What I mean is this: how much do you actually know about the science most atheists parrot? Most atheists know as little science as most Christians know as little theology. Just as a Christian trusts his priest to tell him what he believes, an atheist trusts scientists with a Ph.D. tacked to their name to tell them what they believe. But how many times have the scientists turned out to be wrong? I only ask this because it seems this is central to the problem that most atheists have. They are repulsed by the phrase “believe” – they are addicted instead to the phrase “know”. But honestly, do you really know, or are you just believing what you’re told? I would like to remind you that in the 1970′s the scientists of the day were seriously concerned that we were about to enter an ice age, and less than 30 years later they are now convinced Earth is about to turn into a desert.
Unless you’ve observed something yourself, or observed and interpreted the evidence yourself and drew your own conclusions, you are just as guilty as faith as any religious person.
@H3xx - Ya gotta keep the questions reaallll simple - which seems to be with the lovely Bob, all questions :)
Anything about what should be everybody's right - to marry whomever one wants and contraception - the questions turn into alien language, and he goes blind, his head touches his knees, and he needs to go to bed.
Nah, @Suzanne, I'm just trying to keep the topics straight. Contraception or gay rights didn't seem particularly relevant to child molesting. Would you like to pick one of those topics? There's another thread around where I and some others talk about marriage extensively. I was on the side of those who couldn't quite understand why atheists want gays to participate in what is essentially a religious ritual.
No Robert, you WERE the side that couldn't understand....
No, actually, if you go review the thread there were at least one or two others.
An "essentially a religious ritual" like jumping the broom? Trust me, public commitment came along long before the religious found they could make a buck out of it.
Didn't i understand you were leaving? Developing an addiction to us, aren't you?
@Bob - Actually, we are both off track - so that deflection doesn't work.
So - I will ask again, I have lost count how many times you have refused to answer.
1. Do you think contraception should be freely used by adults.
2. Do you think gays should marry, something that the rest of society takes for granted.
The questions as phrased don't have a lot of meaning for me. My initial response I guess would be "Why would I care?" I'll try anyways, if you go down and answer why molesting children is wrong.
1. By which adults? What sort of contraception? Do they have any prior medical conditions? For what purpose? You'll have to give me more to work with. Contraception and sterilization have been used in very harmful ways, and less harmful ones, and arguably neutral or positive ones.
2. The rest of society is religious, at least culturally if not practicing. Why would an atheist care about whether people participated in a religious commitment ritual? I would think you'd make fun of the silly notion that people should traipse in front of an old guy wearing a dress (be he a minister or a judge) in order to have a committed relationship with someone.
@Bob - If your belief in an idea depends on the idea's proponents being sinless -
Nowhere near it - and you class yourself as an intellectual - I know what is right and what is wrong - and it is definitely wrong to rape little boys, then threaten them, that if they say anything to anybody, nobody will believe them. I am not talking about stealing a loaf of bread, but the systematic rape of children, then the ultimate wrong of the cover up by your church ?
So, what you are saying is you don't know right from wrong, and neither do the priests who were using their penis in an inappropriate way, was wrong? and that the church also did not know this was horrific behavior, and so just ignored the trauma of what these thousands of priests did, to thousands of children. Maybe, if you do know that these crimes against humanity are wrong, maybe you should let the hierarchy in the catholic church some of your teaching power to teach them what is actually right and wrong, 'cause they obviously don't get it.
Woops, I forgot, you are the catholic that sits on his hands, and makes excuses for horrific behavior.
I am so glad you are here Bob, it shows me why the catholic church has been getting away with horrific crimes for, keeping it modern, for decades.
I know what is right and what is wrong - and it is definitely wrong to rape little boys
Good for you. I would agree.
Now I have a question for you.
Why is it wrong?
I believe it is wrong because it is contrary to natural law and divine positive law. Presumably you adhere to neither. So for you, why is it wrong?
Does that mean that if you lost your faith, it would be fine by you to rape little children? You're a very dangerous man if all that keeps you from assault and other abuses is your faith in a god.
The rest of us have inbuilt evolved societal instincts to follow the Golden Rule.
You have inbuilt evolved societal instincts to follow a precept that is generally described and passed along through religion?
Explain that to me, @Strega.
If this is in fact instinctual, how is it that so many people don't seem to demonstrate that instinct?
If it is evolved, then it is just a natural selection pressure. Do you really want to claim that advancing the reproduction of your genetic material determines choices like this? Genghis Khan made an awfully good case for rape in that regard. Natural selection pressures also change with the environment.
If it is societal, then how do you explain that some societies historically were just fine with it?
If it is inbuilt, who built it in?
What you're proposing sounds like Natural Law to me, but I honestly don't understand the claim.
I think it's odd that you are apparently a science professor and yet do not understand something as basic as the biological evolution of morality. I was looking for something to provide for you to read and understand the subject. I didn't want to find something too complicated for you to understand, nor did I want to merely throw a wiki link out there (although wiki has a fairly simple entry on the subject - just Google " wiki Evolution of Morality").
In the end, from the many thousands of relevant pages, I pulled up a nice simple paper by Douglas Allchin, entitled "The Evolution of Morality". Nevertheless, having seen you reject references to authors that you may not feel have suitable credentials, I am also offering you a selection of scholarly papers on the same matter, so you can pick out a paper from someone you deem "suitable". There appear to be some 282,000 relevant papers on that link, so I'm sure you will find one that you can understand.
It is certainly an interesting subject, and I am delighted to be able to introduce you to it in this way. Happy learning :)