Why would God include carnivory, parasitism, and disease in creation?

[Bradski]

Acceptance of the moral teaching of Jesus implies that He was not misguided nor deluded in His claim to be the Messiah.

I’m not implying that. Believing that what He is purported to have said is a good basis for living a moral life has no bearing on His claim to divinity. What Ghandi said, or Socrates or Hume said can lead you to making correct moral decisions but that doesn’t lead me to believe they were divine. You can take what Jesus said and use it in your personal life without having to accept Him as the son of God.

Physical homosexuality and contraception are also proscribed by other faiths and individuals without a religion.

Which doesn’t make homosexuality or contraception immoral. Neither does the fact that 98% of Catholic women of child bearing age have used or are using contraception make it morally correct. These are decisions we must make ourselves.

It doesn’t - given that you accept the moral teaching of Jesus.

That in reply to my asking if my being an atheist makes my decisions less relevant than yours.

This runs completely counter to claims that most Christians make that without a belief in God, there is no basis for morality. You are saying that if I believe that what Jesus taught is morally correct, then I can live a moral life without God. I can practically guarantee that most atheists would have no problem in accepting what Jesus taught.

 

[tonyrey]

Acceptance of the moral teaching of Jesus implies that He was not misguided nor deluded in His claim to be the Messiah.

You mean one can pick and choose the aspects of His teaching which **seem **to fit into one’s scheme of things?

Physical homosexuality and contraception are also proscribed by other faiths and individuals without a religion.

Which doesn’t make homosexuality or contraception immoral. Neither does the fact that 98% of Catholic women of child bearing age have used or are using contraception make it morally correct. These are decisions we must make ourselves.

I agree - but not entirely by ourselves.

It doesn’t - given that you accept the moral teaching of Jesus.

That in reply to my asking if my being an atheist makes my decisions less relevant than yours.

Your atheism relies for its moral principles to a considerable extent on the founder of Christianity.

This runs completely counter to claims that most Christians make that without a belief in God, there is no basis for morality. You are saying that if I believe that what Jesus taught is morally correct, then I can live a moral life without God. I can practically guarantee that most atheists would have no problem in accepting what Jesus taught.

Thank God for that! They recognise at least a substantial part of His teaching - unlike Nietzsche et alia.

I append the other points in my previous post for reference:

But if it’s not the basis for morality (love thy neighbour as thyself), then what is? Love is not solely empathetic but also rational and voluntary.

To believe we’re all part of the same family implies that we’re not freaks of nature which exist for no reason or purpose and are linked **solely **by an accident of birth.

Religions are based on the belief that existence is rational rather than absurd.

Living with the infirmities of old age for many years is far worse than a swift death.
BTW Predators normally kill before they eat.

No one can explained how all suffering could be eliminated.

The fact that you can imagine a world composed only of persons and plants demonstrates that we could imagine a world with far more richness and variety. I think many animal lovers would disagree with you - especially when they have no one to love them. If you were in their situation I’m sure you would produce that very objection in an animal-less world. Would you find plants sufficient company?

Your speculation about what you would have done as a caveman is based on your modern upbringing and intellectual environment! The point is whether you would opt out now and advise everyone else to do the same.

Extinction does not imply that life valueless.

To believe that the occurrence of purposeless events implies that all events are ultimately purposeless is illogical.

 

[Bradski]

You mean one can pick and choose the aspects of His teaching which **seem **to fit into one’s scheme of things…

No. One don’t start with a scheme of things and then see who you would choose to fit that scheme. At least, I don’t do that. I investigate what aspects are available and then, and only then, do I make a choice as to whether I believe they are correct. Then I include them into what I believe to be correct.

I’m not actually aware of anything that Jesus taught with which I am in disagreement. There are positions that other people have taken, some of which I agree with and some with which I don’t. I’m open to all viewpoints. But if there was a position that Jesus took that, after serious consideration, I would reject, then so be it. I don’t hold Him to be infallible.

Your atheism relies for its moral principles to a considerable extent on the founder of Christianity.

Atheism isn’t a position from which one can develop moral principles. It’s simply a lack of a belief in gods. But I am quite able, and more than willing, to use any principles developed from religious beliefs as a basis for my own. As I said earlier, just because you claim a moral standpoint to be Christiain doesn’t mean it becomes solely Christian.

To repeat: one doesn’t have to be a Christian to hold beliefs that you might consider to be specifically Christian.

 

[tonyrey]

You mean one can pick and choose the aspects of His teaching which **seem **

Do you have no basic moral principles which guide your choices?

Your atheism relies for its moral principles to a considerable extent on the founder of Christianity.

Atheism isn’t a position from which one can develop moral principles. It’s simply a lack of a belief in gods. But I am quite able, and more than willing, to use any principles developed from religious beliefs as a basis for my own. As I said earlier, just because you claim a moral standpoint to be Christian doesn’t mean it becomes solely Christian.

It does mean you take the moral teaching out of its context. The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are no longer based on everyone being members of God’s family. It becomes an arbitrary rule based on an accident of birth - which fails to convince many people.

 

[Gaber]

I’m sorry I can’t conduct long discussions on a thread with more than two persons at a time as I have to answer posts on other threads as well and unfortunately I don’t have an unlimited amount of time for the forum. My replies to Bradski will probably deal with most of your points anyway.

Of course not. It is very inconvenient to do so. And an atheist is more fun to deal with for you, I owuld think, than someone whose understanding of God is different than doubt, denial, or the usual, on here, Christian model. So I appreciate what you are saying, but also have seen that your replies to Bradski would be insufficient to my view. But it is fun to read them, anyway. Wage on!

 

[Sair]

Morality certainly cannot be based solely on human opinions - including criminals’.

Why not? Why, if the vast majority of humans agree that it is unpleasant to be abused, raped murdered, should we not, as a community, condemn such actions? As Sam Harris has put it, what we condemn in a person’s actions, morally speaking, is the intention to do harm - not whether or not they felt compelled by their psychological makeup or upbringing to commit harmful actions.

Human minds transcend the reality revealed by science.

How, exactly?

A zap from a natural source such as atomic particles is a hopelessly inadequate explanation which lacks even the hint of a mechanism for consciousness.

Sad to say, but you seem to have a hopelessly inadequate grasp of how natural selection is considered to work.

That is a common failing of most men and women - from which the enemies of religion are not immune.

What does that have to do with the persecution visited by Christian authorities upon non-conformists?

Is modern civilisation based on the non-beliefs of enemies of religion like yourself?

Modern civilisation is largely based upon Enlightenment principles - which, if not exactly opposed to religion, at least required questioning of the spoon-fed assumptions of received religious morality.

Only for those who blind themselves to the large number of conversions to Christianity…

Which are becoming fewer and fewer, except amongst fundamentalist evangelical sects.

Those who despise and reject religious beliefs belligerently are the last to receive signs.

Wow. You really didn’t read my posts, did you? I was a card-carrying, committed Catholic until about the age of 20. That’s plenty of time for an omnipotent god to have given me some sign of authenticity.

Unpleasant responsibilities which are strictly limited in number by your rejection of any moral authority other than yourself…

Or would be, if I had some means of completely ignoring every other person with whom I ever interact.

The assumption that will-power is a fiction implies that you are a cog in a machine, the unreliable thoughts and decisions of which are caused by inanimate objects.

If the causal relationships within the human brain are of the same nature as the causal relationships in the external world, whence “unreliable”?

Your diatribe is unnecessary because I am referring to the authentic ethical trial we discussed on another thread - and at the end of this post.

Only it’s not an authentic ethical trial in any philosophical sense - it’s a sensationalised attempt at a trap for those who don’t share your emotively motivated anthropocentric beliefs. Some of us are not so constituted - by nature or by the design of your god; take your pick - to automatically prefer our own species if there is no established relationship. Can you give me a genuinely morally sound, unprejudiced, considered reason I should not prefer to safeguard the welfare of my own dog, for whose life and wellbeing I have assumed responsibility, over the infant child of a human stranger?

I have already done so on yet another thread:

I’m afraid the word salad you quoted does nothing to counter the claim that Christianity is a religion that glorifies human sacrifice.

Both were Marxists, i.e. dialectical materialists.

Um…so what? If their understanding of reality, in terms of the way human society operates, was incorrect, it was incorrect - just as the understanding of reality imposed by feudal Christian regimes in earlier times was incorrect. Both resulted in injustices. The problem was that they tried to impose their understanding of social reality upon the people they ruled - and interestingly enough, that is exactly what the Catholic church set out to do, and still does, in its now more politically limited way.

The comparison of the sacrifice of a child for another child with the sacrifice of a child for a dog reveals a rejection of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

So is a parent selfish for favouring their own child over another or not? Do you realise what a moral minefield you open here? Is it a recognition of the UDHR to invest solely in the welfare of one’s own offspring and completely ignore the needs of much more needy children in developing nations? Is it ever okay, under the UDHR, to refuse charitable donation to the less fortunate? What’s more, the UDHR recognises the existence of extenuating circumstances in which humans cannot be expected to act with complete forethought for consequences, as which entrapment in a burning building certainly qualifies. And I notice you say nothing now about your utterly erroneous accusation, towards me, of anthropocentrism. Further to my earlier point about providing a morally sound reason to prefer a human infant over a dog - all other circumstances being equal, what morally sound, unprejudiced, considered justification can you offer for preferring to safeguard the welfare of your own child (assuming you have children) over that of another human’s child? Do bear in mind that if you claim paternal instinct in this regard, you have acknowledged that at least some of our moral judgements are made independently of rational deliberation.

 

[tonyrey]

Why, if the vast majority of humans agree that it is unpleasant to be abused, raped murdered, should we not, as a community, condemn such actions?Unpleasantness alone is not a sufficient reason.

As Sam Harris has put it, what we condemn in a person’s actions, morally speaking, is the intention to do harm - not whether or not they felt compelled by their psychological makeup or upbringing to commit harmful actions.

How, exactly?By insight and control.

Sad to say, but you seem to have a hopelessly inadequate grasp of how natural selection is considered to work.

No one has ever explained how consciousness is derived from inanimate objects.

What does that have to do with the persecution visited by Christian authorities upon non-conformists?

The same significance as the persecution visited by the enemies of religion on those who don’t conform to their views.

Modern civilisation is largely based upon Enlightenment principles - which, if not exactly opposed to religion, at least required questioning of the spoon-fed assumptions of received religious morality.

Enlightenment principles were based on Christian teaching which had preserved and developed Greek and Roman concepts of morality and justice in the light of the teaching of Jesus.

Which are becoming fewer and fewer, except amongst fundamentalist evangelical sects.

You are obviously unaware of the statistics for Africa, Asia and South America.

I was a card-carrying, committed Catholic until about the age of 20. That’s plenty of time for an omnipotent god to have given me some sign of authenticity.

An inherited religion is worthless unless it is accepted intellectually, morally and spiritually.

Unpleasant responsibilities which are strictly limited in number by your rejection of any moral authority other than yourself…

Or would be, if I had some means of completely ignoring every other person with whom I ever interact.You have provided evidence that you feel few - and in some instances no - obligations to those you have never met.

If the causal relationships within the human brain are of the same nature as the causal relationships in the external world, whence “unreliable”?

Events in the external world have no insight into reality.

…Can you give me a genuinely morally sound, unprejudiced, considered reason I should not prefer to safeguard the welfare of my own dog, for whose life and wellbeing I have assumed responsibility, over the infant child of a human stranger?

The very fact that you ask that question amounts to a rejection of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - and the inhumanity of many of those who regard their own concept of morality as paramount.

I’m afraid the word salad you quoted does nothing to counter the claim that Christianity is a religion that glorifies human sacrifice.

Your belligerent and irrational sarcasm fails to refute a single statement I have made…

Both were Marxists, i.e. dialectical materialists.

Um…so what? You stated that it is a “fallacy that the regimes of Stalin and Mao were atheistic.”

…The problem was that they tried to impose their understanding of social reality upon the people they ruled - and interestingly enough, that is exactly what the Catholic church set out to do, and still does, in its now more politically limited way.

An unsubstantiated allegation in addition to being an odious, totally unjustified comparison of the Catholic Church with the regimes of Stalin and Mao which merely reveals your irrational and prejudiced animosity.

The comparison of the sacrifice of a child for another child with the sacrifice of a child for a dog reveals a rejection of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

So is a parent selfish for favouring their own child over another or not?.. What’s more, the UDHR recognises the existence of extenuating circumstances in which humans cannot be expected to act with complete forethought for consequences, as which entrapment in a burning building certainly qualifies. And I notice you say nothing now about your utterly erroneous accusation, towards me, of anthropocentrism. Further to my earlier point about providing a morally sound reason to prefer a human infant over a dog - all other circumstances being equal, what morally sound, unprejudiced, considered justification can you offer for preferring to safeguard the welfare of your own child (assuming you have children) over that of another human’s child? Do bear in mind that if you claim paternal instinct in this regard, you have acknowledged that at least some of our moral judgements are made independently of rational deliberation.

You are still evading the fact that the comparison of the sacrifice of a child for another child with the sacrifice of a child for a dog amounts to a rejection of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Your reference to “extenuating circumstances” proves that the sacrifice of a child for a dog is normally totally unjustified.

The question about preferring to safeguard the welfare of your own child (assuming you have children) over that of another child is a red herring which has no bearing on the subject whatsoever. Animals have rights but no rational, civilised person believes they have the same right to life as a human being.
[/QUOTE]

 

[tonyrey]

Why, if the vast majority of humans agree that it is unpleasant to be abused, raped murdered, should we not, as a community, condemn such actions?

Unpleasantness alone is not a sufficient reason.

As Sam Harris has put it, what we condemn in a person’s actions, morally speaking, is the intention to do harm - not whether or not they felt compelled by their psychological makeup or upbringing to commit harmful actions.

1. “to do harm” begs the question. What determines whether something is harmful?
2. If intentions are determined by physical causes - as materialists maintain - it is as absurd to condemn intentions as it is to condemn instincts and desires.

Human minds transcend the reality revealed by science.

How, exactly?

By insight and control.

Sad to say, but you seem to have a hopelessly inadequate grasp of how natural selection is considered to work.

No one has ever explained how consciousness is derived from inanimate objects.

What does that have to do with the persecution visited by Christian authorities upon non-conformists?

The same significance as the persecution visited by the enemies of religion on those who don’t conform to their views.

Modern civilisation is largely based upon Enlightenment principles - which, if not exactly opposed to religion, at least required questioning of the spoon-fed assumptions of received religious morality.

Enlightenment principles were based on Christian teaching which had preserved and developed Greek and Roman concepts of morality and justice in the light of the teaching of Jesus.

Which are becoming fewer and fewer, except amongst fundamentalist evangelical sects.

You are obviously unaware of the statistics for Africa, Asia and South America.

I was a card-carrying, committed Catholic until about the age of 20. That’s plenty of time for an omnipotent god to have given me some sign of authenticity.

An inherited religion is worthless unless it is accepted intellectually, morally and spiritually.

Unpleasant responsibilities which are strictly limited in number by your rejection of any moral authority other than yourself…

Or would be, if I had some means of completely ignoring every other person with whom I ever interact.

You have provided evidence that you feel few - and in some instances no - obligations to those you have never met.

If the causal relationships within the human brain are of the same nature as the causal relationships in the external world, whence “unreliable”?

Events in the external world have no insight into reality.

…Can you give me a genuinely morally sound, unprejudiced, considered reason I should not prefer to safeguard the welfare of my own dog, for whose life and wellbeing I have assumed responsibility, over the infant child of a human stranger?

The very fact that you ask that question amounts to a rejection of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - and the inhumanity of many of those who regard their own concept of morality as paramount.

I’m afraid the word salad you quoted does nothing to counter the claim that Christianity is a religion that glorifies human sacrifice.

Your belligerent and irrational sarcasm fails to refute a single statement I have made…

Both were Marxists, i.e. dialectical materialists.

Um…so what?

You stated that it is a “fallacy that the regimes of Stalin and Mao were atheistic.”

…The problem was that they tried to impose their understanding of social reality upon the people they ruled - and interestingly enough, that is exactly what the Catholic church set out to do, and still does, in its now more politically limited way.

An unsubstantiated allegation in addition to being an odious, totally unjustified comparison of the Catholic Church with the regimes of Stalin and Mao which merely reveals your irrational and prejudiced animosity.

The comparison of the sacrifice of a child for another child with the sacrifice of a child for a dog reveals a rejection of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

So is a parent selfish for favouring their own child over another or not?.. What’s more, the UDHR recognises the existence of extenuating circumstances in which humans cannot be expected to act with complete forethought for consequences, as which entrapment in a burning building certainly qualifies. And I notice you say nothing now about your utterly erroneous accusation, towards me, of anthropocentrism. Further to my earlier point about providing a morally sound reason to prefer a human infant over a dog - all other circumstances being equal, what morally sound, unprejudiced, considered justification can you offer for preferring to safeguard the welfare of your own child (assuming you have children) over that of another human’s child? Do bear in mind that if you claim paternal instinct in this regard, you have acknowledged that at least some of our moral judgements are made independently of rational deliberation.

You are still evading the fact that the comparison of the sacrifice of a child for another child with the sacrifice of a child for a dog amounts to a rejection of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Your reference to “extenuating circumstances” proves that the sacrifice of a child for a dog is totally unjustified.

The question about preferring to safeguard the welfare of your own child over that of another child is a red herring which has no bearing on the subject whatsoever. Animals have rights but no rational, civilised person believes they have the same right to life as a human being.

 

[tonyrey]

**Sair ** Can you give me a genuinely morally sound, unprejudiced, considered reason I should not prefer to safeguard the welfare of my own dog, for whose life and wellbeing I have assumed responsibility, over the infant child of a human stranger?

Clarification:

The very fact that you ask that question amounts to a rejection of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - and is evidence of the inhumanity of many of those who regard their own concept of morality as paramount.

 

[Bradski]

Do you have no basic moral principles which guide your choices?

Yes. Probably the same ones that you’d have if there were no religions to guide us. Do not steal, do not cause harm to others – all the usual stuff that’s needed to be able to live in reasonable harmony in something approaching a stable society. I know Christianity advocates these basic moral principles as well, but we’d come to these ourselves.

You’re treading dangerous grounds if you suggest that we wouldn’t be able to develop these ourselves without religion, because inherent in that is the implication that without Christian morals, you would be an immoral person. I don’t think that I’m immoral because I’m an atheist. And I don’t think that someone becomes immoral if they lose their belief in God. Therefore, morals can be entirely independent of religious beliefs.

It does mean you take the moral teaching out of its context. The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are no longer based on everyone being members of God’s family. It becomes an arbitrary rule based on an accident of birth - which fails to convince many people.

If you feel the need to have moral laws expressed within the context of Christianity, then that’s your prerogative. We may end up following the same moral precepts as each other. But you follow them because you believe them to be correct because they are Christian and I follow them because I believe them to be correct and they are Christian.

 

[Sair]

Clarification:

The very fact that you ask that question amounts to a rejection of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - and is evidence of the inhumanity of many of those who regard their own concept of morality as paramount.

Further clarification - you have no explanation to offer other than your own anthropocentrism. Fall back on the UDHR all you like, but it is your own prejudice showing through - you just don’t appear to want to own it. You pretend the UDHR has its basis in Christian morality, but it is by no means a religious document, nor is it heeded by all persons and cultures - even those who pay it lip-service. And like you, it doesn’t register the existence and welfare of nonhuman sentient life as at all significant. You are free to think that, of course - but according to the UDHR itself, I too am entitled to freedom of thought and of conscience, and my conscience tells me that it is a bad thing to abandon a living being for whose welfare I have assumed responsibility, in order to save another living being to whom I have no connection whatsoever other than species.

 

[Sair]

Unpleasantness alone is not a sufficient reason.

Then nothing is, when we consider the kind of unpleasantness offered as examples.

1. If intentions are determined by physical causes - as materialists maintain - it is as absurd to condemn intentions as it is to condemn instincts and desires.

The only reason we don’t lock up natural disasters is because we can’t.

By insight and control.

Which are attained by fine attunement to physical reality.

No one has ever explained how consciousness is derived from inanimate objects.

Neuroscientists are working on it. And matter is not, by definition, inanimate - physics has moved on from that understanding.

Enlightenment principles were based on Christian teaching which had preserved and developed Greek and Roman concepts of morality and justice in the light of the teaching of Jesus.

Enlightenment thinking took root despite the efforts of the church establishment, not because of it.

An inherited religion is worthless unless it is accepted intellectually, morally and spiritually.

Who are you to say that I did not thus accept it?

You have provided evidence that you feel few - and in some instances no - obligations to those you have never met.

And you feel more obligation to imaginary beings than you do to real ones! I have only limited resources, as does anyone - am I supposed to ignore the suffering at my doorstep in order to attend to that which occurs in other countries?

Events in the external world have no insight into reality.

Events in the world of which we ourselves are part are the very stuff of reality. It’s egotistical to suppose that you stand somewhere above and beyond this.

The very fact that you ask that question amounts to a rejection of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - and the inhumanity of many of those who regard their own concept of morality as paramount.

Which you clearly do, though you seem reluctant to own it.

Your belligerent and irrational sarcasm fails to refute a single statement I have made…

As your quotation failed to address my point.

You stated that it is a “fallacy that the regimes of Stalin and Mao were atheistic.”

It is a fallacy to the extent that the atrocities of their regimes were motivated by atheism. They were not.

An unsubstantiated allegation in addition to being an odious, totally unjustified comparison of the Catholic Church with the regimes of Stalin and Mao which merely reveals your irrational and prejudiced animosity.

Perfectly rational, actually, when one considers the abuses visited upon people throughout the history of the Catholic church. It is a political organisation, one that has been around far longer than what passes for communism in the modern world.

You are still evading the fact that the comparison of the sacrifice of a child for another child with the sacrifice of a child for a dog amounts to a rejection of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Your reference to “extenuating circumstances” proves that the sacrifice of a child for a dog is totally unjustified.

It proves nothing of the kind, actually. There is nothing within the UDHR that forbids me from acting expediently, or demands that I abandon all other responsibilities when the life of a child is in danger. But if you choose to define something as a crime, and you recognise that there are circumstances under which someone might do such an action without malice aforethought or other deliberate intent, then their behaviour may be considered justified by those circumstances.

The question about preferring to safeguard the welfare of your own child over that of another child is a red herring which has no bearing on the subject whatsoever. Animals have rights but no rational, civilised person believes they have the same right to life as a human being.

Where the same interests exist, the same rights exist - unless you are a speciesist. An adult dog has at least as much interest in remaining alive as a human infant. Thus far, they are equal and entitled to equal consideration - I repeat, unless you are a speciesist.

 

[tonyrey]

Unpleasantness alone is not a sufficient reason.

What distinguishes those examples?

1. If intentions are determined by physical causes - as materialists maintain - it is as absurd to condemn intentions as it is to condemn instincts and desires.

The only reason we don’t lock up natural disasters is because we can’t.

I fail to see the relevance of that statement.

By insight and control.

Which are attained by fine attunement to physical reality.

Attunement presupposes insight and control.

No one has ever explained how consciousness is derived from inanimate objects.

Neuroscientists are working on it.

As an act of faith.

And matter is not, by definition, inanimate - physics has moved on from that understanding.

Are atomic particles forms of life?

Enlightenment principles were based on Christian teaching which had preserved and developed Greek and Roman concepts of morality and justice in the light of the teaching of Jesus.

Enlightenment thinking took root despite the efforts of the church establishment, not because of it.

Individuals in the Church have sometimes hindered intellectual and scientific progress after the Church had preserved and developed Greek and Roman concepts of morality and justice in the light of the teaching of Jesus.

An inherited religion is worthless unless it is accepted intellectually, morally and spiritually.

Who are you to say that I did not thus accept it?

Subsequent events have proved that the acceptance was immature.

You have provided evidence that you feel few - and in some instances no - obligations to those you have never met.

And you feel more obligation to imaginary beings than you do to real ones! I have only limited resources, as does anyone - am I supposed to ignore the suffering at my doorstep in order to attend to that which occurs in other countries?

Non sequitur. It is a question of principle not practice.

Events in the external world have no insight into reality.

Events in the world of which we ourselves are part are the very stuff of reality. It’s egotistical to suppose that you stand somewhere above and beyond this.

It is unrealistic to suppose natural objects have insight into natural objects.

The very fact that you ask that question amounts to a rejection of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - and the inhumanity of many of those who regard their own concept of morality as paramount.

Which you clearly do, though you seem reluctant to own it.

Neither Christian beliefs and values nor Human Rights are my concept.

Your belligerent and irrational sarcasm fails to refute a single statement I have made…
As your quotation failed to address my point.

Precisely how?

You stated that it is a “fallacy that the regimes of Stalin and Mao were atheistic.”

It is a fallacy to the extent that the atrocities of their regimes were motivated by atheism. They were not.

The atrocities of their regimes were the consequence of their atheism which gave them the illusion that their own concept of morality was paramount.

An unsubstantiated allegation in addition to being an odious, totally unjustified comparison of the Catholic Church with the regimes of Stalin and Mao which merely reveals your irrational and prejudiced animosity.

Perfectly rational, actually, when one considers the abuses visited upon people throughout the history of the Catholic church. It is a political organisation, one that has been around far longer than what passes for communism in the modern world.

You are falsely identifying the Church with a political organisation.

You are still evading the fact that the comparison of the sacrifice of a child for another child with the sacrifice of a child for a dog amounts to a rejection of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Your reference to “extenuating circumstances” proves that the sacrifice of a child for a dog is totally unjustified.

It proves nothing of the kind, actually. There is nothing within the UDHR that forbids me from acting expediently, or demands that I abandon all other responsibilities when the life of a child is in danger.

Which “other responsibilities” are more important than the life of a child?

But if you choose to define something as a crime, and you recognise that there are circumstances under which someone might do such an action without malice aforethought or other deliberate intent, then their behaviour may be considered justified by those circumstances.

Manslaughter is often due to culpable negligence .

The question about preferring to safeguard the welfare of your own child over that of another child is a red herring which has no bearing on the subject whatsoever. Animals have rights but no rational, civilised person believes they have the same right to life as a human being.

Where the same interests exist, the same rights exist - unless you are a speciesist. An adult dog has at least as much interest in remaining alive as a human infant. Thus far, they are equal and entitled to equal consideration - I repeat, unless you are a speciesist.

In that case you unequivocally reject the Universal Declaration of **Human **Rights as speciesism.

 

[Sair]

What distinguishes those examples?

The extent to which they damage the well-being of the victims, for a start.

I fail to see the relevance of that statement.

Consider the difference between a person who commits a crime of passion - that is, say, a murder motivated by an extreme emotional reaction, without premeditation, and a person who persists in the intention to harm others - someone like a serial rapist or murderer, for example. As a society, we see fit to punish the former with incarceration, usually - if only to point out that their transgression was unacceptable behaviour. In the case of the latter, they may be incarcerated or even executed not only because their behaviour is unacceptable, but because there is a need to protect others from their continued intention to do harm. Does it really matter, in that context, whether their intention springs from natural or supernatural causes? My statement before was in reference to a comment from Sam Harris, who argues that morality is indeed a matter for scientific discussion and investigation - that if morality is not a matter of the well-being of sentient beings, then moral philosophy is essentially meaningless. If we could prevent - or “lock up” - natural disasters, Harris argues, we would - not because they have free will, but because they pose a threat to sentient beings such as ourselves.

Attunement presupposes insight and control.

How does it presuppose, rather than give rise to?

As an act of faith.

Not in the least - as an act of serious investigation. All available evidence points to direct linkages between brain states and mental states.

Are atomic particles forms of life?

Not individually, but in particular interactive arrangements of matter, life as we know it arises. Why should life be something mystical? ‘Living’ and ‘animate’ are not synonyms - the wind is animate, and water is animate, and fire is animate, but none of these have the defining characteristics of life.

Individuals in the Church have sometimes hindered intellectual and scientific progress after the Church had preserved and developed Greek and Roman concepts of morality and justice in the light of the teaching of Jesus.

Why weren’t these individuals inspired by their religion to act at the highest level of morality? Doesn’t that count as a failure of one of the claimed purposes of religion?

Subsequent events have proved that the acceptance was immature.

Acceptance of any delusion is immature, no matter how serious.

Non sequitur. It is a question of principle not practice.

But principle is useless without practice. My good intentions alone will do absolutely nothing for the starving children in developing nations.

It is unrealistic to suppose natural objects have insight into natural objects.

It is unrealistic to suppose that supernatural objects even exist, much less have any effect in a natural world.

 

[Sair]

Neither Christian beliefs and values nor Human Rights are my concept.

But your personal interpretation of these concepts is your affair - if you believe something, claim it as your own belief. Don’t palm it off on a supposedly higher authority as if you have no personal autonomy.

Precisely how?

You merely elaborated upon the Christian glorification of torture and human sacrifice (not to mention, introducing an element of masochism) by claiming that it was voluntarily undertaken. That does not address the problem of why the sacrifice of Jesus was necessary in the first place, in a world and for a race of beings supposedly created by a perfectly good god.

The atrocities of their regimes were the consequence of their atheism which gave them the illusion that their own concept of morality was paramount.

The atrocities of any totalitarian regime are the product of an obsessive desire for power and control on the part of the leaders of such regimes. What philosophy they use to justify their actions is irrelevant - it’s rationalisation after the fact. Henry VIII, for example, managed to become a very effective despot whilst using nothing but the law of his god to “justify” his actions.

You are falsely identifying the Church with a political organisation.

You have offered no evidence to refute the claim, and the church has historically taken a great interest in worldly political affairs - even to actively supporting fascist regimes in the first half of last century.

Which “other responsibilities” are more important than the life of a child?

Responsibilities to others in my life, for one thing. Others to whose welfare I have actively and directly made commitments. If you genuinely believe that there is no more important object in any person’s life than the life of a child with whom they are not in any way associated, then you were very wrong in identifying my previous comparison as a red herring - how do you distinguish between one child and another, when you have to choose one? What makes one of those children more important than the other? You must have a way to distinguish, since you consider morality to be such a black-and-white issue with no room for expediency or personal attachment.

Manslaughter is often due to culpable negligence.

When it is considered that a person has ignored circumstances of which they should have been aware, yes it is; when the person in question is constrained by circumstances, negligence does not apply.

In that case you unequivocally reject the Universal Declaration of **Human **Rights as speciesism.

By its very nature, it is a speciesist document. That is a statement of fact, since it makes no reference to nonhuman animals. Interestingly, it also makes no reference to humans of non-heterosexual orientation, but that’s not relevant to the present discussion. No, I don’t on that basis reject it on principle - in general, it is far more enlightened than any previous consideration of a universalised morality. But just as the circle of moral consideration - as formulated by Western philosophers, anyway - underwent expansion (centuries after the time of Jesus’s existence, by the way) to include men of all races, then male children, then women, then female children, so it has room for further expansion to include consideration of the comparable interests and rights of nonhuman animals.

Considering that this particular discussion - arising from the issue of why a good god would include extensive suffering as an unavoidable necessity in his creation - stems from you accusing me of anthropocentrism, I think we have reached a point where it is abundantly clear that if either of us is anthropocentric, it is certainly not me. I don’t think you can credibly claim - in the attempt to support your thesis that suffering is not bad, according to all meaningful definitions of ‘bad’ - that human perceptions of the suffering of other sentient beings are anthropocentric, whilst at the same time rejecting all animals other than humans as subjects worthy of moral consideration.

 

[tonyrey]

Do you have no basic moral principles which guide your choices?

Did human beings come to the universal principles of liberty, equality and fraternity before the advent of Christ?

You’re treading dangerous grounds if you suggest that we wouldn’t be able to develop these ourselves without religion, because inherent in that is the implication that without Christian morals, you would be an immoral person.

Culpability cannot exist without knowledge of what is right and wrong.

I don’t think that I’m immoral because I’m an atheist. And I don’t think that someone becomes immoral if they lose their belief in God. Therefore, morals can be entirely independent of religious beliefs.

We live in a society with a heritage of Christian morality. Stalin is but one example of what happens to morality when religion is rejected.

It does mean you take the moral teaching out of its context. The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are no longer based on everyone being members of God’s family. It becomes an arbitrary rule based on an accident of birth - which fails to convince many people.

If you feel the need to have moral laws expressed within the context of Christianity, then that’s your prerogative.

It’s not a feeling but a fact. If we have no Father in heaven we are not members of a family but individuals linked solely by an accident of birth.

We may end up following the same moral precepts as each other. But you follow them because you believe them to be correct because they are Christian and I follow them because I believe them to be correct and they are Christian.

I follow them because it is reasonable to believe the teaching of Christ that we exist by Design - not by Chance.

 

[tonyrey]

What distinguishes those examples?

“well-being” also begs the question because it is interpreted differently by a hedonist and a non-hedonist.

Consider the difference between a person who commits a crime of passion - that is, say, a murder motivated by an extreme emotional reaction, without premeditation, and a person who persists in the intention to harm others - someone like a serial rapist or murderer, for example. As a society, we see fit to punish the former with incarceration, usually - if only to point out that their transgression was unacceptable behaviour. In the case of the latter, they may be incarcerated or even executed not only because their behaviour is unacceptable, but because there is a need to protect others from their continued intention to do harm. Does it really matter, in that context, whether their intention springs from natural or supernatural causes? My statement before was in reference to a comment from Sam Harris, who argues that morality is indeed a matter for scientific discussion and investigation - that if morality is not a matter of the well-being of sentient beings, then moral philosophy is essentially meaningless. If we could prevent - or “lock up” - natural disasters, Harris argues, we would - not because they have free will, but because they pose a threat to sentient beings such as ourselves.

In that case Harris overlooks the legal presumptions of innocence and guilt which are **not **determined by natural causes.

Attunement presupposes insight and control.

How does it presuppose, rather than give rise to?

Animals are not attuned to their environment by insight but by conditioning.

As an act of faith.

Not in the least - as an act of serious investigation.

All science is based on an act of faith.

All available evidence points to direct linkages between brain states and mental states.

Linkage does not imply causation.

Are atomic particles forms of life?

Not individually, but in particular interactive arrangements of matter, life as we know it arises. Why should life be something mystical? ‘Living’ and ‘animate’ are not synonyms - the wind is animate, and water is animate, and fire is animate, but none of these have the defining characteristics of life.

I used the term “inanimate” which means “not endowed with life or spirit”.

Individuals in the Church have sometimes hindered intellectual and scientific progress after the Church had preserved and developed Greek and Roman concepts of morality and justice in the light of the teaching of Jesus.

Why weren’t these individuals inspired by their religion to act at the highest level of morality? Doesn’t that count as a failure of one of the claimed purposes of religion?

Religion is not coercive.

Subsequent events have proved that the acceptance was immature.

Acceptance of any delusion is immature, no matter how serious.

The point is that your acceptance was immature.

Your notion that it is a delusion is an opinion - and irrelevant.

Non sequitur. It is a question of principle not practice.

But principle is useless without practice. My good intentions alone will do absolutely nothing for the starving children in developing nations.

You don’t accept the principle - as you point out elsewhere.

It is unrealistic to suppose natural objects have insight into natural objects.

It is unrealistic to suppose that supernatural objects even exist, much less have any effect in a natural world.

It is not only unrealistic to suppose that only natural objects exist but also demonstrated to be illogical. (Refer to the verification principle.)

 

[Gaber]

Did human beings come to the universal principles of liberty, equality and fraternity before the advent of Christ?

Could y please provide a citation of where Jesus used those words? And the advent of Jesus predating the French revolution in no way means that He was the cause of that constellation of ideas. In fact, ideas that serve perfectly well for the Great Commandments existed way before He walked.

Culpability cannot exist without knowledge of what is right and wrong.

Nevertheless, to suggest that culpability had its advent with Christianiity is a silly notion. It also would seem to defy the culpability of the race according to the doctrin of the sadly misconstrued idea of origina sin. And there were moral codes, again, well in place very much before Jesus. You sound like someone who is all “rah rah” for our team , which is fine, as long as you recognize that other teams have talent, as well.

We live in a society with a heritage of Christian morality. Stalin is but one example of what happens to morality when religion is rejected.

W live in a society which is one of many over time. And Hilter is an example of what happens when religion is accepted, as is the Inquisition, bigotry, the Crusades, burning of libraries, forced conversion of pagans, etc, etc,

It’s not a feeling but a fact. If we have no Father in heaven we are not members of a family but individuals linked solely by an accident of birth.Even if it is a fact, the understanding of it, and the acretion of ideas surrounding it are exteremely misleading.

I follow them because it is reasonable to believe the teaching of Christ that we exist by Design - not by Chance.

Please indicate where Jesus teaches that we exist by design? How did you extrpolate such an idea?

 

[tonyrey]

Neither Christian beliefs and values nor Human Rights are my concept.

In your opinion none of us has autonomy because we are products of physical events!

I accept the moral authority of Jesus and His Church whereas you accept no other moral authority than your conscience.

You merely elaborated upon the Christian glorification of torture and human sacrifice (not to mention, introducing an element of masochism) by claiming that it was voluntarily undertaken. That does not address the problem of why the sacrifice of Jesus was necessary in the first place, in a world and for a race of beings supposedly created by a perfectly good god.

I clearly pointed out that Jesus allowed Himself to be executed unjustly because He knew someone had to break out of the vicious spiral of evil in which men react to hatred with hatred and to violence with violence - without using their power of self-control. He liberated us from our ignorance and egoism by giving us a model on which we can base our lives and discover true freedom through unselfish love.

The atrocities of any totalitarian regime are the product of an obsessive desire for power and control on the part of the leaders of such regimes. What philosophy they use to justify their actions is irrelevant - it’s rationalisation after the fact. Henry VIII, for example, managed to become a very effective despot whilst using nothing but the law of his god to “justify” his actions.

What people claim to believe every often doesn’t correspond to how they live.

You are falsely identifying the Church with a political organisation.

You have offered no evidence to refute the claim, and the church has historically taken a great interest in worldly political affairs - even to actively supporting fascist regimes in the first half of last century.

You are identifying the Church with some of its members!

Which “other responsibilities” are more important than the life of a child?

Responsibilities to others in my life, for one thing. Others to whose welfare I have actively and directly made commitments. If you genuinely believe that there is no more important object in any person’s life than the life of a child with whom they are not in any way associated, then you were very wrong in identifying my previous comparison as a red herring - how do you distinguish between one child and another, when you have to choose one? What makes one of those children more important than the other? You must have a way to distinguish, since you consider morality to be such a black-and-white issue with no room for expediency or personal attachment.

We obviously have to make difficult decisions - which makes nonsense of your assertion that morality is such a black-and-white issue. Some mothers have to make an agonising choice between living for their children or sacrificing their life for their unborn child. The Church’s teaching is that our ultimate authority is our conscience.

Manslaughter is often due to culpable negligence.

When it is considered that a person has ignored circumstances of which they should have been aware, yes it is; when the person in question is constrained by circumstances, negligence does not apply.

Again the question is which circumstances.

In that case you unequivocally reject the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as speciesism.

By its very nature, it is a speciesist document. That is a statement of fact, since it makes no reference to nonhuman animals…Interestingly, it also makes no reference to humans of non-heterosexual orientation, but that’s not relevant to the present discussion. No, I don’t on that basis reject it on principle - in general, it is far more enlightened than any previous consideration of a universalised morality. But just as the circle of moral consideration - as formulated by Western philosophers, anyway - underwent expansion (centuries after the time of Jesus’s existence, by the way) to include men of all races, then male children, then women, then female children, so it has room for further expansion to include consideration of the comparable interests and rights of nonhuman animals.

I agree that animal rights should be included but it doesn’t follow that they should have human rights. You certainly belong to a very small minority in this respect. The minority are not always wrong but you yourself have referred to majority opinion regarding harmful behaviour. The onus is on you to justify the moral equality of persons and animals - which shouldn’t be difficult if you contend that we all exist by Chance! Although one wonders what rational basis there is for morality in a world inhabited by freaks of nature…

Considering that this particular discussion - arising from the issue of why a good god would include extensive suffering as an unavoidable necessity in his creation - stems from you accusing me of anthropocentrism, I think we have reached a point where it is abundantly clear that if either of us is anthropocentric, it is certainly not me. I don’t think you can credibly claim - in the attempt to support your thesis that suffering is not bad, according to all meaningful definitions of ‘bad’ - that human perceptions of the suffering of other sentient beings are anthropocentric, whilst at the same time rejecting all animals other than humans as subjects worthy of moral consideration.

That is a totally unfounded misrepresentation of my views for which you need to provide evidence. I have often stated that all life is valuable but not all forms of life are equally valuable.

 

[tonyrey]

Could y please provide a citation of where Jesus used those words? And the advent of Jesus predating the French revolution in no way means that He was the cause of that constellation of ideas. In fact, ideas that serve perfectly well for the Great Commandments existed way before He walked.

Actions speak louder than words! He treated woman as equals and told us that we all have the same Father in heaven.

Nevertheless, to suggest that culpability had its advent with Christianiity is a silly notion. It also would seem to defy the culpability of the race according to the doctrin of the sadly misconstrued idea of origina sin. And there were moral codes, again, well in place very much before Jesus. You sound like someone who is all “rah rah” for our team , which is fine, as long as you recognize that other teams have talent, as well.

A misunderstanding of my statements!

W live in a society which is one of many over time. And Hilter is an example of what happens when religion is accepted, as is the Inquisition, bigotry, the Crusades, burning of libraries, forced conversion of pagans, etc, etc,

Likewise with atheism.

It’s not a feeling but a fact. If we have no Father in heaven we are not members of a family but individuals linked solely by an accident of birth.

Even if it is a fact, the understanding of it, and the acretion of ideas surrounding it are exteremely misleading.

Please indicate where Jesus teaches that we exist by design? How did you extrpolate such an idea?

“Solomon in all his glory…”