To the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops of the Catholic World in Grace and Communion with the Apostolic See. The hidden design of the divine wisdom, which Jesus Christ the Savior of men came to carry out on earth, had … Continue reading →
Very old arguement that has no merit. We have morality because we don’t need some magic person in the sky or a 2000 year old out of date textbook to tell us what is right from wrong. Nothing about current Christianity is moral and an atheist can be trusted to do the right thing far better than a Christian. This is constantly proven on a day by day basis with how riddled Christianity is with pedophilia and the rise of Christian nationalism that is entwined with white supremacy.
The fact you focused on that part and not the rest of my arguement proves my whole point. You ignored the very reasons why Christianity and other religions aren’t intrinsically moral. Besides, there’s nothing about Christianity that comes directly from God. The gospels were all written by man after the death of Jesus up to hundreds of years after him and have been censored and changed thousands of times over the years for different individuals benefits. Hell it was altered in the 20th century from saying pedophilia was bad to paint homosexuals as bad for very obvious reasons. Literally Christianity and many other similar religions are just tools at this point used to control others. As a species we have outgrown them, but those in control don’t like giving it up or losing their misplaced sense of moral superiority.
One doesn’t need rules to be handed down from an authority to be moral.
In fact, accepting the morality handed to you is amoral. You have it exactly backwards; Catholicism is abusive supremacy as one can tell by looking at the times in history when they had carte blanche to impose their rules on everyone in Europe.
There’s no humanist who proposes burning witches at the stake, but how many thousands have been murdered at the hands of Catholic supremacists?
One doesn’t need rules to be handed down from an authority to be moral.
How would this process go? I decide one thing is moral, you decide another thing is moral which is different; it doesn’t seem possible for the two to work out. Say one person believes abortion is immoral, another decides it is moral: how is this conflict resolved, in your view?
There’s no humanist who proposes burning witches at the stake, but how many thousands have been murdered at the hands of Catholic supremacists?
There hasn’t been agreement on if capital punishment should be the punishment for certain crimes or not, but the authority to decide has been accepted as being allowed. The person who spreads heresy was thought to be perhaps worse than one who takes life, as they threaten damage that doesn’t end. Consider the danger of “misinformation” today: say a person said that eating any dirt might be healthy, and this led to much illness. This is the problem of “heresy”: hence, some considered this to be like taking lives, and that it should be punished as such. Others argued for toleration and combating false teaching with simply discussing the truth.
There have been atheists that have caused much death, like the Communist movements in the 20th century (Communism aims to create a society free of religion).
If your answer to “how do we figure out what is moral” is to just throw up your hands and amorally accept the same system that burned witches at the stake, then I don’t see how we are even on the same planet, morally speaking.
People were murdered in the name of Catholicism for being the wrong religion. Indigenous people were forcibly converted to that religion because they thought they knew better than the people who were living just fine without that nonsense. They starved babies and threw them in wells. They enslaved women in Ireland.
We know what is moral because we know how we like to be treated. We’ve agreed as a society what is acceptable or not. We have certain minimum rights that we accept in our social contact. There is no need for magic to explain any of this. The fact that people disagree on morality is a point against your god.
Of course atheists have caused death, but atheism is not an ideology. It’s an answer to a single question, which is why I’d specified humanists.
Like I said, we know what the Catholic Church does when it’s in power: whatever it can get away with.
If your answer to “how do we figure out what is moral” is to just throw up your hands and amorally accept the same system that burned witches at the stake, then I don’t see how we are even on the same planet, morally speaking.
Your system, not prescribing any morals, allows for people to believe it is moral to burn whoever they want at the stake for whatever reason, which would be arguably worse, no?
We know what is moral because we know how we like to be treated. We’ve agreed as a society what is acceptable or not. We have certain minimum rights that we accept in our social contact. There is no need for magic to explain any of this.
You know this is no solution to the problem: one person may like to be treated differently than another, different societies decide what is acceptable or not, the rights aren’t guaranteed by social contract.
Of course atheists have caused death
This is your answer for Catholics and Catholicism though, it’s not all Catholics that have done this
Your system, not prescribing any morals, allows for people to believe it is moral to burn whoever they want at the stake for whatever reason, which would be arguably worse, no?
Why do you think humanists burn people at the stake? What a ridiculous thing to say.
You know this is no solution to the problem: one person may like to be treated differently than another, different societies decide what is acceptable or not, the rights aren’t guaranteed by social contract.
And how does a god that I don’t believe in because it’s ridiculous help the situation?
This is your answer for Catholics and Catholicism though, it’s not all Catholics that have done this
Absolutely not. One can be a humanist and a Catholic Christian; they are not exclusive. Rather, the humanism what makes them have an actual moral system instead of just accepting what the church has to say. Again, see genocide and witch burning.
Please stop putting words in my mouth and also assuming that you know things which you have not investigated.
Far far better places to go for morality than christianity
Such as? Don’t the non-religious have no basis for morality?
Very old arguement that has no merit. We have morality because we don’t need some magic person in the sky or a 2000 year old out of date textbook to tell us what is right from wrong. Nothing about current Christianity is moral and an atheist can be trusted to do the right thing far better than a Christian. This is constantly proven on a day by day basis with how riddled Christianity is with pedophilia and the rise of Christian nationalism that is entwined with white supremacy.
It seems to have merit though: if there is no moral code, a person can choose as their moral code abusive supremacy
The fact you focused on that part and not the rest of my arguement proves my whole point. You ignored the very reasons why Christianity and other religions aren’t intrinsically moral. Besides, there’s nothing about Christianity that comes directly from God. The gospels were all written by man after the death of Jesus up to hundreds of years after him and have been censored and changed thousands of times over the years for different individuals benefits. Hell it was altered in the 20th century from saying pedophilia was bad to paint homosexuals as bad for very obvious reasons. Literally Christianity and many other similar religions are just tools at this point used to control others. As a species we have outgrown them, but those in control don’t like giving it up or losing their misplaced sense of moral superiority.
One doesn’t need rules to be handed down from an authority to be moral.
In fact, accepting the morality handed to you is amoral. You have it exactly backwards; Catholicism is abusive supremacy as one can tell by looking at the times in history when they had carte blanche to impose their rules on everyone in Europe.
There’s no humanist who proposes burning witches at the stake, but how many thousands have been murdered at the hands of Catholic supremacists?
How would this process go? I decide one thing is moral, you decide another thing is moral which is different; it doesn’t seem possible for the two to work out. Say one person believes abortion is immoral, another decides it is moral: how is this conflict resolved, in your view?
There hasn’t been agreement on if capital punishment should be the punishment for certain crimes or not, but the authority to decide has been accepted as being allowed. The person who spreads heresy was thought to be perhaps worse than one who takes life, as they threaten damage that doesn’t end. Consider the danger of “misinformation” today: say a person said that eating any dirt might be healthy, and this led to much illness. This is the problem of “heresy”: hence, some considered this to be like taking lives, and that it should be punished as such. Others argued for toleration and combating false teaching with simply discussing the truth.
There have been atheists that have caused much death, like the Communist movements in the 20th century (Communism aims to create a society free of religion).
If your answer to “how do we figure out what is moral” is to just throw up your hands and amorally accept the same system that burned witches at the stake, then I don’t see how we are even on the same planet, morally speaking.
People were murdered in the name of Catholicism for being the wrong religion. Indigenous people were forcibly converted to that religion because they thought they knew better than the people who were living just fine without that nonsense. They starved babies and threw them in wells. They enslaved women in Ireland.
We know what is moral because we know how we like to be treated. We’ve agreed as a society what is acceptable or not. We have certain minimum rights that we accept in our social contact. There is no need for magic to explain any of this. The fact that people disagree on morality is a point against your god.
Of course atheists have caused death, but atheism is not an ideology. It’s an answer to a single question, which is why I’d specified humanists.
Like I said, we know what the Catholic Church does when it’s in power: whatever it can get away with.
Your system, not prescribing any morals, allows for people to believe it is moral to burn whoever they want at the stake for whatever reason, which would be arguably worse, no?
You know this is no solution to the problem: one person may like to be treated differently than another, different societies decide what is acceptable or not, the rights aren’t guaranteed by social contract.
This is your answer for Catholics and Catholicism though, it’s not all Catholics that have done this
Why do you think humanists burn people at the stake? What a ridiculous thing to say.
And how does a god that I don’t believe in because it’s ridiculous help the situation?
Absolutely not. One can be a humanist and a Catholic Christian; they are not exclusive. Rather, the humanism what makes them have an actual moral system instead of just accepting what the church has to say. Again, see genocide and witch burning.
Please stop putting words in my mouth and also assuming that you know things which you have not investigated.