Announcement Announcement Module
No announcement yet.
Let's put the God/morality issue to rest Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
- Apr 2010
Merlyn treats me just fine, I know he treats others here fine also, then he gets a little heated with others, but normally over a arguement or statement they are making.. If you feel you have had that treatment from him Brewmeister, I would question what you may have said to Merlyn to get such a reaction.
- Feb 2002
It is not "bigotry" to not respect someone's beliefs. Why would one respect something he believes is not true? I certainly would not expect an atheist (or Jew or Muslim) to respect my religious beliefs.
Leaving aside what is and is not bigotry, I will point out that respecting the beliefs of others, including their religious beliefs, is part of being a Scout (and a Scouter.) In explaining the meaning of "A Scout is Reverent", the Scout handbook says: "He respects the beliefs of others." Of course, I think that's the right way to treat other people even if the Scout handbook didn't say so. (And one could get into a discussion of how much the BSA itself respects the religious beliefs of its members and CO's who believe it is wrong to exclude gay people and/or atheists.) But I think those who say that they do not respect the religious beliefs others need to take a long look at where they stand in relation to the Scout Law.
- 1 Like
Originally posted by NJCubScouter View PostPeregrinator says: It is not "bigotry" to not respect someone's beliefs. Why would one respect something he believes is not true? I certainly would not expect an atheist (or Jew or Muslim) to respect my religious beliefs. Leaving aside what is and is not bigotry, I will point out that respecting the beliefs of others, including their religious beliefs, is part of being a Scout (and a Scouter.) In explaining the meaning of "A Scout is Reverent", the Scout handbook says: "He respects the beliefs of others." Of course, I think that's the right way to treat other people even if the Scout handbook didn't say so. (And one could get into a discussion of how much the BSA itself respects the religious beliefs of its members and CO's who believe it is wrong to exclude gay people and/or atheists.) But I think those who say that they do not respect the religious beliefs others need to take a long look at where they stand in relation to the Scout Law.
- Jan 2006
- Jun 2011
This is not directly on topic, but as we can't create new topics yet, I thought this was a good place to put it.
It looks like some Republicans lawmakers in N.C. really don't believe in the fundamental American value of Freedom of Religion.
Perhaps if in their youth they were part of a patriotic program that help instill a respect for American values, they wouldn't be this un-American. Like the BSA? Unfortunately the right has tried to move the BSA away from the American values of non-sectarianism and freedom of religion to a conservative Christian world view. The N.C. lawmakers are simply part of the same movement. It's bad for our country, and bad for the BSA. Hence the current fight.
And I wonder how many of the people that are screaming about the BSA letting in gays, would look at the above and ask "what is the big deal?". Hopefully only a few, but I am ready to be disappointed.
- 1 Like
Kahuna commented04-05-2013, 06:48 AMEditing a commentI think that this was pretty clearly a political statement by a couple of Republicans as a response to the ACLU suit. Both actions, IMHO, are pretty silly. That being said, this is a huge problem for many religious conservatives. You simply cannot win a political argument by quoting scripture. It doesn't fly with most people and there are generally civil arguments that can be made.
- Dec 2006
- Apr 2013
I joined the forum after lurking for a while. I'm probably too late for the original question about can an atheist be moral. I am an atheist, and yes, an atheist can be moral. In fact, I believe that atheism has lead me to become even more moral than I was as a child of religion.
As an atheist, I believe this life is the end. When I die, I cease to exist, just like before I was born. As does everyone. I will not meet my dead parents and grandparents. I will not meet up with my old pets. I will not see my wife and kids again. When I die, I'm just gone, and it is totally over.
That is a very sobering reality. This is the only ride I get. Life is so very fragile and precious. And we people are very weak and insignificant in the Universe with no one watching out for any of us. We only have each other for help and protection.
That pretty much makes me desperate for a wonderful world of peace and good morals.
04-05-2013, 09:42 AMEditing a commentWelcome to the forums! It will be interesting to continue to read the give-and-take you bring to them.
I have often mused that a complete (and almost identical) system of morality could be a reasoned outcome of the application of the second law of thermodynamics and a single assumption (value judgment) that greater efficiency is 'better' than lesser efficiency. So far, no one has argued against this idea.
>>I believe that atheism has lead me to become even more moral than I was as a child of religion.<<
I can understand that, atheism gives a freedom of not being tied to any specific moral doctrine. Atheists feel more moral because they can create their moral conduct for any situation or any mood. Today life is precious after the first trimester, tomorrow life changes to being precious after the second trimester. The next day life changes to be precious after…..
I can certainly see the temptation of atheism.
04-05-2013, 09:49 AMEditing a commentEagledad,
You are a fireman at a fertility clinic which is on fire. You enter the front door and to your right is a hallway with a nurse screaming in terror. To your left you see down that hall, a Dewar with two frozen embryos in it. You only have time to choose one or the other. Do you choose to save the nurse or the frozen embryos?
ThomasJefferson commented04-05-2013, 03:10 PMEditing a commentYou do not understand at all.
Becoming an atheist was not a temptation. It was terrifying and revolting to me. I was raised in a very religious household. My family was horrified. I cannot reveal my beliefs to my friends - especially in the scouts. I cannot comment on politics or religion. And, my safety net at the end of my life, and my comfort of thinking my parents and loved ones lost wait for me is gone.
It is anything but tempting. It is the opposite.
As for morals, you will have to show me evidence that any religion provides unchanging morality. I see great evidence that morality is changeable in religions based on popularity. You do not obey leviticus or endorse multiple wives as in the Old Testament do you? Are you going to burn a goat to worship god at an altar in the woods? Do you obey the San Hedron? Do you celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday when it was orginally on Saturday?
Religious people adopt a preferred morality and then say that is what God wants. There is no God speaking. Just people writing books claiming they know what God wants and therefore they are right.
But you citing your imaginary friend doesn't make something morality.
Also, I'm not sure it is "moral" to take a hard line on something like abortion either for or against. I think understanding the complexity, the individual cases, and the competing rights of the baby and the mom with compassion makes it impossible to approach it simply.
Those against it are cruel to those that seek abortions.
Those in favor are cruel to potential people.
My morals are mine. I take responsibility for them and own them. They come from my experience and best judgment. Religious morals are what happens when people obey what other people tell them the imaginary spirits said instead of thinking for themselves and facing the terror of the unknown and difficult to understand puzzles that life presents us.
Pack, are suggesting a moral dilemma because I don’t see one. Let’s add a third choice to make your scenario more interesting, a convicted serial killer who is scheduled to be executed in 24 hours.
For me there isn’t a moral dilemma for the fireman who uses a slider bar to set the conditions of life because they will simply adjust their values at that moment to justify their decision. One lives and two die. But neither is there a moral conflict with the fireman who sets no conditions and believes all life is equal because they can’t change the inevitable fact that one will live and two will die. From the morality perspective, who they choose to save is irrelevant.
- Jul 2012
Originally posted by packsaddle View Post
Better question for Packsaddle or whomever. What if it is one woman or a small child and you can only save one of them? What then?
Eagledad had earlier applied, sarcastically, an example using the hot button of abortion - in his response to a post by Thomas Jefferson (and I have to tell you, it feels weird to be responding to a name like that). There was no substance in that example, however, merely a position. So I asked my question. I merely wanted to know what Eagledad would choose to do. He didn't see a moral dilemma - his words. I guess he'd save the nurse too. If he thinks adding the serial killer into a fertility clinic is more interesting, I think we've opened it to all sorts of fantasies.
Years ago I posed another dilemma regarding ectopic pregnancy. That's very real so there is no false dilemma there. There was one forum member who stuck by the moral absolutist position and admitted that he would allow both woman and fetus to die. I commend his honesty, if not his choice, and am thankful that his view has not prevailed in our courts. But in this case as in that case, I merely was curious about the answer to the dilemma I posed, this time to Eagledad. And just like back then, I again offer no criticism of Eagledad's inability to 'see' a dilemma. It would have been nice for him to explain how there isn't one but I have accepted his answer as is.
Sentinel947, I might add that I agree with your choice. I'd save the nurse. In the case of the woman or child choice, I'd make the decision based on what I saw at the time, probably gauging the greatest likelihood of success, or least risk, depending on how you measure these things or perhaps based on something as simple as which one I detected first. They're two persons to me. If I can't save both I'll "Do My Best" and save one of them. Sometimes the glass is half full and sometimes the container is two times larger than needed.
04-06-2013, 07:06 PMEditing a commentStill can't edit to here's a followup comment:
Eagledad also closed with the words, "From the morality perspective, who they choose to save is irrelevant."
While I agree that the choice itself is irrelevant, I also disagree because it is the process of making such a choice that reveals the actual moral structure. And that is what I was trying to learn from him.
Peregrinator commented04-08-2013, 01:27 PMEditing a comment"However, in the scenario, at that time, if any choice is made at all there is some kind of value inequality that has been applied" - not necessarily. It could well be a case of "which one can I save?" or "which one is likely to survive?" ... there is not necessarily a judgment about the "value" of the life to be saved at all.
Sentinel947 commented04-08-2013, 07:07 PMEditing a commentYea. Pack. I'm a Catholic and you aren't going to many people who are as staunchly against abortion as I am, but even I believe when the choice is coming down to the mother or the child in childbirth, you owe it to the mother to save her and perform that abortion. Neither the child nor the mother "deserves to" die, but the case comes down to making a choice of "who lives and who dies". To do nothing might cause both the mother and child to die, and I suppose the doctrine of "taking a life to save a life" comes into play in that scenario.
I do believe a fetus is a living, unborn child. Before I get flamed too badly from some corner of this forum, I do not believe in the death penalty or abortion. I'd say my position on America's culture of death is consistent.
In my own scenario, there is a variety of factors as to who I'd save, but if I could only save one and each was equally accessible and their survival chances where the same, I'd take the Child. Maybe because the women has more of a chance to survive on her own, or maybe because I reach a mental roadblock about leaving a child alone in a fire to die. I'd take the kid.