Atheism, Religion, and Crime

[Greg27]

I think really the topic is so wide a lot could be written about it without getting anywhere. I think it is easier to say people do evil things whether they believe in a deity or not. It is clear from history that people who believed in God have done evil things, while those who do not believe in God have also done evil things. As to whether society is better without belief in God or religion, that is harder to answer. People who try to prove either case often seem to have such a barrow to push that they ignore evidence against their case and presuppose the truth of their case. People such as Dawkins in my view ignore the many good things religion can motivate people to do, while religious fanatics underestimate the many good works motivated by compassion, justice and charity people of secular belief do.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I don’t know why I continue to talk with a child. I suppose I’m just competitive. Oh well, it doesn’t look like this is going anywhere anyway. Maybe you should run along and play with your toys now, kid.

I wish I had a dollar for every *ad hominem *you’ve posted!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Greg

*religious fanatics underestimate the many good works motivated by compassion, justice and charity people of secular belief do. *

How much of that famous secular “compassion, justice and charity” is motivated by instincts we share with other animals, or by the fear of being shown up for selfishness by the Christian ethic, or by the tradition of Christian humanism that secularists have not completely abandoned?

Even animals protect their young … which I cannot see the secular establishment doing when they defend the right to spread filth in the name of free speech. How does that protect the young? When I was a a boy, hardly any boy swore. Now hardly any boy doesn’t use some vulgarity or other … thanks to the “compassion, justice and charity” of the ACLU.

 

[reggieM]

When the discussion turns to the motivations of individual persons, then it’s a question of judging each individual. Once we do that, we may also need to judge whether a person is really an atheist or not. Many claim to be atheists but actually just harbor resentment against God – who they do believe in, but merely oppose in anger.

So, in philosophical terms – the topic is more appropriately “atheism” and not “pepole who call themselves atheists”.

Looking at that, we can judge the motive. We can speak about whatever “justice, compassion and charity” we can find in the atheistic philosophy.

When ultimate meaning is removed from life, the universe and humanity is the product of blind, uncaring, accidental, unintelligent and unconscious physical processes, there is no free-will or spiritual dimension to mankind, the only “motive” in nature is “survival of the species”, there is no afterlife, no final accounting, no final recompense for good or bad actions, when the totality of an individual’s life is limited to the short number of years spent on earth with oblivion afterwards, when rationality is the product of chance, when the highest intelligence and authority in the universe is some finite, transient human presence (which does not need to be acknolwedged), when natural laws cannot command any moral actions or condemn any sins, when there is no conscience or need for guilt …

… then claims of “justice, compassion and charity” are made without any underlying philosohpical foundation to support them.
They are, in fact, borrowed from Catholic (or other pro-spiritual) intellectual heritage.

No we can see “individual atheists” acting in ways comparable to Catholic charity, but they do so for reasons and motives which cannot be reconciled with atheistic belief.

For Catholics, charititable acts are done out of love of God who created us. Each human being can imitate God’s generous love by being compassionate. Each human being possseses dignity because they were created ou tof love. If they are the product of unintelligent physical processes they possess none of that.

 

[Oreoracle]

I wish I had a dollar for every *ad hominem *you’ve posted!

An insult is only an ad hominem if it is presented as an argument. Unlike you, my posts have some substance to them, and don’t consist entirely of insults. I’ve responded to your assertions (assertions aren’t arguments), while all you do is vilify atheists.

 

[tonyrey]

Unlike you, my posts have some substance to them, and don’t consist entirely of insults.

“entirely” implies that your posts consists mainly of insults! I haven’t read them so I don’t know. But why degrade yourself by insulting others at all? Whether or not you were the first to do it is irrelevant. Again I don’t know and I don’t care. What I do know is that to descend to insults anywhere is to reveal a lack of self-control. On a public forum it hardly strengthens one’s argument or enhances one’s reputation…

 

[Oreoracle]

“entirely” implies that your posts consists mainly of insults! I haven’t read them so I don’t know. But why degrade yourself by insulting others at all? Whether or not you were the first to do it is irrelevant. Again I don’t know and I don’t care. What I do know is that to descend to insults anywhere is to reveal a lack of self-control. On a public forum it hardly strengthens one’s argument or enhances one’s reputation…

I think it’s odd that you give me advice while saying that you don’t care about my actions. What’s the point? Are you trying to look sagely in front of others?

Anyway, we’re human. Emotion is an inherent part of our reasoning, and sometimes we have to insult each other to change our minds. If someone conveys such an emotional attachment to an issue that it’s impossible to change their mind (and they sink to insulting you), it implies that the only way to change their mind is through emotion. Sometimes, it works. I’m going to try to correct others, even if it makes me look bad. To do otherwise is to value pride over the state of the world.

 

[Leela]

Leela

You still have not said whether it is an issue for your absolutism that God commanded incest in the Garden of Eden (“be fruitful and multiply”).

All sins produce deleterious effects, which is why certain acts are forbidden. Incest is sinful because it tends to produce deleterious effects. Since Cain was born of Adam and Eve, and his wife was born of Adam and Eve, the question becomes, “Was it possible that inbreeding would produce deleterious effects?

Why would it?

Adam and Eve were genetically fine specimens, since God would not have created them otherwise. The extraordinary lifespan of the early patriarchs up to the time of Noah and the number of their children testifies to their virility. When Adam’s male and female children mated, there would be no likelihood of spoiled or defective genes, and therefore no deleterious effects. Since the human race had to move on, the incest of Cain, Seth, and the other brothers with their sisters was imperative.

However, after many generations, due to the consequence of sin, the gene pool would deteriorate, with diseases resulting from sin being communicated from one person to another, and likewise to offspring. If you look at the ancestral trees of families living closer to Moses than to Adam, you notice a gradual shortening of the life span … more evidence that the gene pool is weakening.

If in a family two children have inherited the same disease, and they mate, the chances of that disease being passed on to their children are radically increased. When this was discovered, as no doubt it was before the time of Moses, it was necessary to proscribe incest as a sin. The most dangerous form of incest would be between parents and children, not just because of physical, but also because of deleterious psychological effects.

Freud’s dream studies are loaded with neurotic liaisons between parents and children.!

The principle of absolute morality is preserved in this way: it was absolutely right that the human race should be preserved (there being no other way) by the mating of Adam’s children; but now incest is absolutely wrong because no good can come of it and much bad.

The illusion many people will entertain here is that sin is sin; how can the same act not be a sin at one point, and be a sin at another point?

In the case of Cain, Seth, and others, there was no knowledge of deleterious effects (nor any reason to fear such) by mating with one’s sister. In Catholic theology, an act cannot be sinful unless one is conscious of its sinfulness.

Thanks for your answer. Your somewhat lengthy nuanced discussion of the ethics of incest makes it clear that in your view the morality of an act depends greatly on the circumstances in which it occurs, e.g. your considerations of whether those commiting insest were aware of the sinfulness or whether there was a possibility of any harmful effects. It would seem that incest is not “absolutely” wrong in the usual sense of being wrong for all time and under all circumstances. Those labeled “moral relativists” are generally given this label for pointing out the same thing. That’s why I can’t make much sense of the distinction. “Relativist” is either a label that would fit everyone, a straw man, or a pejorative term for anyone who holds a different moral view than the person doing the name-calling.

When do you suppose was the exact instant when incest became immoral?

If a brother and sister who were incapable of bearing children (no possibility of deleterious efects) married, would it be immoral?

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Charlamagne wrote:

In the case of Cain, Seth, and others, there was no knowledge of deleterious effects (nor any reason to fear such) by mating with one’s sister. In Catholic theology, an act cannot be sinful unless one is conscious of its sinfulness.

Is there a difference between not knowing that something is sinful and thinking that something is not sinful? In other words suppose two children grow up in a society that prohibits incest, but they do it anyway because they do not see anything wrong with it.

Best,
Leela

 

[JDaniel]

AIDS was just as dangerous for a heterosexual couple until quite recently, and ironically the main thing making it safer for heterosexuals is condom use which your church frowns upon.

Pele:

Actually, that is quite impossible. In 1979, when AIDS first became known as an epidemic, it was restricted to the gay community. Since that time, it has crawled out of the gay community and slowly entered the hetero community. Of the females with HIV or AIDS, the vast majority live in Africa. There is a reason why over 50% of world-wide HIV and AIDS infected females live there, which I’m not sure should be discussed on this forum.

duesberg.com/presentations/$bnAIDSQuiz.pdf

I have been familiar with this guy for over 20 years. Still doesn’t appear that anyone has been able to successfully prove him wrong.

jd

 

[tonyrey]

I think it’s odd that you give me advice while saying that you don’t care about my actions.

Please do not misrepresent me. I did not say I don’t care about your actions. I said I don’t care about whether you were the first to insult the other person.

Anyway, we’re human. Emotion is an inherent part of our reasoning, and sometimes we have to insult each other to change our minds. If someone conveys such an emotional attachment to an issue that it’s impossible to change their mind (and they sink to insulting you), it implies that the only way to change their mind is through emotion. Sometimes, it works. I’m going to try to correct others, even if it makes me look bad. To do otherwise is to value pride over the state of the world.

You are entitled to your opinion but I think insults are more likely to alienate the other person. The most effective approach is calm, dispassionate reasoning. Like you I’m not concerned about my reputation - about trying to look sage at my age! If people think I’m a superstitious idiot so what? I regard these discussions as a joint search for the truth and disagreement as a valuable stimulus but as far as possible surely it should be pleasant and enjoyable rather than a bitter conflict.

To return to the topic. Both atheism and religion can become motives for crime. Our real beliefs are revealed in the extent to which we are motivated by love for others…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

Is there a difference between not knowing that something is sinful and thinking that something is not sinful? In other words suppose two children grow up in a society that prohibits incest, but they do it anyway because they do not see anything wrong with it.

There may be instances where a person does not know that something is wrong, all the more so if the person has been taught all his life that something wrong is right.

However, the case you bring up suggests that incest is an act of rebellion against a morality that is clear-cut. To substitute one’s own judgment for that of God, or of society, is very risky business indeed. The substitution is most likely an act of defiance, or a desire to cover one’s sin by pretending that it is not sin. This is why some gay priests and bishops in the Episcopalian Church, for example, have defied the teaching of Scripture, by insisting that homosexual relations are good and to be blessed by the Church. If that isn’t rank moral relativism, I don’t know what is.

The same is true for Dr. Tiller, who unbelievably pretended to be a Christian all the while he was killing thousands of babies in the womb (and his Church let him pretend to be a member in good standing!). And it was more relativism when the killer of Dr. Tiller decided that cold blooded murder was defensible in order to stop cold-blooded murder.

*It would seem that incest is not “absolutely” wrong in the usual sense of being wrong for all time and under all circumstances. *

Well, not exactly. Again, if one is conscious of committing a sin against nature, and against conscience, it is always and absolutely wrong, and never right. The act of wanton killing is always and everywhere wrong, and has been ever since God cautioned Cain against killing Abel before he did it.

On the other hand, the act of killing in self defense is not an act of wanton killing. The act may be the same, and the result may be the same, but the motive is entirely different. We should not confuse the act with the motive. This is not moral relativism. Wanton killing, wanton rape, wanton defiance of God is absolutely wrong and never justifiable. If you can think of a case where it is, then you have blasted the notion of absolute morality.

*When do you suppose was the exact instant when incest became immoral? *

Exactly when incest came to be regarded as a sin is beyond me, and I’m curious as to why you ask. Isn’t that a little bit like asking when did atheism first become regarded as a sin? What difference does it make? These are things for God to decide, not us.

What we do know for sure is that, from the time of Moses on, the Jews could not say that incest was not a sin. They were for-warned and for-armed

If a brother and sister who were incapable of bearing children (no possibility of deleterious efects) married, would it be immoral?

Yes. Brother-sister incest, like parent-child incest, even without possibility of procreation, has a deleterious effect; that the commandment against incest is defied. Disobedience to God is a deleterious effect. Abraham knew this when he raised the knife to slay his son at God’s command. In the most difficult and painful moment of his life, he trusted God. This, of course, applies to any effort to skirt any other commandment. Trust God’s will over your own.

As someone has put it, the commandments are not suggestions that we can take or leave. God’s will is absolute. We are not wise who mess with it.

 

[tonyrey]

Oh yes, I should have expected protest from Tony, who believes that God is omnipotent but at the same time believes he isn’t.

Why not refute my argument rather than misrepresent what I believe? Your silence on the subject speaks for itself…

However, the Bible seems to chronicle times when God appeared to be rather capricious and impulsive…

Most Christians do not regard the OT as literally true in every detail…

 

[tonyrey]

I’ve responded to your assertions (assertions aren’t arguments), while all you do is vilify atheists.

That is precisely what you have not done with regard to my argument about omnipotence. If you were in my position you would say (as you have done in the past to someone else):
“I mean, if you saw a flaw in my reasoning, you would have surely pointed it out instead of spewing this garbage.”

 

[Oreoracle]

That is precisely what you have not done with regard to my argument about omnipotence.

You’ve said that I misrepresented your argument, but I honestly don’t see where I’ve went wrong in my interpretation. You always say that God is omnipotent but limited–is that not the antithesis of an omnipotent being?

And if my memory serves, you’ve bailed out of this discussion before on one of my threads (I believe it was: “Can we truly consent to infinite torture?”). I think it is you who has been silent.

 

[tonyrey]

You’ve said that I misrepresented your argument, but I honestly don’t see where I’ve went wrong in my interpretation. You always say that God is omnipotent but limited–is that not the antithesis of an omnipotent being?

Another misrepresentation. I do not maintain that God is omnipotent but limited. I maintain that God is omnipotent, that He **can choose **to restrict His omnipotence, that He is doing so by sharing His power with us and enabling us to frustrate His Will by committing every conceivable crime. (The colossal amount of evil in the world is evidence of our transcendence of physical causality). That is hardly the antithesis of an Omnipotent Being. If an allegedly Omnipotent Being could not choose to restrict His omnipotence He would not be omnipotent. He could even be accused of being selfish and miserly by failing to share His freedom and capacity for love!

And if my memory serves, you’ve bailed out of this discussion before on one of my threads (I believe it was: “Can we truly consent to infinite torture?”). I think it is you who has been silent.

Please supply the reference number. I cannot find a post of yours I have failed to answer.

 

[Oreoracle]

Another misrepresentation. I do not maintain that God is omnipotent but limited. I maintain that God is omnipotent, that He **can choose **to restrict His omnipotence, that He is doing so by sharing His power with us and enabling us to frustrate His Will by committing every conceivable crime. (The colossal amount of evil in the world is evidence of our transcendence of physical causality). That is hardly the antithesis of an Omnipotent Being. If an allegedly Omnipotent Being could not choose to restrict His omnipotence He would not be omnipotent. He could even be accused of being selfish and miserly by failing to share His freedom and capacity for love!

Choosing not to exercise all of the abilities that omnipotence entails is not the same as restricting it. There’s a big difference between promising to never use your right arm again and severing the limb so that you may not use it again. A promise is not the same as a restriction; one is a matter of choice, the other is not.

And, by definition, it is impossible to frustrate an omnipotent being’s will. It is said that God succeeds in all of his endeavours. The only time he wouldn’t succeed is when he isn’t opting for success.

Please supply the reference number. I cannot find a post of yours I have failed to answer.

You only responded to the last part of post #66 (your response was #70). Since the thread is closed, I’ll ask it here, since it’s still relevant in this thread: how did God perform countless miracles, such as the ones listed in post #66, if he cannot perform logically contradictory actions?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Oreoracle

From Your post # 404:

*I’ve responded to your assertions (assertions aren’t arguments), while all you do is vilify atheists. *

My views are consistent with Scripture. This is a Catholic website and you cannot deny the right of Catholics to present scriptural citations. You are free to dispute these arguments as you like. You are not free to say Christ vilifies atheists without explaining why. And I am free to cite Christ’s opinion of those who deny him, which certainly includes atheists.

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

I can’t see how wanton atheism escapes this condemnation. Can you?

 

[Oreoracle]

My views are consistent with Scripture. This is a Catholic website and you cannot deny the right of Catholics to present scriptural citations.

Your insults do not take the form of scriptural quotations. Even if they did, such words would still be considered hate speech, no matter what their origin is.

You are free to dispute these arguments as you like. You are not free to say Christ vilifies atheists without explaining why.

If Christ says that atheism is an evil state of mind and that secularism is an evil ideology, then he should provide reasons. God does not appear to provide reasons for his ethical claims, he basically just says “I’m the boss! Listen to me even if my assertions make no sense to your minds (which I created)!”

And I am free to cite Christ’s opinion of those who deny him, which certainly includes atheists.

And I’m free to provide my own opinion. But all things considered, which of our opinions makes more sense? I already know your answer, of course. I’m merely saying that having a right to express an opinion doesn’t mean the opinion isn’t garbage. And spewing garbage is wrong, any way you look at it.

I can’t see how wanton atheism escapes this condemnation. Can you?

No, but I can’t see why God’s opinion is worthwhile. Can you explain why it is?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*I’m merely saying that having a right to express an opinion doesn’t mean the opinion isn’t garbage. And spewing garbage is wrong, any way you look at it …but I can’t see why God’s opinion is worthwhile. *

Are you implying that God’s opinion is “spewing garbage”?

If I said to you the rate of suicide among atheists is significantly higher than the rate of suicide among religious people, would you again be arguing that I am vilifying atheists, or as you so endearingly put it, “spewing garbage”?

adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html