Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Hi Sheldon
You said: “Not what i said, i said we could make objective moral decisions once we accept the initial premise, not that all our morality is objective.”
Your explanation is becoming increasingly untenable. It’s so loosy-goosy now that there is really no way you can hold a discussion. So how much of your morality is objective, and how do you tell the objective ones from the subjective ones? Give me the method you use to differentiate between the objective ones and subjective ones?
you said: “Also since religious morality is subjective i fail to see how your claims undermine anything.”
I have told you already, that I have not yet explained religious morality. So don’t jump the gun. I will explain it once we are done with your subjectivity crisis.
You said: “That's dangerously close to "The No True Scotsman" logical fallacy. I could as easily say no real atheist would commit crimes and define atheism in such a way as to exclude those that do.”
I see a lot of atheists indulging in horrible crimes – not just individuals but states as well. And I draw the conclusion that atheism must be a horrible idea, just as you arrive at your conclusions about theism based on some stats. How do you explain that?
You said: “You think it would be moral to force a man in this scenario to give up a kidney?”
You accuse me of strawman, and now you are indulging in it. I never said I support such a thing. I am only asking you to explain to me “OBJECTIVELY” why killing a useless man to save a prodigious child is immoral? You are simply appealing to emotions with your rhetoric against theists and such. Cut all that emotional subjectivity and give me an objective answer.
You said: No it's a question and you have not answered it, twice???
This was in reference to your question “So why would afford special rights to a foetus or blastocyst we'd deny to a fully formed human?”
Firstly, I am not saying that you have to give special rights to fetus that is denied to a fully formed human. I am only saying that the career of a lady is not more important than the life of a fetus. So, it’s not a special right to the fetus, and a denial of right to the mother. It’s life or death for the fetus and just a matter of career for the mother. Now that being clear, let me continue. You are the one who is saying “we could make objective moral decisions once we accept the initial premise”. So, what is your objective standard for your position on the issue?
If you want my answer as to why I value the life of the fetus higher than the career options of the lady… that is because god said so.
You said: “… and no a new born baby is not comparable to a blastocyst, as a baby is sentient, and a blastocyst is not.”
What makes you think that a sentient being has more rights than a non-sentient being? Is it okay to rape a woman in coma (because she is not in a sentient state)? Now I request you not to get into an emotional tirade because I raised this point. I am not supporting the rape of coma patients. I am just asking you these questions in order to understand your objective standard.
You said: “Please show any post of mine claiming less valued??? You are resorting to mendacious hyperbole. Stick to facts and your arguments might have some validity.”
This was in reference to my state "If a fetus is less valued because it’s not yet a full human… " Why are you indulging in word games? Please express what exactly is you moral position regarding abortion? If you say the woman has the right to decide, you are insinuating that the right of the fetus is of less value than the right of the woman… you don’t have to spell it out. Otherwise, please make your position clear.
You said: “I never said a foetus was "non-human" do you even know what a blastocyst is, or that a foetus is never conscious and can experience no pain?”
Therefore are you not insinuating that a fetus has no right or lesser rights? That’s what I mean by saying that you value its right a being lower than that of a fully developed human.
You said: “You're use of the word "retard" is shameful, and says a lot about your moral compass.”
On what objective standard are you making this moral judgement of me? Now, you are invoking moral compass???? How objective, I must say.
You said: “That's not begging the question??? How else does one objectively measure suffering other than with objectivity?”
This is begging the question. You are assuming what you are supposed to prove. When I challenge you how you would make objective moral judgements, it is obvious that you have to explain the method and not simply repeat the word “objective”. If someone asked you how you would logically prove evolution, you would have to explain the logic and not simply say “with logic”
You said: “Well you could start by recognising the stats applied to the USA, I never mentioned Russia, so another straw man argument you have created with this latest non-sequitur.”
You don’t seem to know the meaning of strawman. Something is a strawman only if I attributed the quote to you and attacked it. This is not what I am doing. I am giving the example of Russia in order to show how stats in two countries can lead to contrary inferences. Thereby, I am questioning the validity of your stats. This is a logical way of holding a debate… not a strawman.
You said: “Demonstrate evidence for the existence of an "all knowing" deity, otherwise that's a subjective opinion.”
Good question. I shall establish my premise once we are done with your premise. Let’s say I can’t prove my premise, that doesn’t automatically lend credibility to your premise. Yours has to stand on its own merit.
You said: “Are you saying you don't question the morality of your actions? That says it all about the blind perfunctory automatons that blind faith in religious belief produces.”
So what exactly is your position on eating meat? Good, bad or still undecided? And what objective methods are you employing in your path to enlightenment on that issue?
You said: “I'd point out the rather obvious fact that they are not obliged to seek out atheist forums in order to feign offence.”
Oh… so anything that doesn’t agree with your position is “feigning”! What a convenient “subjective” judgement.
You said: “I might also point out that atheist don't build churches to preach to theists that they are doomed to everlasting torture….”
So, in effect what you are saying is that you would go on a spate of hurting their feelings more. You don’t seem to be abiding by your latest premise namely don’t do to others what you don’t want to be done unto you or those you care for.
You said: “Since my premise was to reduce suffering and promote well being, just how does "beating someone to death" for having a different viewpoint satisfy that criteria? It can't surely have escaped anyone's attention that these are also theists who are doing this???”
You are conveniently shifting your premises. I gave this example not for you premise of ‘reducing suffering” but your newest premise of “not doing to others what you don’t want to be done unto you.” So, if you hurt me by killing and eating the animal I love the most, then killing you in retaliation is justified. (Please don’t call this a strawman… I am not saying you said this, I am just posing this question to extract an objective answer from you.)
"I see a lot of atheists indulging in horrible crimes – not just individuals but states as well. And I draw the conclusion that atheism must be a horrible idea, just as you arrive at your conclusions about theism based on some stats. How do you explain that?"
Of course you do, because you are using selection bias. The fact however remains that research shows theists commit more crime than atheists, and are disproportionately represented in prison systems. When it's a level playing field, then atheists have been shown to be more moral than theists. The fact that atheists are underrepresented in prison systems. The fact that in developed democracies that are predominantly atheist or secular there is demonstrably less crime like rape and murder. You choose to ignore these facts and focus on totalitarian regimes, and then fail to attach any significance to the fact that such regimes are by their nature immoral, and that includes the theistic ones of course, like Nazis Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Saudi Arabia.
"Loosey Goosey", priceless considering you can't give us one single word in defence of religious morals beyond subjective special pleading.
"You said: “You think it would be moral to force a man in this scenario to give up a kidney?”
You accuse me of strawman, and now you are indulging in it. I never said I support such a thing. "
So you don't support the child's right to force a parent into using it's body then, when the child is fully developed, that's oddly incongruous for someone who demands that right for a blastocyst or a foetus? Now whose "morals" are loosey-goosey and subjective.
Now this..."I am only asking you to explain to me “OBJECTIVELY” why killing a useless man to save a prodigious child is immoral? "
You need me to tell you why murder is immoral? You have lost any moral compass if you can't understand why murder is immoral. You are as I said bordering on eugenics and talking about moral consequentialism to try and justify premeditated murder, where exactly does that end?
"Firstly, I am not saying that you have to give special rights to fetus that is denied to a fully formed human."
Another reversal then, you need to clarify your position.
1. Would you allow an adult to use a parents body against it's will to demand it saved the child's life.
2. Would you allow a foetus the same right to demand a woman use her body to save it's life against her will. This is of course a separate moral question from the reason for the mothers decision.
"What makes you think that a sentient being has more rights than a non-sentient being?"
Are you saying we should afford the same rights to insentient that are not conscious as we would to beings that are sentient and are conscious and can feel emotional and physical pain?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You said: “Your use of the word "retard" is shameful, and says a lot about your moral compass.”
On what objective standard are you making this moral judgement of me? Now, you are invoking moral compass???? How objective, I must say."
I think that is quite obvious.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"you are insinuating that the right of the fetus is of less value than the right of the woman…"
I have made my position clear, I just don't care for you misrepresenting it. A foetus has the right to live, but not to demand a woman's body be used against her will, as I made clear we wouldn't allow a fully formed human to do this so why would we grant this special right to a blastocyst or foetus. You have resorted to evasion and misrepresentation ever since.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
" I am giving the example of Russia in order to show how stats in two countries can lead to contrary inferences."
While attaching cause to atheism with no evidence and ignoring the fact it was a totalitarian regime, Do totalitarian states either theistic or atheistic generally have good records on morality and human rights? My example of the states was a level playing field by pointing out that IN THE SAME COUNTRY theists were over represented in prison systems and committed ore crimes like rape and murder than atheists. I also compared developed democracies that are predominantly atheist against those that are predominantly theist like the US, and again the atheist or secular countries had less instances of violent crimes like rape and murder. This then roundly refutes your unevidenced and subjective claim that theists are more moral. You then tried to introduce your non-sequitur of Russia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Good question. I shall establish my premise once we are done with your premise."
How convenient to shout subjective at every turn, but excuse yourself from the same standard. This dishonesty is what I've come to expect from religious apologetics on the whole.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So what exactly is your position on eating meat? "
I gave a comprehensive answer to that more than once, and you have avoided yet another question here, tut tut.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You said: “I'd point out the rather obvious fact that they are not obliged to seek out atheist forums in order to feign offence.”
Oh… so anything that doesn’t agree with your position is “feigning”! What a convenient “subjective” judgement."
Nope, how you do love to misrepresent people. Doesn't christianity have a moratorium on misrepresenting people? As I said you don't have to come to an atheist forum if your religious beliefs are that fragile as to take offence when they are questioned, that is your choice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"You said: “I might also point out that atheist don't build churches to preach to theists that they are doomed to everlasting torture….”
So, in effect what you are saying is that you would go on a spate of hurting their feelings more."
That's an absurd lie, and your dishonesty is becoming tiresome now. You were the one who tried to feign hurt feelings because an atheist in an atheist forum had questioned your beliefs, as I said atheists don't proselytise the way religions do, and atheists don't threaten eternal damnation to those who disagree with them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"So, if you hurt me by killing and eating the animal I love the most, then killing you in retaliation is justified. "
Well if you say so, I find murder abhorrent, but it seems your morality thinks premeditated murder as revenge is ok. I think we're getting a real flavour of your morality here despite your reticence when questioned directly.
Now either start answering questions or I think we're done.
How is your blind adherence to archaic dogma and doctrine, and the inevitable subsequent cherry picking of contradictory religious texts, many of them barbaric by 21 st century standards, in any way objective?
Do think a foetus or blastocyst should have the right to demand a woman's body be used against her will to save it's life. If so do you think fully formed humans should also have this right?
Is murder always wrong? If not how is this an objective moral commandment?
Is slavery as defined and endorsed in Exodus 21 immoral? If so why is the bible making immoral endorsements of slavery?
Does your morality care about the suffering of conscious beings? Or do you not care whether conscious beings suffer?
try those for now...
Hi Sheldon
You said: “Of course you do, because you are using selection bias. The fact however remains that research shows theists commit more crime than atheists, and are disproportionately represented in prison systems.”
You missed the crux of my argument. I am not trying to make a comparison between theist and atheist atrocities. I was coming back to your charge of ‘not a true Scotsman’ fallacy. If I asked you why if atheism is a benign philosophy are there so many atheists doing horrible things, you probably would say that they perhaps have rejected god but have not fully imbibed the values of atheism, right? That would be a ‘not a true scotsman’ fallacy. Unless you have some other explanation, which I would like to hear.
You said: “You choose to ignore these facts and focus on totalitarian regimes, and then fail to attach any significance to the fact that such regimes are by their nature immoral, and that includes the theistic ones of course, like Nazis Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Saudi Arabia.”
My question is why do atheists form evil totalitarian regimes if atheism as a philosophy is good by nature. Why didn’t your benign philosophy reform the atheists?
You said: "Loosey Goosey", priceless considering you can't give us one single word in defence of religious morals beyond subjective special pleading.
For a hundredth time let me repeat that I have NOT yet explained to you the objectivity behind my moral values. So, you have to show some patience. Let’s get done with your arguments and then move to mine.
You said: “So you don't support the child's right to force a parent into using it's body then, when the child is fully developed, that's oddly incongruous for someone who demands that right for a blastocyst or a foetus? Now whose "morals" are loosey-goosey and subjective.”
Patience please. I have not yet given you my opinion on those issues. If you have an objective standard to measure objectivity in your values, please bring them on. I still haven’t heard from you the method you employ to measure it. Instead you are just making emotional appeals and passing it off as objective certainties.
Let me give you some examples from your arguments to show how you have totally ignored my challenge of measuring objectivity and simply made baseless, emotional appeals in support of your values. Here you go:
Example 1: “You need me to tell you why murder is immoral? You have lost any moral compass if you can't understand why murder is immoral.”
Look how you are simply asserting that ‘murder’ is immoral without telling me on what standards you are saying so. And your reference to ‘moral compass’ is really funny. Where is that compass lodged in your body and how do you take readings from it? After all you are claiming objectivity, aren’t you?
Example 2: “Are you saying we should afford the same rights to insentient that are not conscious as we would to beings that are sentient and are conscious and can feel emotional and physical pain?”
Once again emotional hot gas. This may be good for a political rally, not in an intellectual discussion.
Example 3: “I think that is quite obvious.”
You gave this answer when I asked you about your standard to judge my use of word ‘retard’. And you glibly say “it’s obvious.” Is this your objectivity?!?!?
Example 4: “A foetus has the right to live, but not to demand a woman's body be used against her will…”
There you go again. Presenting your subjective judgement as an objective truth. Who said a fetus has no right to demand a woman’s body to be used against her will? We can also argue that a woman has no right to kill a fetus growing in her womb after conceiving it without the permission of the fetus. Can’t we? Where is objectivity in your claim?
In order not to make this post too long, I will not point out more examples. I hope you would have got the drift by now. So, let’s hear your objective standard. If you don’t have any, then I will present my objective standard.
You seem to have missed all my questions....so lets try again
How is your blind adherence to archaic dogma and doctrine, and the inevitable subsequent cherry picking of contradictory religious texts, many of them barbaric by 21 st century standards, in any way objective?
Do you think a foetus or blastocyst should have the right to demand a woman's body be used against her will to save it's life. If so do you think fully formed humans should also have this right?
Is murder always wrong? If not how is this an objective moral commandment?
Is slavery as defined and endorsed in Exodus 21 immoral? If so why is the bible making immoral endorsements of slavery?
Does your morality care about the suffering of conscious beings? Or do you not care whether conscious beings suffer?
Is it moral to murder a child as a sacrifice to a deity, if not why was Abraham prepared to do this to his own son, and why was God pleased that he was prepared to do it?
Why does the bible condemn people for being gay, and do you consider that moral?
Take your time....
try those for now...
You said: “Of course you do, because you are using selection bias. The fact however remains that research shows theists commit more crime than atheists, and are disproportionately represented in prison systems.”
You missed the crux of my argument.
No I didn't you have repeatedly claimed without evidence that theists are more moral than atheist, and have ingored all the evidence that refutes this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"My question is why do atheists form evil totalitarian regimes if atheism as a philosophy is good by nature. Why didn’t your benign philosophy reform the atheists?"
No, that was not your "question" you simply used section bias to dishonestly blame atheism for the immoral behaviour of communist Russia, ignoring the fact it was a totalitarian regime. Atheists don't "form evil totalitarian regimes" there are plenty of countries that are predominantly atheist that don't do this, and there are plenty of theistic ones that do, like Nazi Germany for instance and their antisemitism .was derived directly from their christianity.
-------------------------------------------------------------
"You said: "Loosey Goosey", priceless considering you can't give us one single word in defence of religious morals beyond subjective special pleading.
For a hundredth time let me repeat that I have NOT yet explained to you the objectivity behind my moral values."
I know you have steadfastly evaded all questions, but your claims about morality have nonetheless shown your morality as subjective, which was my point.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"You said: “So you don't support the child's right to force a parent into using it's body then, when the child is fully developed, that's oddly incongruous for someone who demands that right for a blastocyst or a foetus? Now whose "morals" are loosey-goosey and subjective.”
Patience please. I have not yet given you my opinion on those issues."
I know, hence the question, because of your dishonesty in demanding answers to questions that you are not prepared to give.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Look how you are simply asserting that ‘murder’ is immoral"
You don;t think murder is immoral? Or are you saying you have to be told by a deity it's immoral and could not fathom this for yourself? I think it is immoral for a number of objective reasons which I have given, and you have ignored.
--------------------------------------------------------
"Where is that compass lodged in your body and how do you take readings from it? "
Have you never heard that metaphor before, seriously?
-------------------------------------------------------------
"“A foetus has the right to live, but not to demand a woman's body be used against her will…”
There you go again. Presenting your subjective judgement as an objective truth."
I offered my objective rationale for the claim, you have ignored this and evaded all questions on it, your dishonesty here again says a great deal about your "morals". I'm starting to wonder if you even know what objective means? Do you think it is moral to demand a woman's body is used against her will to preserver the life of a blastocyst or foetus?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"“Are you saying we should afford the same rights to insentient that are not conscious as we would to beings that are sentient and are conscious and can feel emotional and physical pain?”
Once again emotional hot gas. This may be good for a political rally, not in an intellectual discussion."
It;s a question not an assertion, once again the hot gas is coming form you and once again you have dishonestly ignored the question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We can also argue that a woman has no right to kill a fetus growing in her womb after conceiving it without the permission of the fetus."
Would that be a subjective opinion? prior to a certain stage in it's development a foetus is nonviable and cannot live without the body of the woman carrying it. Now I have asked you repeatedly if you think a fully formed adult should be allowed to demand that it's mother's body be used AGAINST HER WISHES to save it's life, the example I gave was where it needed a kidney only the mother could give, and you have refused to answer, unsurprisingly. As you know such a law would be immoral, but you also know this means you are trying to claim a special right for a foetus or blastocyst that you wouldn't' afford a fully formed human, so much for your "objective" morals.
-----------------------------------------
"So, let’s hear your objective standard."
You have ignored them, and seem unwilling to offer a single word about yours, or even answer any questions on them. It's not surprising as you want to denigrate people who don't need your superstition to know that murder and rape are immoral, but think a bible that endorses both and slavery and much else besides is objectively moral BECAUSE YOU SAY SO.
Hi Sheldon
You said: “No I didn't you have repeatedly claimed without evidence that theists are more moral than atheist, and have ingored all the evidence that refutes this.”
Can you show me where I stated that ‘Theists are more moral than atheists”? So far I have only been trying to understand your moral-objectivity claim. You have simply been making emotional appeals to all my questions on that point. I STILL HAVE NOT EXPLAINED MY POSITION, WHICH I SHALL ONCE WE ARE DONE WITH YOUR ARGUMENT.
You said: “No, that was not your "question" you simply used section bias to dishonestly blame atheism for the immoral behaviour of communist Russia, ignoring the fact it was a totalitarian regime.”
Either you have understood me wrong or you are just playing evasive tactics. Let me lay it out clearly for you, so at least now you can try giving an honest answer. You gave statistics of prison in the US to show that more theists are immoral than atheists. So, I was wondering how you would explain the atrocities that atheists carried out in Russia. For which you came back saying that Russians were a totalitarian regime. But that still does not answer the point, because if atheism was a force for the good, then how come atheists became totalitarian dictators? I AM NOT MAKING ANY CLAIM. I AM JUST ASKING YOU A QUESTION. CAN YOU ANSWER THAT?
You said: “Atheists don't "form evil totalitarian regimes" there are plenty of countries that are predominantly atheist that don't do this, and there are plenty of theistic ones that do….”
If you didn’t know, let me help you. Russia, China, Yugoslavia, Cambodia, North Korea, Laos, Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela, East Germany, Angola, Hungary, Albania, Angola etc. The list of atheistic dictatorships at one time accounted for a third of the population of the world. Not an insignificant minority. Any explanation?
You said” I know you have steadfastly evaded all questions, but your claims about morality have nonetheless shown your morality as subjective, which was my point.”
I will not evade the question. I will surely answer them as I have been repeatedly claiming from the beginning. But I want to first establish that your ‘moral objectivity’ is baseless, before explaining my moral paradigm. This was there will be clarity to our discussion. If you agree that your moral objectivity is wrong, then we can ask me your questions.
You said: “You don;t think murder is immoral? Or are you saying you have to be told by a deity it's immoral and could not fathom this for yourself? I think it is immoral for a number of objective reasons which I have given, and you have ignored.”
Me thinking murder is immoral is your objective standard? What does it matter what I think. Please give me your objective standard. I don’t remember you ever giving any objective standard to show that anything is immoral. I have shown how all your standards are just subjective.
You said: “Have you never heard that metaphor before, seriously?”
This was in reference to ‘moral compass’. In our search for moral objectivity of what value are metaphors! That is what I was critiquing in a sarcastic way. Sorry you didn’t get the drift.
You said: “I'm starting to wonder if you even know what objective means? Do you think it is moral to demand a woman's body is used against her will to preserver the life of a blastocyst or foetus?”
By ‘objective” I mean a judgement that is not influenced by our personal feelings. What you are saying is nothing more than your personal worldview. Why should the career of a woman be more valuable than the life of a future individual? People according to whose worldview ‘life’ trumps ‘career’ will consider abortion immoral. And people whose worldview is otherwise, will think abortion as morally viable. In both cases it’s just personal feelings. Not objective.
You said: “It;s a question not an assertion, once again the hot gas is coming form you and once again you have dishonestly ignored the question.”
AS EXPLAINED EARLIER, I WILL ANSWER ALL YOUR QUESTIONS ONCE WE ARE DONE WITH YOUR SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT.
You said: “Now I have asked you repeatedly if you think a fully formed adult should be allowed to demand that it's mother's body be used AGAINST HER WISHES to save it's life…”
Same as above. I will answer your questions once you agree that your standard are not objective!
You missed these again.......so lets try again
How is your blind adherence to archaic dogma and doctrine, and the inevitable subsequent cherry picking of contradictory religious texts, many of them barbaric by 21 st century standards, in any way objective?
Do you think a foetus or blastocyst should have the right to demand a woman's body be used against her will to save it's life. If so do you think fully formed humans should also have this right?
Is murder always wrong? If not how is this an objective moral commandment?
Is slavery as defined and endorsed in Exodus 21 immoral? If so why is the bible making immoral endorsements of slavery?
Does your morality care about the suffering of conscious beings? Or do you not care whether conscious beings suffer?
Is it moral to murder a child as a sacrifice to a deity, if not why was Abraham prepared to do this to his own son, and why was God pleased that he was prepared to do it?
Why does the bible condemn people for being gay, and do you consider that moral?
Or you can just admit you have squat...
Take your time....
try those for now...
Hi Sheldon
Now, you have stopped giving answers and moved into asking questions. I had put forth a caveat that I will answer your questions provided you concede that your moral standard is not objective. But I will waive that caveat as my aim is not to win debates but share ideas and further understanding. So here are my answers.
You asked: How is your blind adherence to archaic dogma and doctrine, and the inevitable subsequent cherry picking of contradictory religious texts, many of them barbaric by 21 st century standards, in any way objective?
Actually, this was the subject of a long discussion I had on this forum with ‘Pragmatic’. Let me sum it up tersely for you. Here is how the logical train of thoughts proceed.
When I look at the specified complexity in the world, it clearly indicates to the work of intelligence of a very high order.
Science is unable to provide me the answer to the nature or existence of this intelligent agent.
When science can’t help me out here as an epistemology, I look for other epistemological sources for answers.
I find that religions claim to explain this agent, namely God.
But I find that there are many religions with contradictory ideas.
Now, I have to eliminate the less tenable ones and arrive at the correct religion.
In order to do this, I look at two parts in every religion. The first part involves things that are amenable to our intellectual scrutiny and the second one involves things that are clearly outside our objective analysis.
I eliminate the less tenable religions using the first part – namely things that we can scrutinize using our intellect. For this I use logic, history, probabilistic analysis etc.
After the whetting process, I arrive at Islam as the most tenable religion.
Once I am convinced then I accept the second part of what it says, namely things that I can intellectually analyze such as belief in the nature of God, the supernatural and the moral and ethical code for life.
The moral code thus obtained is objective because I am not influenced by my personal feelings while I adhere to them. Whether I am moved by the sight of a beggar or not, I would still give him charity, because God commands me to do so.
You asked: “Do you think a foetus or blastocyst should have the right to demand a woman's body be used against her will to save it's life. If so do you think fully formed humans should also have this right?
A fetus has the right to be allowed to develop and grow into a human, while a fully formed human does not have the right to demand anybody’s body for his/her benefit. Why? Because God said so.
You asked: “Is murder always wrong? If not how is this an objective moral commandment?”
It is not wrong in situations outlined by god. And in each of these situations as I am not judging based on personal feelings but rather on God’s commandment, it is objective.
You asked: “Is slavery as defined and endorsed in Exodus 21 immoral? If so why is the bible making immoral endorsements of slavery?”
I am not a Christian. But I guess you can ask the same thing about Quran. While I can get into a long discussion on how Islam actually made the institution of slavery more humane and provided ways for its organic demise in a society… the simpler answer would be this. As you don’t have an objective way to measure good and bad, on what standards are you saying that slavery is bad? Please don’t get emotional here, keep you cool and give an objective standard.
You asked: “Does your morality care about the suffering of conscious beings? Or do you not care whether conscious beings suffer?”
As a general principle, yes I care. But if you have specifics on mind, you would have to explain the details and I will give my position. However, all my positions would be based on one single paradigm: God said so.
You asked: Is it moral to murder a child as a sacrifice to a deity, if not why was Abraham prepared to do this to his own son, and why was God pleased that he was prepared to do it?
From an Islamic perspective, the highest deed anyone can do is to submit one’s will absolutely to God. Abraham did so when God asked him to do a sacrifice that would have been extremely painful to him. Yet, because of Abraham’s complete submission to this command, God is pleased and asks him not to slay his son. From this story, the lesson for us is not that we should kill our children, because God finally did not approve of it. Rather, we have to be willing to sacrifice all our negative habits for the sake of God even though it might be very difficult for us. Such as not to drink alcohol. Yes, it could be tempting. But if god said so, I will give it up.
You asked: “Why does the bible condemn people for being gay, and do you consider that moral?”
It’s case with Islam also. God condemns homosexuality because in His sight it’s a sin. I consider it immoral because God said so.
Hi Sheldon
Now, you have stopped giving answers and moved into asking questions. I had put forth a caveat that I will answer your questions provided you concede that your moral standard is not objective. But I will waive that caveat as my aim is not to win debates but share ideas and further understanding. So here are my answers.
You asked: How is your blind adherence to archaic dogma and doctrine, and the inevitable subsequent cherry picking of contradictory religious texts, many of them barbaric by 21 st century standards, in any way objective?
Actually, this was the subject of a long discussion I had on this forum with ‘Pragmatic’. Let me sum it up tersely for you. Here is how the logical train of thoughts proceed.
When I look at the specified complexity in the world, it clearly indicates to the work of intelligence of a very high order.
Science is unable to provide me the answer to the nature or existence of this intelligent agent.
When science can’t help me out here as an epistemology, I look for other epistemological sources for answers.
I find that religions claim to explain this agent, namely God.
But I find that there are many religions with contradictory ideas.
Now, I have to eliminate the less tenable ones and arrive at the correct religion.
In order to do this, I look at two parts in every religion. The first part involves things that are amenable to our intellectual scrutiny and the second one involves things that are clearly outside our objective analysis.
I eliminate the less tenable religions using the first part – namely things that we can scrutinize using our intellect. For this I use logic, history, probabilistic analysis etc.
After the whetting process, I arrive at Islam as the most tenable religion.
Once I am convinced then I accept the second part of what it says, namely things that I can intellectually analyze such as belief in the nature of God, the supernatural and the moral and ethical code for life.
The moral code thus obtained is objective because I am not influenced by my personal feelings while I adhere to them. Whether I am moved by the sight of a beggar or not, I would still give him charity, because God commands me to do so.
You asked: “Do you think a foetus or blastocyst should have the right to demand a woman's body be used against her will to save it's life. If so do you think fully formed humans should also have this right?
A fetus has the right to be allowed to develop and grow into a human, while a fully formed human does not have the right to demand anybody’s body for his/her benefit. Why? Because God said so.
You asked: “Is murder always wrong? If not how is this an objective moral commandment?”
It is not wrong in situations outlined by god. And in each of these situations as I am not judging based on personal feelings but rather on God’s commandment, it is objective.
You asked: “Is slavery as defined and endorsed in Exodus 21 immoral? If so why is the bible making immoral endorsements of slavery?”
I am not a Christian. But I guess you can ask the same thing about Quran. While I can get into a long discussion on how Islam actually made the institution of slavery more humane and provided ways for its organic demise in a society… the simpler answer would be this. As you don’t have an objective way to measure good and bad, on what standards are you saying that slavery is bad? Please don’t get emotional here, keep you cool and give an objective standard.
You asked: “Does your morality care about the suffering of conscious beings? Or do you not care whether conscious beings suffer?”
As a general principle, yes I care. But if you have specifics on mind, you would have to explain the details and I will give my position. However, all my positions would be based on one single paradigm: God said so.
You asked: Is it moral to murder a child as a sacrifice to a deity, if not why was Abraham prepared to do this to his own son, and why was God pleased that he was prepared to do it?
From an Islamic perspective, the highest deed anyone can do is to submit one’s will absolutely to God. Abraham did so when God asked him to do a sacrifice that would have been extremely painful to him. Yet, because of Abraham’s complete submission to this command, God is pleased and asks him not to slay his son. From this story, the lesson for us is not that we should kill our children, because God finally did not approve of it. Rather, we have to be willing to sacrifice all our negative habits for the sake of God even though it might be very difficult for us. Such as not to drink alcohol. Yes, it could be tempting. But if god said so, I will give it up.
You asked: “Why does the bible condemn people for being gay, and do you consider that moral?”
It’s case with Islam also. God condemns homosexuality because in His sight it’s a sin. I consider it immoral because God said so.
What utter horse shit, seriously, I can't believe I waited for that vapid verbiage. The usual string of theistic assertions and not a shred of evidence or logically sound argument to be seen.
... it clearly indicates...subjective claim
...I look at the specified complexity in the world,...specified by you, so subjective claim
... it clearly indicates to the work of intelligence ...subjective claim
...Science is unable to provide me the answer to the nature or existence of this intelligent agent...logically fallacious appeal to ignorance
..I find that religions claim to explain this agent, namely God....personal opinion so subjective claim
...I arrive at Islam as the most tenable religion....subjective opinion (flying horses tend not to convince me that reason is at play)
...I am convinced...The moral code thus obtained is objective because I am not influenced by my personal feelings..demonstrable contradiction and subjective claim...this is hilarious guff even by the standard of apologetic you set out with.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Do you think a foetus or blastocyst should have the right to demand a woman's body be used against her will to save it's life. If so do you think fully formed humans should also have this right?
A fetus has the right to be allowed to develop and grow into a human, while a fully formed human does not have the right to demand anybody’s body for his/her benefit. Why? Because God said so.
>>So you think a foetus should have rights a fully formed human should not, subjective and clearly absurd. The last sentence is priceless, it's not morality though, it's little more than slavery, you can't fathom murder and rape are wrong unless a deity tells you through an ancient book.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You asked: “Is murder always wrong? If not how is this an objective moral commandment?”
It is not wrong in situations outlined by god. And in each of these situations as I am not judging based on personal feelings but rather on God’s commandment, it is objective.
So it's not your opinion a deity exist, or your opinion you know what that deity wants? You are making subjective claims and then trying to lend gravitas to them by claiming you know this is what a deity wants. Demonstrate evidence for a deity first....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Does your morality care about the suffering of conscious beings? Or do you not care whether conscious beings suffer?”
As a general principle, yes I care.
>>But only because you're told to care right? Otherwise these are the very "personal feeling and opinions" you have decried as subjective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Islam actually made the institution of slavery more humane "
That's an oxymoron, slavery is the very antithesis of humane, only religion could pretend that slavery is remotely moral under any circumstances, ever. But then this is what happens when you blindly follow iron age morals and try to pretend they are superior to human reasoning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From an Islamic perspective, the highest deed anyone can do is to submit one’s will absolutely to God. Abraham did so when God asked him to do a sacrifice that would have been extremely painful to him. Yet, because of Abraham’s complete submission to this command, God is pleased
>>So your perfect deity's objective morality thinks slaves who blindly follow it's commands even for child sacrifices are admirable and moral, enough said. You have no concept of morality, subjective or otherwise.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You asked: “Why does the bible condemn people for being gay, and do you consider that moral?”
It’s case with Islam also. God condemns homosexuality because in His sight it’s a sin. I consider it immoral because God said so.
>>So you condemn other people because you're told to, without any attempt to objectively reason why this is moral. You are one messed up individual sorry, seriously learn to think for yourself or you will remain morally bankrupt, I pity the world you live in, as it seems devoid of compassion, reason, morality and empathy, all replace with blind brainwashed indoctrination to an iron age cult...sorry but everything you are claiming is at best amoral, and some of it demonstrably immoral...
Nothing you have said demonstrates any objective morality only blind adherence to archaic dogma, you don't seem to even know what morality is beyond blind adherence.
...
..
Hi Sheldon
You said: “...I look at the specified complexity in the world,...specified by you, so subjective claim”
By specified complexity I mean an arrangement of primitive parts in a specified arrangement to fulfill a function. I see this all over the world both in nature and among artificially created things. A watch has parts arranged in a specified order, and so does our eye, which has parts arranged in a specified order. What is subjective about it? It is what anyone can observe plainly.
You said: “... it clearly indicates to the work of intelligence ...subjective claim”
Arranging primitive parts to achieve a function requires intelligence. Let’s take for example a word like ‘THESAURUS’. Here I have arranged the letters (primitive parts) in a specified order to create a meaningful word. In order to create this, I have to employ my intelligence because I need to plan with a foresight as I progressively choose the letters one after the other. Why did I choose T first, followed by H, followed by E and so on… because I use my mind. Every specified complexity in the world whose origins we know of has arisen exclusively from intelligence. And therefore my conclusion that nature which has specified complexity of a very high order must have risen from intelligence too. This is no subjective. There is a strong logical reason for my claim.
You said: “...Science is unable to provide me the answer to the nature or existence of this intelligent agent...logically fallacious appeal to ignorance”
Well, then please tell me what science has to say about the origins question.
You said: “..I find that religions claim to explain this agent, namely God....personal opinion so subjective claim”
Are you saying that religions don’t make such claims? You don’t even seem to know what is subjective.
You said: “...I arrive at Islam as the most tenable religion....subjective opinion (flying horses tend not to convince me that reason is at play)”
You have overlooked the explanation I gave for my conclusion about islam. I stated that I use a logical method for that conclusion. You could have asked me to explain that method. But you just blindly concluded that it aught to be subjective.
You said: “...I am convinced...The moral code thus obtained is objective because I am not influenced by my personal feelings..demonstrable contradiction and subjective claim...this is hilarious guff even by the standard of apologetic you set out with.”
Once God is established (using the methods above) then it’s not hard to see how morality becomes objective. Stealing is wrong, not because of any personal feelings, but because god said so. Period.
You said: “>>So you think a foetus should have rights a fully formed human should not, subjective and clearly absurd.”
You are still deeply confused about what is subjective. Whatever my position on fetus is, it comes from the paradigm of god. That way I don’t let my personal feelings and opinions interfere with my position. This makes it objective. You are missing that point, and are simply making emotional appeals to show that I am wrong and your view on it is right… while I have demonstrated clearly that your views are totally subjective. So, sorry, you do not have a reliable yardstick to measure another’s morality.
The rest of your points have the same basic problem.
"I see this all over the world.....subjective opinion...again
______________
"
A watch has parts arranged in a specified order, and so does our eye, which has parts arranged in a specified order. What is subjective about it? "
Nothing. We know humans design and make watches. We know eyes evolve naturally. Watches don't occur in nature. These are established objective scientific facts.
____________
"Arranging primitive parts to achieve a function requires intelligence.....subjective claim and demonstrably wrong as scientific facts show...
------------------
"Well, then please tell me what science has to say about the origins question."
That's the same logically fallacious argument from ignorance. Do you even know what common logical fallacies are, or that argumentum ad ignorantiam is one? You seem to not realise you've used it here, twice.
___________
You said: “..I find that religions claim to explain this agent, namely God....personal opinion so subjective claim”
Are you saying that religions don’t make such claims?
Can't you read? I said they make subjective claims. As you did there.
_____________
"
You said: “...I arrive at Islam as the most tenable religion....subjective opinion (flying horses tend not to convince me that reason is at play)”
You have overlooked the explanation I gave for my conclusion about islam. I stated that I use a logical method for that conclusion. You could have asked me to explain that method. But you just blindly concluded that it aught to be subjective."
That's correct. Since you made another unevidenced subjective claim I rejected it. I'm under no obligation to accept claims you assert without evidence, if you want the claim to be judged on its logic then you have to offer that logic, not simply assert it was used. Besides your arguments are rife with logical fallacies AS I HAVE DEMONSTRATED.
_____________
"Once God is established (using the methods above) then it’s not hard to see how morality becomes objective."
You have demonstrated no evidence that a deity exists, and simply said "you are convinced". Hence it is the very definition of a subjective claim. If you can objectively demonstrate the existence of God why are you wasting time? Get on with it.
_____________
"You are still deeply confused about what is subjective. Whatever my position on fetus is, it comes from the paradigm of god"
A claim you can demonstrate no objective evidence for so it is a subjective opinion. So it is you and no me that is deeply confused about what is objective and what is subjective.
_____________
"So, sorry, you do not have a reliable yardstick to measure another’s morality"
As opposed to your subjective opinion that you know what god wants? Hilarious irony.
Your problems don't end there either. Even if you could objectively demonstrate evidence that a deity exists and demanded these "morals" how woud you objectively assess whether they or the deity are moral? You have pointed out repeatedly that you think humans can't do this.
You're lost in a spiral of subjective, contradictory and logically fallacious claims.
Sheldon, I agree with you that his irreducible complexity, specified order argument (“I see this all over the world”) is subjective opinion. I also find it an argument of incredulity. In essence, “it is so complex I just cannot see how it can happen naturally, therefore, gawd.”
"By ‘objective” I mean a judgement that is not influenced by our personal feelings. What you are saying is nothing more than your personal worldview."
I;m making claims based on reality and evidence, not voodoo superstitions like you. So far all you've done is make subjective claims, not one question have you answered, just the same evasion and excuse every time.
Valiya, you wrote, “Why do the big underworld dons commit murders easily… they have much to gain from those murders and very little to lose, because they have the high connections to evade law. Now, it takes god belief to stop you from committing such immoralities even when the risk is negligible and the benefit huge.”
I think you left out at least a couple of rather large pieces in this little story of yours. We have studies that show that most convicted criminals (referring to U.S. here) do have a god belief so it doesn’t seem to follow, as you’ve asserted, that it takes god belief to stop someone from committing what you refer to as immoralities. Additionally, my guess would be that sociopathy most certainly plays a part in the actions taken by “big underworld dons” - and that seems to be an issue with the brain, not theology.
"I think you left out at least a couple of rather large pieces in this little story of yours. We have studies that show that most convicted criminals (referring to U.S. here) do have a god belief so it doesn’t seem to follow, as you’ve asserted, that it takes god belief to stop someone from committing what you refer to as immoralities. Additionally, my guess would be that sociopathy most certainly plays a part in the actions taken by “big underworld dons” - and that seems to be an issue with the brain, not theology."
He might also want to ask himself if it is moral for a person who has committed mass murder with no regard for the rights of their victims is then allowed to enter an eternity of bliss in an afterlife based on a moment of genuine contrition right at the end of that life? Whereas a genuinely good person by any moral standard who has done nothing but good for others their whole lives is sent to an afterlife of everlasting torture because they failed to believe in a deity for which no one could demonstrate sufficient evidence?
Any deity that created or permitted such a system I'd want nothing to do with, let alone worship. luckily I see no evidence it exists, and the claim itself is logically inconsistent with it being part of a plan of a perfectly benevolent deity.
HI cyberLN
just have a look at my answer to Sheldon above. It answers your questions also.
I reviewed your responses to Sheldon and see nothing concerning psychopathy or sociopathy in them. Did I miss it? Would you please iterate your opinion concerning how sociopathy and psychopathy fit in in regard to your assertion that “ it takes god belief to stop you from committing such immoralities even when the risk is negligible and the benefit huge.”
Hi CyberLN
The bottom line is simple. Whatever you may be, whether psychopath or anything else, so long as you have the ability to understand the consequences of your actions and carry out your crimes in a manner to avoiding detection, then belief in God will have an impact on you. Ask yourself why a psychopath carries out his crimes in a smart way in order to escape being caught… because he fears the consequences. Would such a person commit crimes if he knows he is under surveillance? Of course no. Therefore, a person with a strong belief in God, a person who knows that he will be made to account for his actions one day, will not indulge in sins.
Well, I’d suggest you study up on what the most current studies are showing us about brain function, brain disease, and behavior. Pay particular attention to the work being done with brain scans and felony criminals.
So far as the whole “fearing the consequences “ notion you suggest as the compass for morality....well, that’s just sad. As one (and I suspect there are a great many others) who is identified as atheist, I will say that when I behave morally it is certainly not because I fear reprisal from some god after I die. It is because I have a brain that is not damaged in its capacity to experience empathy.
hi CyberLN
You said: So far as the whole “fearing the consequences “ notion you suggest as the compass for morality....well, that’s just sad. As one (and I suspect there are a great many others) who is identified as atheist, I will say that when I behave morally it is certainly not because I fear reprisal from some god after I die. It is because I have a brain that is not damaged in its capacity to experience empathy.
You are just turning a blind eye to the huge realities in front of you. The strongest drive in man is not empathy but self-preservation. If I can better my position at the expense of another individual, then it’s natural human tendency that we would do it. However, the drive to do it depends on what you value in life. Someone who thinks getting richer is the ultimate goal of life might lie or cheat for money. Someone who thinks family is everything might do bad things in order to bring happiness to his family. Someone else may not kill or steal, but indulge in rape because he values physical pleasure. Get the drift. Now, irrespective of what your weaknesses are, God belief will help you keep you passions under check and force you to act morally even when you don’t have any worldly incentive to do something or abstain from something.
Criminality stemming from some pathological cause is different, I agree. But even there, a strong belief in God will help in a great way.
You wrote, “You are just turning a blind eye to the huge realities in front of you. The strongest drive in man is not empathy but self-preservation.”
Well, that’s the beauty of the human brain. This large, complex forebrain we own, when not diseased, allows us to override the amygdala.
“If I can better my position at the expense of another individual, then it’s natural human tendency that we would do it. However, the drive to do it depends on what you value in life. Someone who thinks getting richer is the ultimate goal of life might lie or cheat for money. Someone who thinks family is everything might do bad things in order to bring happiness to his family. Someone else may not kill or steal, but indulge in rape because he values physical pleasure. Get the drift.”
Nope. That’s not what this particular heathen bases her behavior on.
“Now, irrespective of what your weaknesses are, God belief will help you keep you passions under check and force you to act morally even when you don’t have any worldly incentive to do something or abstain from something.”
Nope. I have no gods and I doubt theists, on average, behave any more ‘morally’ than I do.
“Criminality stemming from some pathological cause is different, I agree. But even there, a strong belief in God will help in a great way.”
Do you have any studies at the ready to show that this belief helps ‘in a great way’?
CyberLN
You said: “Nope. That’s not what this particular heathen bases her behavior on.”
Let’s be clear on some basics in this discussion. Bringing personal experiences to the table doesn’t add any value to our discussion. Because you say one thing and I can counter it with my personal experience. What you have to show me is explain to me logically how you arrive at value judgements in the first place and then give me a good reason to live by it. If you can’t give me these two things, then morality will be some kind of a relativistic jelly that fits everyone’s convenience as they deem fit.
You said: “Do you have any studies at the ready to show that this belief helps ‘in a great way’?
I don’t have studies. Perhaps I can look it up. But here is my logic. If a pathological criminal would keep away from committing a crime under the fear of being caught, then a strong belief in God will act as a deterrent for him too. If I fear the police because they can punish me, then how much more I would fear God because there is just no way I can slip from His justice.
I’m pretty sure I’ve said I arrive at what I think is an appropriate way to treat others via, among some some other th8ngs, empathy.
Also, I do think bringing my personal experience is reasonable whe in response to sweeping statements about something. It goes to countering those sorts of sweeping assertions.
As to criminals’ fear of being caught as a primary driver, well....again, the brain and its health is a critical factor, and, perhaps more importantly for this discussion, isn’t your assertion that a criminal’s primary driver of fear getting caught just that? An assertion? So you can use whatever you call ‘your logic’. I will, however, consider that ‘logic’ flawed until / unless it can be backed up with actual data.
HYG
Hi CyberLN
You said: “I’m pretty sure I’ve said I arrive at what I think is an appropriate way to treat others via, among some some other th8ngs, empathy.”
In a discussion on the ‘objectivity’ of morality, statements like ‘what I think is appropriate’ is just meaningless. You can define your own morality and live by it if it makes you feel good. But you cannot pick faults with another’s definition of morality sitting on this paradigm. Because yours is as subjective as anyone else’s.
You said: “Also, I do think bringing my personal experience is reasonable whe in response to sweeping statements about something. It goes to countering those sorts of sweeping assertions.”
I am not making any sweeping statements. I am just bringing you a fundamental logic based on which the human race functions – that of self-preservation/utilitarianism. This is the basic motive force that’s driving humanity. Who can argue otherwise? Would you work if you received no salary from your boss? We do what brings us benefit and avoid what brings us loss. God belief gives you a clear idea about ‘benefits’ and ‘loss’ for actions. Therefore, it serves as a powerful motivator to do good and avoid bad.
You said: “As to criminals’ fear of being caught as a primary driver, well....again, the brain and its health is a critical factor, and, perhaps more importantly for this discussion, isn’t your assertion that a criminal’s primary driver of fear getting caught just that?”
This is like you asking for proof to show that hunger drives people to eat food. It’s so fundamental to our existence. If you think fear of being caught is not a primary driver then our entire legal system should be a faulty system. Why do people drive slower when there are traffic cameras? So it’s not some assertion. This is how you, I and everyone else for that matter function.
"You can define your own morality and live by it if it makes you feel good. But you cannot pick faults with another’s definition of morality sitting on this paradigm. Because yours is as subjective as anyone else’s."
OMFG, irony overload......
"I am not making any sweeping statements. I am just bringing you a fundamental logic based on which the human race functions "
Another irony overload, you have done nothing but make sweeping statements. Whilst dishonestly evading all questions or any pretence of evidencing those claims.
Agreed
"The strongest drive in man is not empathy but self-preservation."
Yet another subjective opinion, and the fact there are approaching 7 billion of us suggests you're talking complete nonsense as well.
" If I can better my position at the expense of another individual, then it’s natural human tendency that we would do it."
..and another subjective opinion, and one that is roundly refuted by ample evidence, there are plenty of secular charities out there as well, whose altruism does not demand those receiving it have to be proselytised.
----------------------------------------
"Someone who thinks getting richer is the ultimate goal of life might lie or cheat for money. "
Like Christian televangelist you mean? or how about the RCC, they are one of the richest organisations on the planet.
-----------------------------------------------
"Someone else may not kill or steal, but indulge in rape because he values physical pleasure. "
You mean like the endemic child abuse in the largest Christian church?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Now, irrespective of what your weaknesses are, God belief will help you keep you passions under check and force you to act morally "
So why do so many theists commit murder and rape then, and why in the states for example are there a disproportionate amount of theists in jail for such crimes? come to that why do largely atheist countries like Japan have demonstrably less violent crimes like rape and murder compared to overtly religious countries like the US? All you've done is offer another subjective onion based on your own bias that ignores reality and all the evidence.
"The bottom line is simple. Whatever you may be, whether psychopath or anything else, so long as you have the ability to understand the consequences of your actions and carry out your crimes in a manner to avoiding detection, then belief in God will have an impact on you."
That's not just a glaring contradiction, it's just plain wrong, but since true to form you are making sweeping claims without the pretence of evidence is anyone really surprised. If it were true then the facts wouldn't show prisons full of theists who have committed violent crimes like rape and murder, all the research shows a disproportionate amount of theists in prison for such crimes.
"Would such a person commit crimes if he knows he is under surveillance? Of course no. Therefore, a person with a strong belief in God, a person who knows that he will be made to account for his actions one day, will not indulge in sins."
Then explain why the facts don't bear out your unevidenced claims?
Pages