What is there to misunderstand? There is no such thing as secular morality!Yes, that is OK. The OT is rife with commands to commit needlessly harmful acts. Read Leviticus for instance. And by excluding those, it is the theists that are cherry picking.
Yes, there is no compulsion on anyone to agree with the arguments presented by theists in defence of theism. However, flatly refuse is not the same thing. That implies (to me at least) refusing to even listen to the theists' arguments. That is a closed mind IMO and I certainly do not see Dawkins as having a closed mind.
Not at all. It is just those theists that insist their holy book is the word of God and unerring, while at the same time those holy books contain exhortations to commit morally repugnant acts. You cannot on the one hand claim that the books were written (or inspired) by God, are a moral blueprint, are unerring and represent an absolute unchanging morality, then insist large chunks of it are not relevant to society today. That is hypocrisy. Absolute morality, unchanging, but at the same time not applicable to current society simply do not go together. I am (and Dawkins is too AFAIK) quite willing to accept that many Christian theists do not regard much of the Bible (particularly OT) as a moral blue print for modern society, but then to retain credibility they need to stop using terms that the morality they get from their religion is absolute and unchanging. They cannot have it both ways.
We are talking about secular morality not the actions of some atheists. One can be of a religious persuasion and still subscribe to the tenets of secular morality and even find them superior to those prescribed by their own religion. As I said perviously, secular morality is really what modern society deems to be good and beneficial. There is no single source that codifies what secular morality is, apart from what encompasses many of the laws enacted in free secular states. We have seen that the golden rule pre-existed Christianity and that is the main driving force of what constitutes secular morality.
Yes, because those actions are not in accordance with secular morality and in a free society would be punishable.
Again your summary is based on a misunderstanding of secular morality.
No! We cannot measure rightness or wrongness on outcomes alone!Why does it matter how we got here?
The fact is we are here, and want to live enjoyable lives.
We can measure an actions rightness or wrongness based on its outcomes, we don’t need a Devine purpose.
No! We cannot measure rightness or wrongness on outcomes alone!
We need to measure those outcomes against the intended goal!
Without purpose, their is no goal!
And that's why it does matter how we got here!
Given that all are doomed to perish, how's that working out for you?The goal can be to maximize the wellbeing of humans and other thinking creatures.
You're still in the same place. We're talking about compelling someone to do something against their own 'interior law' that is within themselves. If you reflect on this enough, I hope that you would realize that this isn't morally right, even if, according to you, that person's religion is false. Christian morality accepts this, since it's true and right, but not secular morality (or Islam or communism). And secular morality is really one type of secular morality, with the good bits in it. In an atheistic world you'd expect other forms of wicked morality to form, since morals don't exist.
Given that all are doomed to perish, how's that working out for you?
I am still patiently waiting to see if anyone succeeds in breaking one of the longest trends in history.Are we?
It's not written so the future can be changed, no?
There are certain religious people who refuse to believe in Climate Change science because, ready? Because God promised Noah He won't flood the Earth again.
Yah. Let's put humanity on that promise.
I am still patiently waiting to see if anyone succeeds in breaking one of the longest trends in history.
I heard a rumour, that Walt Disney, intended to take a shot at the immortality title, via cryogenic suspension, but I haven't seen him in a very long time.
Sooo true! You know, I have heard similar things said about God!Maybe you don't know the secret password.
That and just because a person is never seen doesn't mean they don't exist. Does it?
Yes, and is therefore not good. In this case, it is wrong to compel a person to go against their deeply held belief, regardless of what it is.Secular morality doesn't depend on the person and what they think about their own behavior.
Since morals are a law to stop people from harming other peopleI ask you the same question I ask graph? (Which he avoided) why do you care about morality?
.
Sooo true! You know, I have heard similar things said about God!
Yes, and is therefore not good. In this case, it is wrong to compel a person to go against their deeply held belief, regardless of what it is.
Yes, that is OK. The OT is rife with commands to commit needlessly harmful acts. Read Leviticus for instance. And by excluding those, it is the theists that are cherry picking.
Yes, there is no compulsion on anyone to agree with the arguments presented by theists in defence of theism. However, flatly refuse is not the same thing. That implies (to me at least) refusing to even listen to the theists' arguments. That is a closed mind IMO and I certainly do not see Dawkins as having a closed mind.
Not at all. It is just those theists that insist their holy book is the word of God and unerring, while at the same time those holy books contain exhortations to commit morally repugnant acts. You cannot on the one hand claim that the books were written (or inspired) by God, are a moral blueprint, are unerring and represent an absolute unchanging morality, then insist large chunks of it are not relevant to society today. That is hypocrisy. Absolute morality, unchanging, but at the same time not applicable to current society simply do not go together. I am (and Dawkins is too AFAIK) quite willing to accept that many Christian theists do not regard much of the Bible (particularly OT) as a moral blue print for modern society, but then to retain credibility they need to stop using terms that the morality they get from their religion is absolute and unchanging. They cannot have it both ways.
We are talking about secular morality not the actions of some atheists. One can be of a religious persuasion and still subscribe to the tenets of secular morality and even find them superior to those prescribed by their own religion. As I said perviously, secular morality is really what modern society deems to be good and beneficial. There is no single source that codifies what secular morality is, apart from what encompasses many of the laws enacted in free secular states. We have seen that the golden rule pre-existed Christianity and that is the main driving force of what constitutes secular morality.
Yes, because those actions are not in accordance with secular morality and in a free society would be punishable.
Again your summary is based on a misunderstanding of secular morality.
Regards the Old Testament, as I explained to VC, the brutality of the Judaic Law was designed for a society that lacked morality.
It seems like you're trying to find fault with the Christina faith again, as a way of strengthening your position. If there is a God and an objective morality, then the right religion should teach true morals, and Christianity demonstrates perfect morals, so this becomes a problem. And even then, Jesus was merely revealing what IS, rather than inventing something.
On a practical level, and this is Paul's view, a person should develop wisdom to know how they should act in everything (implies objective morality), so no codifying or anything like that. I believe many great names have come along in history with this wisdom: St Patrick, Mary Mackillop, the New Testament writers, St Frances, Augustine, Cardinal Newman (who came up with the related conscience argument for God's existence), Ambrose, and Catherine of Sienna. The list is bigger, spanning 2000 years of history. These were once ordinary people , who were perfected through suffering and trials. They fully became what they were meant to be, changing the world for the better. I believe some cured the sick, others changed lands for the better, while others knew people's secrets.
Regards the Old Testament, as I explained to VC, the brutality of the Judaic Law was designed for a society that lacked morality. This is all explained in the New Testament very well, which Richard Dawkins obviously knows nothing about, or he might, but pretends he doesn't. I hope you can see that.
“
the law is not meant for a righteous person, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and irreverent, for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers,
“
(Timothy)
Since morals are a law to stop people from harming other people
The fact that I am doomed to perish doesn’t mean I don’t care about my wellbeing today.Given that all are doomed to perish, how's that working out for you?
You still haven't quite caught onto the problem of "secular moral" definition though, have you?The fact that I am doomed to perish doesn’t mean I don’t care about my wellbeing today.
Eg, if you buy a new car, and I hit it with a sledge hammer a few times, do you say “oh well, it was heading to the scrap yard in 15 years anyway” off course you don’t, because the fact that he vehicle has a limited life doesn’t mean you don’t care about it and want to enjoy it while it’s in good order.
That fact that we are all going to die doesn’t reduce the benefit of having a moral society.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?