On May 27 2011 21:37 AXygnus wrote: Why did I read this after I ate, now I feel like vomiting.
While what the kid did wasn't smart at all, he had a point. Prayers have no place in public schools. There could be many more students like him that thought the same, just didn't have the courage to step up. And the reaction just goes around to show how much some people are intolerant about their religion (or atheism, in the case of Damon).
However, something good came around. This situation has brought the best out of them atheist groups, which, like it's said in the OP, are thought to be amoral.
Why the hell would atheist groups be considered amoral?? Since when has religion rented the sole right to having moral values?? I can't believe many people actually think atheism has anything to do with amorality. What the heck they think ethics stands for? Religion??
Because it's illegal and unconstitutional for the school to lead a prayer during an event like a graduation.
Yes you are right ( dont know your constitution) but still i dont get what the big deal is here.
There are worse things in life to endore and alot of probably unconstitutional situations in anyones life ( privacy/ Patriot act ). I just dont get the whole OMG im going to sue you for this mentality.
On May 27 2011 21:37 AXygnus wrote: Why did I read this after I ate, now I feel like vomiting.
While what the kid did wasn't smart at all, he had a point. Prayers have no place in public schools. There could be many more students like him that thought the same, just didn't have the courage to step up. And the reaction just goes around to show how much some people are intolerant about their religion (or atheism, in the case of Damon).
However, something good came around. This situation has brought the best out of them atheist groups, which, like it's said in the OP, are thought to be amoral.
Why the hell would atheist groups be considered amoral?? Since when has religion rented the sole right to having moral values?? I can't believe many people actually think atheism has anything to do with amorality. What the heck they think ethics stands for? Religion??
That was referenced in the OP, actually, let me quote it.
One of the chunks of mud that's most commonly slung at atheists is that we're selfish. Amoral. That without a belief in God and the afterlife, people would have no moral compass, and would just act to please themselves, without any consideration for others. That without a belief in eternal punishment in the afterlife for bad behavior, eternal reward in the afterlife for good behavior, and a supernatural authority figure refereeing it all, people would have no reason to be good people, and no reason to avoid doing terrible things. That without religion, people would have no compassion, no sense of justice, no empathy, no desire to see society running smoothly... and would just do whatever we wanted to do.
The absolute morality that a religious person might profess would include what? Stoning people for adultery? Death for apostasy? These are all things that are religiously based absolute moralities. I don't think I want an absolute morality; I think I want a morality that is thought out, reasoned, argued, discussed and based upon - you could almost say - intelligent design. Can we not design our society? The sort of society we want to live in?
Wait, that actually addressed the question? All I saw was a guy asked a question how it is impossible to have right and wrong without absolute moral code, and the guy just went on to discuss how religion is bad. Please, explain how he answered the question, because I don't see it.
He said, how does religion define absolute morality - by having absurd punishments for crimes, some of which are not crimes or are outdated ideas of crimes. He then said, you cannot just rely religious text for morality; morality should be something that is logically built upon and designed to be good. He then also said, religious people do that, because they look to their religious text and cherry pick the bits that they agree with and regard the rest as "archaic fanatical stuff".
Essentially he says that religion doesn't define morality. People define morality.
On May 27 2011 13:42 419 wrote: ... Among other parts of this article, that's misrepresenting Christian views. The way I see it (as TL's resident fundamentalist!) is that atheists can act morally, but that an absolute moral code can't be rationalized within the bounds of atheism. ...
Can't believe you actually said that..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxdgCxK4VUA The absolute morality that a religious person might profess would include what? Stoning people for adultery? Death for apostasy? These are all things that are religiously based absolute moralities. I don't think I want an absolute morality; I think I want a morality that is thought out, reasoned, argued, discussed and based upon - you could almost say - intelligent design. Can we not design our society? The sort of society we want to live in?
Actually he is kind of right that you cannot base your moral code on atheism. Because atheism does not give you anything to base it on. But that is actually error on his part that he thinks atheists base their moral code on their atheism. Unlike many religious people atheists are not solely defined by them being atheists. Atheists can be humanists, communists, ..... and derive their moral codes from elsewhere, not from their atheism. And they can have absolute moral codes just as easily.
On May 27 2011 13:42 419 wrote: ... Among other parts of this article, that's misrepresenting Christian views. The way I see it (as TL's resident fundamentalist!) is that atheists can act morally, but that an absolute moral code can't be rationalized within the bounds of atheism. ...
Can't believe you actually said that..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxdgCxK4VUA The absolute morality that a religious person might profess would include what? Stoning people for adultery? Death for apostasy? These are all things that are religiously based absolute moralities. I don't think I want an absolute morality; I think I want a morality that is thought out, reasoned, argued, discussed and based upon - you could almost say - intelligent design. Can we not design our society? The sort of society we want to live in?
Actually he is kind of right that you cannot base your moral code on atheism. Because atheism does not give you anything to base it on. But that is actually error on his part that he thinks atheists base their moral code on their atheism. Unlike many religious people atheists are not solely defined by them being atheists. Atheists can be humanists, communists, ..... and derive their moral codes from elsewhere, not from their atheism. And they can have absolute moral codes just as easily.
But what Richard Dawkins is saying is that humans pick and choose their moral code - even if their religion gives them set specific text to be taken as moral code, those people will select the ones that are in line with their views and ignore the ones that are not.
So is it RELIGION that makes for the moral code? Or human determination?
He said, how does religion define absolute morality - by having absurd punishments for crimes, some of which are not crimes or are outdated ideas of crimes. He then said, you cannot just rely religious text for morality; morality should be something that is logically built upon and designed to be good. He then also said, religious people do that, because they look to their religious text and cherry pick the bits that they agree with and regard the rest as "archaic fanatical stuff".
Essentially he says that religion doesn't define morality. People define morality.
I don't care how religion defines it: it does not answer the question. Atheism, as a belief system (the system of not believing there is a God) does not depend on religion, so the answer should not pertain to it. An absolute moral code does not in any way depend on archaic religious texts. It depends on the development of the system, in much the same way that he describes the abolition of slavery and such. The only difference is that religion's absolute moral code was developed a long time ago. Even then, religion does not matter in this case.
In short, morality does not depend on it being in religious texts, and so one cannot use the religious texts as an excuse to answer the question. The question was that atheism does not have an absolute moral code, so as a whole it cannot proclaim things as right or wrong.
On May 27 2011 13:42 419 wrote: ... Among other parts of this article, that's misrepresenting Christian views. The way I see it (as TL's resident fundamentalist!) is that atheists can act morally, but that an absolute moral code can't be rationalized within the bounds of atheism. ...
Can't believe you actually said that..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxdgCxK4VUA The absolute morality that a religious person might profess would include what? Stoning people for adultery? Death for apostasy? These are all things that are religiously based absolute moralities. I don't think I want an absolute morality; I think I want a morality that is thought out, reasoned, argued, discussed and based upon - you could almost say - intelligent design. Can we not design our society? The sort of society we want to live in?
Actually he is kind of right that you cannot base your moral code on atheism. Because atheism does not give you anything to base it on. But that is actually error on his part that he thinks atheists base their moral code on their atheism. Unlike many religious people atheists are not solely defined by them being atheists. Atheists can be humanists, communists, ..... and derive their moral codes from elsewhere, not from their atheism. And they can have absolute moral codes just as easily.
But what Richard Dawkins is saying is that humans pick and choose their moral code - even if their religion gives them set specific text to be taken as moral code, those people will select the ones that are in line with their views and ignore the ones that are not.
So is it RELIGION that makes for the moral code? Or human determination?
I was not reacting to that part of your post as I mostly agree with it. I think sometimes religion can override your inner moral compass, for better or for worse, but in reasonably secular societies moral code of even religious people is mostly unaffected by the religion.
Hmm, In Canada the government sponsors catholic schools where prayer is lead every morning. Is the catholic school board in the US not government funded?
Of course we are not required to participate in the prayer so I have no problem with it.
In a public school, where students have chosen to attend a non-religious affiliated facility, is it appropriate to lead a prayer during graduation where all graduating students will be attending? No i don't think that it is appropriate. Should it be illegal? I do not think so. In the case they have many speakers if one of them wishes to speak to the religious community in the school through prayer of course it would be a breach of rights to deny them the opportunity. It would be a breach of rights to also force all students to participate. So we must investigate what is considered participating if we can call something ILLEGAL.
My personal belief is that being present where prayer is being performed is not enough to be considered participating and thus it should be fine for a public school to lead a prayer during graduation. The idea that we are being SUBJECTED to government sponsored prayer is a little harsh. Being in the presence of prayer is mild imo. However i wouldn't dream of dishonoring Fowler and given the opportunity I would venomously defend him from the ignorant prosecutors.
Should the student in question be ridiculed? ABSOLUTELY NOT! how horrible that someone be viewed any less for their beliefs in general. If he lives in a house where he would be kicked out for his beliefs I have great sympathy for him and offer him my support.
I feel bad for this kid. As an Agnostic that was raised as a Christian, I believe that the people ridiculing and threatening this guy are in the wrong. Jesus teaches Christians to do unto others as they would be done unto. So all of these people would want to be ridiculed for standing up for their personal beliefs and the law?
i dont think you are right. Every human being has a general idea of good and bad. that seperatus us from the animals
Then you misunderstand my post, I said that atheists do not base their moral code on atheism (how can you base your moral code on not believing in something), but I said that they base it on different things. And I was of course talking about conscious moral code, as of course the core moral values are biological and nearly(there are people without them or close to that) all people have them. And I doubt the separation from animals on that front is so clear.
EPT
