Morality Challenge for Theists.

Post Reply New Topic

Of course you can reverse the argument, and that is a sensible thing to do, but your list was irrelevant to what actions are possible with or without religious belief. You have merely tried to establish a correlation, and did so through selective choice of examples. You know that correlation is not the same as causation, you have repeatedly made that point yourself. Please apply it to your own argument.


Absolutely. The original question was one-sided, and it's much more interesting to take it both ways.


Partly I expressed myself badly, partly I was wrong. You are correct that Marx made an explicitly atheistic philosophy a central part of his political theory. Perhaps it is clearer if I say that the economic and political programme of communism doesn't depend on Marx' philosophical ideas. An idealistic social reformer could promote the economic and social elements of the Communist Manifesto without advocating the persecution of religion.

What I argue is that the persecution of religion is power politics, and comes from the claim to have an absolute truth, and from an authoritarianism that doesn't tolerate competing sources of authority. you can see the same thing in other cases. I mentioned Henry VIII's establishment of the Church of England.


I think I understand what an obscurant is (I don't intend to be one), but I don't know what you mean by "prone to process of 'enlightenment'."

Marx may well have thought that evolutionary theory supports a materialistic world view. If by "support" you mean Marx believed evolutionary theory offered proof for a materialistic world view, then I feel free to disagree with Marx. I don't feel obliged to repeat his mistakes. I say evolutionary theory is not in conflict with all religion, or with theism in general, and I think anyone who claims a conflict that general misunderstands evolution. There only is a conflict with some specific claims about the universe, usually based on interpreting a creation myth literally, but those people also like to portray evolutionary theory as fundamentally anti-religious because that suits their political agenda. And again, I don't feel obliged to believe their propaganda.



Of course, several political ideologies have tried to hijack evolution for their own purposes, but if you then try to discredit evolutionary theory because shady politicians try to gain respectability from it, then you have fallen for the propaganda of those politicians.


I have told you how evolutionary theory in its entirety could be refuted.

The reason why biologists are less receptive to alternative theories in this particular case is that the alternatives (at least all I have seen) are not motivated by science but by religion, politics, both or by related personal reasons. Physicists are equally dismissive of perpetual motion machines, for very similar reasons. Show me a scientifically motivated alternative theory to evolution, and I will take it seriously. For example, I will read your philosophical argument, which looks more interesting than the repeatedly refuted creationist nonsense.


As with Marx, I don't feel obliged to believe their propaganda.


You know scientific method better than that. A selected list is not evidence. Can you show a correlation? I can give you a longer list of arrogant and aggressive quotes from theists, but that would not be evidence of anything, either.


Of course not. That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

I was discussing a correlation between authoritarianism and political opinion. In Russia, the authoritarians tend to be left wing, in the USA right wing. If your country shows the same pattern as Russia, then the authoritarians you met and who persecuted you would have been attracted to the Communist party, which had power. So if you go only by the experience of your own country (and if it shows the correlation seen in Russia) then you will be wrong when you claim the same correlation applies everywhere, even if your observation holds for your own country. I also argued that you treated correlation as if it were causation, and offered you an alternative cause for the correlation you report.

I was selective intentionally,since I believe that original poster have done something similar.




You are right on that one.Marxist communism is not only possible for of communism.
Communism may also be based on religion.

When I use word 'communism' I strictly mean about Marxist communism,not about these pre-Marxist forms.



My 'moral' point here is that Evolution can also be used as excuse for evil doings,just as religion.
However this does not imply that Evolution or Religion are evil as such.
Original poster tried to claim that religion is more evil and hypocritical then evolution,and as we know they both can be in wrong hands.
My critics of Evolution is not based on moral grounds but on purely theoretical ones.



And problem in here is that sciences already have methodological prejudice that is called Naturalism.
Therefore scientists would consider any alternative to naturalism as religion.
Because of that scientists would never accept any alternative to naturalism,since they have equated science and naturalism.



Kant noticed even in 18 century,that theoretic human mind have psychological need to search for answers that goes beyond any possible experience.
Such speculations,always lead to theoretic paradoxes,since human reason is adapted to interpret only sensory experience.
When we use apparatus of human reason on entities that are beyond any experience (noumena) we get paradox.
Human reason can only investigate empirical objects (phenomena),not speculative concepts like origin of universe,nature..etc.
Such speculations are allowed,since every man as aware being must have some coherent concept of reality.But such coherent concepts are part of his belief system,not property of objective reality.
Such beliefs are not knowledge,although many of them use some knowledge for their self-justification.


To cut this short....

Alternative to both Evolution and Creation is agnosticism.


We can never know what are origins of universe or organisms,since that goes beyond our subjective perceptive power.
However people,as aware beings must always have some explanation about world around them..be it mythological,religious,naturalistic or other.
Such believes are not scientific ,but metaphysical.

As Kant said,pure mind must know his true power,and his limitations.

So my alternative to Evolution theory about origins of species is:

WE DO NOT KNOW,AND WILL NEVER KNOW.

But on other hand we have right to personal beliefs.

P.S

Problem with my explanation is that many people will not be satisfied with this explanation,because many of them want answers about totality of existence.

First I'd like to start off by defining some terms to help with this discussion.

Moral - pertaining to those intentions and actions of which right and wrong,

Malevolent evil - wishing evil upon others, ill will, etc.

To answer your questions:

both of these are impossible to answer because both "athiest" and "thiest" are such broad terms that they include every single living person on earth. All of which are capable of commiting malevolent evil and good acts.

But the question you should be asking is:

Why would an atheist be concerned about their morality, and where do they get their laws for morality?

asking if an athiest is moral is like asking a married woman if shes a bachelorette.

as for Christians, they get their morality from the Bible.
And categorizing all theists together is offensive to me. I am a Christian and i believe in absolute truth. All religions are NOT true. And 9/11 was a terrorist attack. if it was done by islamics well.. that can be done by an athiest. Catholic priests have been known to molest children. but.. not to burst your bubble.. so have athiests. and the list goes on.

Like i said the question is what defines whats good and whats bad? The Law of your country? But what if the laws of Africa disagree with the laws of America? Which one should we go by?