nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index nglreturns.myfreeforum.org
Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Project Reason
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
Shaker
Site Admin


Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 8694



PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2014 11:11 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote

Ballsed up a post AGAIN Sincere apologies - I've tried to rescue it as well as I'm able.

cyberman wrote:
So when Project Reason are asking for money so that they can promote "secular values", they just mean values which could be espoused by anyone?


By anyone only coincidentally, as already described. I don't know that much about Project Reason - it's an American intitiative - but I assume that they favour secular values as I have defined them, i.e. values which are not informed by reference to religious concepts, values informed by a naturalistic worldview.

cyberman wrote:
What I don't recognise from what you have written above is your formulation along the lines of "I am against [e.g.] assisted dying simply because I think God is against it". As with women priests, one arrives at ones own conclusions about what is right and what is wrong. I think you are making an unjust assumption (you're not the only one to do this!) that theists are lazy and unreflective.


No. The rock upon which this founders, in the end, is here: "one arrives at ones own conclusions about what is right and what is wrong." That's simply not entirely true, is it? For a convinced religious believer, they don't typically arrive at their own conclusions - their conclusions are informed by their religious tradition: by faith, by authority, by tradition and by revelation. No religion does without these entirely but they emphasise each component differently. There's a very different admixture of these depending on religious denomination. Catholicism is especially hot on all four. Arguably Islam likewise. Buddhism sits very loose to the four components but doesn't dispense with them entirely - Tibetan Buddhism in particular is strong on all four but not as much so as Catholicism. Liberal Christianity = faith and revelation, the others not so much. Orthodox Christianity all four. And so forth.

Their views are informed, coloured if you like, by the religious tradition to which they belong which rests ultimately, all window-dressing aside, on an assumed, on an alleged supernatural force or forces. Whether that's one god, several gods or some other supranatural entity or force, the ultimate buck-stopping rationale resides there. That doesn't happen in an entirely secular worldview - the sort that I assume Project Reason actively supports and espouses.

It's not so much that theists are lazy and unreflective, but from a strictly secular point of view it's that the things which theists may reflect upon and which inform their values are deemed from a strictly secular p.o.v. to be insufficiently certain, insufficiently rigorous, vague, unproven, untested, untestable and therefore inadmissible. A firm warrant for such value-basing criteria is missing, in other words. Everybody can have a rational, evidence-based discussion on, for instance, the Government's policy with regard to benefits cuts and the impact on the poor, the sick and the unemployed. On the secular view everybody can chip in to that one on an equal footing. But if somebody bases their values on their religious beliefs, in some intrinsic sense they automatically exclude anyone and everyone who doesn't share them. In practical terms they may well arrive at even an identical conclusion, but they will have got there by a wholly different route. The Catholic Church disagrees with and disapproves of abortion. Convinced and confirmed atheists such as Christopher Hitchens and Nat Hentoff disagree(d) with and disapprove(d) of abortion (Hitchens is dead, Hentoff is still alive), but it's fair to say that their views rest on fundamentally different premises; the agreement is purely coincidental.

A few years back the admirable Richard Holloway wrote a good book called Godless Morality in which he argued that for the good of one and all it would be better to keep religious belief out of ethical discussions (about abortion, assisted dying, and so forth) for precisely this reason - doing so levels the playing field. It admits everyone to the table on an equal footing.
_________________
Thereís no reason to be agnostic about ideas that are dramatically incompatible with everything we know about modern science. - Sean M. Carroll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyberman
Senior Community Member


Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Posts: 3750


Location: Edinburgh

PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shaker wrote:
it would be better to keep religious belief out of ethical discussions (about abortion, assisted dying, and so forth).


I entirely agree. But, for some reason, whenever I debate abortion or euthanasia on forums like this, my (usually atheist) opponents keep bringing God into it. I wonder why they do that?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shaker
Site Admin


Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 8694



PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cyberman wrote:
I entirely agree. But, for some reason, whenever I debate abortion or euthanasia on forums like this, my (usually atheist) opponents keep bringing God into it. I wonder why they do that?


They're not bringing God into the discussion for their own sakes, though, are they? Chances are what you're referring to is people complaining about religious belief being invoked as though it's a discussion-stopper - a religious warrant being deemed to be enough to ride roughshod over the different beliefs or non-beliefs of others. While same-sex marriage was being floated we had religious groups of various stripes arguing not merely that they were against it but that it shouldn't be allowed, shouldn't go ahead, shouldn't be permitted - not just for their own acolytes but for anybody and everybody (who might want to avail themselves of it). We see the same thing with the abortion debate, stem cell research, assisted dying. In the words of A.C. Grayling:

Quote:
The great premise of the moraliser is this: I donít like it, so you mustnít do it; I donít like it, so youíre not allowed to see it; I donít like it, so you canít read it. That is the great premise of the moraliserówanting to close things down for other people.

_________________
Thereís no reason to be agnostic about ideas that are dramatically incompatible with everything we know about modern science. - Sean M. Carroll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyberman
Senior Community Member


Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Posts: 3750


Location: Edinburgh

PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shaker wrote:


They're not bringing God into the discussion for their own sakes, though, are they? Chances are what you're referring to is people complaining about religious belief being invoked as though it's a discussion-stopper - a religious warrant being deemed to be enough to ride roughshod over the different beliefs or non-beliefs of others.


Absolutely not. What I am talking about is when I give reasons for wanting abortion restricted etc. - which I do without any reference whatsoever to God or religion - they often end up saying things like "you are trying to impose your religious beliefs on everyone" or quite often "if God doesn't like abortions why are there miscarriages?"

It is they who are trying to use religion as a discussion stopper, in fact. Although I don't mention religion, they are playing a "Your views are religious, and therefore inadmissable" card.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Powwow
Senior Community Member


Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Posts: 3793


Location: alberta canada

PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would have no faith if I cut my God out of life and death.
_________________
"If we were to judge nature by common sense or likelihood, we wouldn't believe the world existed." † Annie Dillard

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7RHmsg86G0
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyberman
Senior Community Member


Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Posts: 3750


Location: Edinburgh

PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 4:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pow wow wrote:
I would have no faith if I cut my God out of life and death.


But if a pro-life position is right (which I believe it is) then it has to be possible (and is possible) to explain good reasons for that position to people who don't believe in God, without expecting them to first start believing in God and then listen to your arguments.

I think my reasons for believing that, for example, 23 week foetuses feel pain and have a right to be resuscitated if delivered early etc., which don't require the hearer to share my ideas about God.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shaker
Site Admin


Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 8694



PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cyberman wrote:
Absolutely not. What I am talking about is when I give reasons for wanting abortion restricted etc. - which I do without any reference whatsoever to God or religion - they often end up saying things like "you are trying to impose your religious beliefs on everyone"

Perhaps not with regard to you personally but in general there's a precedent for this, is there not?

Quote:
or quite often "if God doesn't like abortions why are there miscarriages?"

In itself a perfectly good question.

Quote:
It is they who are trying to use religion as a discussion stopper, in fact. Although I don't mention religion, they are playing a "Your views are religious, and therefore inadmissable" card.

You don't mention religion? Ever? At all?
_________________
Thereís no reason to be agnostic about ideas that are dramatically incompatible with everything we know about modern science. - Sean M. Carroll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shaker
Site Admin


Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 8694



PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cyberman wrote:
I think my reasons for believing that, for example, 23 week foetuses feel pain and have a right to be resuscitated if delivered early etc., which don't require the hearer to share my ideas about God.

That's both a good and a bad example.

Bad, because that specific position isn't supported by any current medical evidence.

On the other hand, it's a good example not so much in and of itself but it's the kind of discussion which can be had by all. Pain is bad and should be avoided wherever possible - all but a minority of sadists agree on this, so that's the sort of principle which can get everyone around the table regardless of their beliefs about the nature of reality, supernatural figures and the like. If values are grounded in human givens, basic facts about reality - pain is bad and to be avoided, likewise fear, and so on and so forth - I think you stand a vastly better chance of coming to a working consensus than if people are talking past each other, some espousing that position whilst others are grounding their values in a transcendental, immaterial, supernatural entity/realm.

Holloway's godless morality at work, I'd say.
_________________
Thereís no reason to be agnostic about ideas that are dramatically incompatible with everything we know about modern science. - Sean M. Carroll


Last edited by Shaker on Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:14 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Powwow
Senior Community Member


Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Posts: 3793


Location: alberta canada

PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree Cyber, since atheists have no idea when life begins they shouldn't be all for killing the innocent. Ask the atheist marxist when exactly life begins and of course the evidence to prove it. I don't buy the, feel pain, idea. Nor that some magic happens when the baby passes through the birth canal. Nor do i think a parent or doctor has the right to kill a sick little baby like they do in Belgium. Does a pregnant lady go around talking to a non life form in her belly? No, she knows that's no non life in there, she is talking to her child.
Feel no pain, well that bodes well for those with leprosy if the atheist marxist gets in a position of authority. Yikes, God preserve us! And then of course one must ask the atheist(leaving God out of it) how he can say yes to abortion but not if you are killing the non life cause it's female.
As far as trying to convince a godless atheist marxist of anything, can't be bothered unless they try and preach to my loved ones or try to force their BS onto our Christians schools over here. Atheism, world wide is shrinking and that is a positive thing.
_________________
"If we were to judge nature by common sense or likelihood, we wouldn't believe the world existed." † Annie Dillard

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7RHmsg86G0
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shaker
Site Admin


Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 8694



PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pow wow wrote:
Atheism, world wide is shrinking and that is a positive thing.


Is it?

According to whom?


_________________
Thereís no reason to be agnostic about ideas that are dramatically incompatible with everything we know about modern science. - Sean M. Carroll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum