you conclude that is is reason and morality side by side without even being able to identify the foundational beliefs of secularism ?

Did you miss the part about the Constitution, We the People and the BoR?

how about secular Mexicans- ?? Aren't secular morals universal ??

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. The modern iteration of Rousseau’s call for a “reign of virtue,’ his call for death for all who don't agree with 'the general will' is 'political correctness.'
Not corporeal death, perhaps, but the end of careers, of status, and, the marginalizing via mocking, as Saul Alinsky advocated in "Rules For Radicals."


a. "... Richard Sternberg, described as an evolutionary biologist (he has two PhDs in evolutionary biology[41]) and a former editor for a scientific journal associated with the Smithsonian Institution. The film says his life was "nearly ruined" after he published an article by intelligent design proponent Stephen C. Meyer in 2004, allegedly causing him to lose his office, to be pressured to resign, and to become the subject of an investigation into his political and religious views." Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



b. When Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen’s criticism of Darwinian predictions about the fossil record was met with dead silence from a group of scientists in the U.S., he quipped that, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”
Darwinocracy: The evolution question in American politics | Washington Times Communities



c. "When Brendan Eich stepped down as the C.E.O. of Mozilla, .... Eich was one of the co-founders of Mozilla—which makes open-source software, including the Firefox browser—and is a brilliant software engineer who had been the company’s chief technology officer. But Eich was also well known for his opposition to gay marriage: in 2008, ..." How Mozilla Lost C.E.O. Brendan Eich : The New Yorker



d. " The sketch comedy television show Saturday Night Live aired several critically acclaimed sketches parodying then Alaskan Governor and vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin in the lead-up to the 2008 United States presidential election. The sketches featured former cast member Tina Fey, " Saturday Night Live parodies of Sarah Palin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Obey the secular...the 'general will'....or face the modern version of the pillory.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How come atheist are anti murder ?

If I understand your query, you are asking, if one is not of the Judeo-Christian persuasion, how can they be a 'good person'?

If that is your point.....you're not serious, are you?




1.Now for the idea that the rational, the common sense method is better than religious morality. Can a human being be good without reference to God? As the saying goes, ‘Going to church doesn’t make you a good Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.’

2. Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. While it is true that one can be moral and good and not religious, the idea does not work for all or even most.

3. Why? Because there is no force behind reason. Take murder as an example. There is no rational way to convince the murder that he shouldn’t kill his fellow man if the individual stands in his way of making a profit, of solving some problem, or, simply because he enjoys same.

4. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer. Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.
Reason supports a lot of things, as for example, a very liberal position on abortion. If there is no God, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is just a good idea. That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God."
I, God, tell you to be decent to other people.


Either one accepts that there is something more than themselves, or one lives based on his /her desires alone.
Which is better?

Utter nonsense!

I've seen your posts, and you certainly have a right to claim expertise on 'utter nonsense.'

Babble on, you moron.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Reason AND Morality living side by side with a stipulated partition separating religious beliefs from secular government.

I partially agree...one's morality/religious beliefs inform one's choices and priorities for government. Freedom OF religion, not FROM religion. Without such the participation of such consciences, we leave a void which is filled by those who make a religion of the Secular State.

We definitely do agree...in part!

For those with religious beliefs they ultimately reach the same choices and priorities as those without. This is not the thread for the topic of freedom "FROM" religion so I won't go there.

There is no void of conscience for those without religion. They come to their choices and priorities via reasoning out the alternatives but ultimately they arrive at a consensus that is the current secular government We the People have today. It embraces the best of both while keeping in check the worst of both. (Yes, both secularism and religion have a worst side as well as a good side. The FF knew this and accounted for it in the BoR.)

Peace
DT

 

[dilloduck]

Reason AND Morality living side by side with a stipulated partition separating religious beliefs from secular government.

I partially agree...one's morality/religious beliefs inform one's choices and priorities for government. Freedom OF religion, not FROM religion. Without such the participation of such consciences, we leave a void which is filled by those who make a religion of the Secular State.

We definitely do agree...in part!

For those with religious beliefs they ultimately reach the same choices and priorities as those without. This is not the thread for the topic of freedom "FROM" religion so I won't go there.

There is no void of conscience for those without religion. They come to their choices and priorities via reasoning out the alternatives but ultimately they arrive at a consensus that is the current secular government We the People have today. It embraces the best of both while keeping in check the worst of both. (Yes, both secularism and religion have a worst side as well as a good side. The FF knew this and accounted for it in the BoR.)

Peace
DT

Make the case for secular morals----on what foundation do they lie and what is it that they seek to accomplish ? just obedience ?

 

[Derideo_Te]

ok--- then an atheist rationale for laws prohibiting murder

Your right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness can not be infringed by someone else.

and why is that a good thing ?

You asked for an "atheist rationale for laws prohibiting murder" and were provided with the fundamental right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as an answer.

Now you are asking why Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are a "good thing"?

Are you questioning the fundamental foundation for this nation? The right of We the People to self determination as opposed to having some theocratic form of government dictate how we should live our lives?

 

[Derideo_Te]

ok--- then an atheist rationale for laws prohibiting murder

Your right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness can not be infringed by someone else.

Unless, according to Obama, you're a business owner.

This is about reason and morality, not politics.

I understand the temptation but if we go down this path we lose sight of what we are trying to determine.

Peace
DT

 

[boedicca]

Your right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness can not be infringed by someone else.

Unless, according to Obama, you're a business owner.

This is about reason and morality, not politics.

I understand the temptation but if we go down this path we lose sight of what we are trying to determine.

Peace
DT

Scuze moi, but you're the one who brought up Secular Government, the very nature of which Is Political.

 

[Steven_R]

a. "... Richard Sternberg, described as an evolutionary biologist (he has two PhDs in evolutionary biology[41]) and a former editor for a scientific journal associated with the Smithsonian Institution. The film says his life was "nearly ruined" after he published an article by intelligent design proponent Stephen C. Meyer in 2004, allegedly causing him to lose his office, to be pressured to resign, and to become the subject of an investigation into his political and religious views." Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sternberg wasn't pilloried for giving Meyer a platform, he was pilloried for sidestepping the peer review process for the journal he edited. He published Meyer's paper without having it send to reviewers to examine. His career was wrecked because of his own actions, if you can call it wrecked considering he didn't lose his privileges anywhere and was asked to step down from his editorial position, a positional he had already announced his resignation from.

Intelligent design and academic freedom - RationalWiki

 

[alang1216]

ok--- then an atheist rationale for laws prohibiting murder

My rationale is that I don't want to be a victim of murder. If there are no murders in my society I don't have to worry about me or my family becoming victims.

I also think my right to live outweighs your right to go around killing people.

 

[Derideo_Te]

1. Reason or Morality....Which one should guide society?
Either our ability to use logic and reason, or obedience to the morality forged in the crucible of millennia of human interactions and experience?

I know....both would be nice. But, with secularism in the ascendancy, the cultural battle rarely allows for compromise.


So....where, then, is the great change, the great difference between the bending of the knee to what we call God, or the bending of the knee to the god called reason?

And, is the world better due to this change?

Ignoring the factual errors in the OP and sticking to the primary question only because it is a false dichotomy.

The motivation for this false dichotomy is the same one the PoliticalSpice always uses because she has her religious agenda and this is her way of promoting that agenda.

Basically she is stating that Good = God & Moral while Bad = Reason & Immoral.

This is patently absurd because we have plenty of current instances of those who profess to believe in God committing immoral acts while those who uphold reason are doing so on a moral basis.

There is no black or white question here.

What we have in this nation today is a working example of a 3rd viable and pragmatic option.

The Constitution of We the People with the Bill of Rights as the moral equivalent of the 10 Commandments.

Reason AND Morality living side by side with a stipulated partition separating religious beliefs from secular government.

The usual from a lying sack of sewage: "Ignoring the factual errors in the OP..."

Go for it, you dunce.

No point now, because you just conceded them by resorting to mindless insults. But I am not in the least surprised that someone who professes to uphold religious morality lashes out with puerile insults.

The primary objective of your OP has been exposed as utterly fallacious and you cannot even rise to the challenge of defending your position. Looks like you conceded that without so much as a whimper.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I understand that. I'm trying to acertain what that code would be based on.

My rights end where yours begin and vice versa. I am obliged to uphold your rights and you are obliged to uphold mine even though neither of us necessarily agree on anything else other than that each of us has certain rights.

Agreed, as long as we are talking about Negative Rights - the rights to be Left Alone.

Anything that is an assertion of a Postitive Right, is, by definition, an infringement on the rights of someone else.

The right to vote is positive as is the right to free speech and bear arms. None of them are infringements on the rights of others. I am a staunch upholder of the rights to all of the above and the other rights in the Constitution. I would be surprised to discover that you don't share in upholding those rights for me as I would for you.

Or perhaps you are thinking of something else when you use the term "positive rights". If so then I would be happy to hear what it is that you are getting at.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I understand that. I'm trying to acertain what that code would be based on.

My rights end where yours begin and vice versa. I am obliged to uphold your rights and you are obliged to uphold mine even though neither of us necessarily agree on anything else other than that each of us has certain rights.

I'm not talking rights here. I'm asking the purpose for secular morals.
One answer was is "to avoid chaos"
Do you have another ?

Please define "secular morals".

 

[boedicca]

My rights end where yours begin and vice versa. I am obliged to uphold your rights and you are obliged to uphold mine even though neither of us necessarily agree on anything else other than that each of us has certain rights.

Agreed, as long as we are talking about Negative Rights - the rights to be Left Alone.

Anything that is an assertion of a Postitive Right, is, by definition, an infringement on the rights of someone else.

The right to vote is positive as is the right to free speech and bear arms. None of them are infringements on the rights of others. I am a staunch upholder of the rights to all of the above and the other rights in the Constitution. I would be surprised to discover that you don't share in upholding those rights for me as I would for you.

Or perhaps you are thinking of something else when you use the term "positive rights". If so then I would be happy to hear what it is that you are getting at.

Wrong. Positive rights are rights provided by The State. Negative rights entail limitations on the power of government to interfere with the individual.

 

[Derideo_Te]

How can you conclude that is is reason and morality side by side without even being able to identify the foundational beliefs of secularism ?

Did you miss the part about the Constitution, We the People and the BoR?

how about secular Mexicans- ?? Aren't secular morals universal ??

I think we are having a problem with terminology. Is this what you are trying to say?

Secular humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Secular Humanism

The philosophy or life stance of secular humanism (alternatively known by some adherents as Humanism, specifically with a capital H to distinguish it from other forms of humanism) embraces human reason, ethics, and philosophical naturalism, while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience, or superstition as the basis of morality and decision making.[1][2][3]

It posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently evil or innately good, nor does it present humans as being superior to nature. Rather, the humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy. Many Humanists derive their moral codes from a philosophy of utilitarianism, ethical naturalism, or evolutionary ethics, and some, such as Sam Harris, advocate a science of morality.

The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) is the world union of more than one hundred Humanist, rationalist, irreligious, atheistic, Bright, secular, Ethical Culture, and freethought organizations in more than 40 countries. The "Happy Human" is the official symbol of the IHEU as well as being regarded as a universally recognised symbol for those who call themselves Humanists. Secular humanist organizations are found in all parts of the world. Those who call themselves humanists are estimated to number between four and five million people worldwide.

In America, the ethical movement was propounded by Felix Adler, who established the New York Society for Ethical Culture in 1877.[19] By 1886, similar societies had sprouted up in Philadelphia, Chicago and St. Louis.[20]

These societies all adopted the same statement of principles:

The belief that morality is independent of theology;
The affirmation that new moral problems have arisen in modern industrial society which have not been adequately dealt with by the world's religions;
The duty to engage in philanthropy in the advancement of morality;
The belief that self-reform should go in lock step with social reform;
The establishment of republican rather than monarchical governance of Ethical societies
The agreement that educating the young is the most important aim.
In effect, the movement responded to the religious crisis of the time by replacing theology with unadulterated morality. It aimed to "disentangle moral ideas from religious doctrines, metaphysical systems, and ethical theories, and to make them an independent force in personal life and social relations."[20] Adler was also particularly critical of the religious emphasis on creed, believing it to be the source of sectarian bigotry. He therefore attempted to provide a universal fellowship devoid of ritual and ceremony, for those who would otherwise be divided by creeds. For the same reasons the movement also adopted a neutral position on religious beliefs, advocating neither atheism nor theism, agnosticism nor deism.[20]

The first ethical society along these lines in Britain was founded in 1886. By 1896 the four London societies formed the Union of Ethical Societies, and between 1905 and 1910 there were over fifty societies in Great Britain, seventeen of which were affiliated with the Union.

International Humanist and Ethical Union[edit]
In 2002, the IHEU General Assembly unanimously adopted the Amsterdam Declaration 2002 which represents the official defining statement of World Humanism.[24]

All member organisations of the International Humanist and Ethical Union are required by bylaw 5.1[25] to accept the Minimum Statement on Humanism:

“ Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality. ”
To promote and unify "Humanist" identity, prominent members of the IHEU have endorsed the following statements on Humanist identity:[3]

All Humanists, nationally and internationally, should always use the one word Humanism as the name of Humanism: no added adjective, and the initial letter capital (by life stance orthography);
All Humanists, nationally and internationally, should use a clear, recognizable and uniform symbol on their publications and elsewhere: our Humanist symbol the "Happy Human";
All Humanists, nationally and internationally, should seek to establish recognition of the fact that Humanism is a life stance.
Council for Secular Humanism[edit]
According to the Council for Secular Humanism, within the United States, the term "secular humanism" describes a world view with the following elements and principles:[7]

Need to test beliefs – A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted by faith.
Reason, evidence, scientific method – A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence and scientific method of inquiry in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
Fulfillment, growth, creativity – A primary concern with fulfillment, growth and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
Search for truth – A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
This life – A concern for this life (as opposed to an afterlife) and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
Ethics – A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
Justice and fairness – an interest in securing justice and fairness in society and in eliminating discrimination and intolerance.[26]
Building a better world – A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.
A Secular Humanist Declaration was issued in 1980 by the Council for Secular Humanism's predecessor, CODESH. It lays out ten ideals: Free inquiry as opposed to censorship and imposition of belief; separation of church and state; the ideal of freedom from religious control and from jingoistic government control; ethics based on critical intelligence rather than that deduced from religious belief; moral education; religious skepticism; reason; a belief in science and technology as the best way of understanding the world; evolution; and education as the essential method of building humane, free, and democratic societies.[27]

 

[dilloduck]

My rights end where yours begin and vice versa. I am obliged to uphold your rights and you are obliged to uphold mine even though neither of us necessarily agree on anything else other than that each of us has certain rights.

I'm not talking rights here. I'm asking the purpose for secular morals.
One answer was is "to avoid chaos"
Do you have another ?

Please define "secular morals".

that's sorta what I'm asking for.......it's commonly said the religion isn't the only way to be moral--I'm trying to determine the nature of the secular way of behaving properly.

 

[PoliticalChic]

a. "... Richard Sternberg, described as an evolutionary biologist (he has two PhDs in evolutionary biology[41]) and a former editor for a scientific journal associated with the Smithsonian Institution. The film says his life was "nearly ruined" after he published an article by intelligent design proponent Stephen C. Meyer in 2004, allegedly causing him to lose his office, to be pressured to resign, and to become the subject of an investigation into his political and religious views." Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sternberg wasn't pilloried for giving Meyer a platform, he was pilloried for sidestepping the peer review process for the journal he edited. He published Meyer's paper without having it send to reviewers to examine. His career was wrecked because of his own actions, if you can call it wrecked considering he didn't lose his privileges anywhere and was asked to step down from his editorial position, a positional he had already announced his resignation from.

Intelligent design and academic freedom - RationalWiki

You're fulla beans.

The willfully blind, i.e., you, will continue to accept that pap.


The 'peer-review' nonsense has been blown out of the water.

Keep bowing to the orthodoxy.