One for the unbelievers and not so sures

[AZOffaly]

Oh yeah. And you were wrong then too!

[deiseach]

Oh yeah. And you were wrong then too!

[Hardy]

Hardy, that's a poor post in fairness.

It's the supernaturalists and mumbo jumbo purveyors (sic) who proclaim both to know how the world works AND to dictate moral choices for all of us.

That implies ALL of the people you've tagged in such a way do that.

But then you neatly say

Rationalists and scientists "in general" confine themselves to working on the "how the world works" bit and don't suggest they have a more informed input to the morality debate than anybody else.

(I edited my post slightly, but not in substance before you quoted it.)

I didn't ask for a critique of my posting skills, but thanks anyway. I'll try to do better.

On your substantive point, I see what you mean and it was a bit slack. I'll rewrite it:

It's the supernaturalists and mumbo jumbo purveyors in general who proclaim both to know how the world works AND to dictate moral choices for all of us.

Rationalists and scientists in general confine themselves to working on the "how the world works" bit and don't suggest they have a more informed input to the morality debate than anybody else.

[AZOffaly]

Thanks for clarifying. I wouldn't dare criticise your posting skills. I'd be too nervous you'd spot a misplaced apostrophe of mine!

In fairness, I have no problem with athiests or agnostics or zealot religionists, as long as they don't harm anyone else. I would accept that religious zealots have far more track record in harming people than scientists or evolutionists.

I myself believe in God. I also believe in evolution. I also don't need a church to tell me what's right and wrong in their eyes. I trust myself to know the difference.

However, all that aside, if you look at the old 10 commandments. Ignore the first 3 for the purposes of this discussion. (They're the ones about God). Look at the 'moral' ones. Is there anything you'd disagree with?

Honour your Father and Mother
Don't Kill
Don't Steal
Don't lie about somebody else
Don't be an adulterer
Don't waste your time wishing you had someone else's wife
Don't waste your time wishing you had someone else's property.

That's not a bad starter for a moral compass, regardless of what the various churches say after that.

[T Fearon]

Dawkins, just like the various Churches have been accused of doing, is tapping into secularism and making a more than decent living out of it, I'd say.

The essence of any moral code should be tolerance, of those who believe in religion by those who don't and vice versa.I look forward to seeing it breaking out on this Board.

[theskull1]

People are obviously reading snippets from that statement to suit their own opinions. There is nothing contentious in his statement from what I can see, when I try to put myself in the mind of a person considering the dilemma for real and having close knowledge of one middle aged couple in particular with a severe downs child.

[deiseach]

People are obviously reading snippets from that statement to suit their own opinions. There is nothing contentious in his statement from what I can see, when I try to put myself in the mind of a person considering the dilemma for real and having close knowledge of one middle aged couple in particular with a severe downs child.

I consider the bits I find objectionable to be objectionable and the bits I find unobjectionable to be unobjectionable. Is there some other way it's meant to work? You have to accept it all or reject it all?

[Hardy]

Thanks for clarifying. I wouldn't dare criticise your posting skills. I'd be too nervous you'd spot a misplaced apostrophe of mine!

In fairness, I have no problem with athiests or agnostics or zealot religionists, as long as they don't harm anyone else. I would accept that religious zealots have far more track record in harming people than scientists or evolutionists.

I myself believe in God. I also believe in evolution. I also don't need a church to tell me what's right and wrong in their eyes. I trust myself to know the difference.

However, all that aside, if you look at the old 10 commandments. Ignore the first 3 for the purposes of this discussion. (They're the ones about God). Look at the 'moral' ones. Is there anything you'd disagree with?

Honour your Father and Mother
Don't Kill
Don't Steal
Don't lie about somebody else
Don't be an adulterer
Don't waste your time wishing you had someone else's wife
Don't waste your time wishing you had someone else's property.

That's not a bad starter for a moral compass, regardless of what the various churches say after that.

Of course I don't disagree with any of those principles. That was part of my point. We can have a debate about where these ideas originate from. You won't be surprised that I don't believe that a being in the sky presented them to a white-bearded prophet in tablets of stone on the top of Mount Sinai (with no witnesses present). My position would be to view the development of a generally accepted morality as part of the evolutionary process. Societies that didn't embrace these basic enabling principles of civilisation didn't tend to survive.

_{(Your post was perfect.)}

[AZOffaly]

Thanks for clarifying. I wouldn't dare criticise your posting skills. I'd be too nervous you'd spot a misplaced apostrophe of mine!

In fairness, I have no problem with athiests or agnostics or zealot religionists, as long as they don't harm anyone else. I would accept that religious zealots have far more track record in harming people than scientists or evolutionists.

I myself believe in God. I also believe in evolution. I also don't need a church to tell me what's right and wrong in their eyes. I trust myself to know the difference.

However, all that aside, if you look at the old 10 commandments. Ignore the first 3 for the purposes of this discussion. (They're the ones about God). Look at the 'moral' ones. Is there anything you'd disagree with?

Honour your Father and Mother
Don't Kill
Don't Steal
Don't lie about somebody else
Don't be an adulterer
Don't waste your time wishing you had someone else's wife
Don't waste your time wishing you had someone else's property.

That's not a bad starter for a moral compass, regardless of what the various churches say after that.

Of course not. That was part of my point. We can have a debate about where these ideas originate from. You won't be surprised that I don't believe that a being in the sky presented them to a white-bearded prophet in tablets of stone on the top of Mount Sinai (with no witnesses present). My position would be to view the development of a generally accepted morality as part of the evolutionary process. Societies that didn't embrace these basic enabling principles of civilisation didn't tend to survive.

_{(Your post was perfect.)}

What's so hard to believe about that??


In fairness I avoid the "God exists, no he doesn't" debates because there's very little chance a consensus will come out of them, and everyone just gets annoyed   Usually what happens is the religious guy starts issuing pronouncements about the other fella's soul, while the atheist starts calling the religious guy an idiot. Not exactly fodder for a good session of pints.

[J70]

Dawkins, just like the various Churches have been accused of doing, is tapping into secularism and making a more than decent living out of it, I'd say.

The essence of any moral code should be tolerance, of those who believe in religion by those who don't and vice versa.I look forward to seeing it breaking out on this Board.

And does that web of tolerance you are championing include tolerance of gays?

Am I being intolerant when I condemn and argue against those who,  often based on their religion,  would deny rights to gays.

[deiseach]

Can we not have this thread derailed, mmkay?

[theskull1]

If a churchman said that choosing to abort was an immoral choice, he would be lambasted (and rightly so) for imposing extra pressure on someone in an already difficult situation. The reverse is also true, and that's why I would have a problem with Dawkins' viewpoint. NB saying "I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else" after everything that came before is weasel-minded bollocks.

People are obviously reading snippets from that statement to suit their own opinions. There is nothing contentious in his statement from what I can see, when I try to put myself in the mind of a person considering the dilemma for real and having close knowledge of one middle aged couple in particular with a severe downs child.

I consider the bits I find objectionable to be objectionable and the bits I find unobjectionable to be unobjectionable. Is there some other way it's meant to work? You have to accept it all or reject it all?

OK deiseach
On the bits you find objectionable

Dawkins is not putting forward a dogma. He's putting forward the logic for his personal opinion on the subject if it were he having to make the decision. That is very very different that what you would get from the church.
He goes out of his way to accept that "I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn" and then again makes sure the individual he is replying to understands that by him giving his honest opinion, he does not want to put undue influence on her by explicitly stating "Having said that, the choice would be entirely yours and I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else."

What is weasely about it? Can one not put forward reasoned positions and leave it to others to consider them and come to their own conclusions?  That's all the man is doing

[deiseach]

OK deiseach
On the bits you find objectionable

Dawkins is not putting forward a dogma. He's putting forward the logic for his personal opinion on the subject if it were he having to make the decision. That is very very different that what you would get from the church.
He goes out of his way to accept that "I agree that that personal opinion is contentious and needs to be argued further, possibly to be withdrawn" and then again makes sure the individual he is replying to understands that by him giving his honest opinion, he does not want to put undue influence on her by explicitly stating "Having said that, the choice would be entirely yours and I would never dream of trying to impose my views on you or anyone else."

What is weasely about it? Can one not put forward reasoned positions and leave it to others to consider them and come to their own conclusions?  That's all the man is doing

The essence of what you are saying is that his observations are value-neutral. Well, they're not. Phrases like morality, "sum of happiness" and "reduce suffering" are loaded with meaning. I don't think you can utilise phrases like these to defend your point of view then claim that they don't want to pass any comment on choices that, as far as they are concerned, are immoral, reduce the sum of happiness and increase suffering. And that is why he is a weasel.

[laoislad]

People are obviously reading snippets from that statement to suit their own opinions. There is nothing contentious in his statement from what I can see, when I try to put myself in the mind of a person considering the dilemma for real and having close knowledge of one middle aged couple in particular with a severe downs child.

Well speaking as someone who has experience of being a Dad of a child with Down Syndrome I can tell you his opinion and reasons for aborting a 'Down child'   are based on ignorant and outdated stereotypes and misinformed bullshit.

I can completely understand a mother or couple having fears and worries at the diagnosis of Down Syndrome and I wouldn't judge anyone whatever their decision would be.
But as a parent to be told I was morally wrong to bring my son into the world and that I am condemned to a life of suffering and unhappiness is so far from the truth and reality.
That's the problem I have with his opinion.
A couple who are in a position now where they have to make a choice could read that article and because it is full of inaccurate and outdated information could quite possibly make a decision to abort because of it.

[johnneycool]

Thanks for clarifying. I wouldn't dare criticise your posting skills. I'd be too nervous you'd spot a misplaced apostrophe of mine!

In fairness, I have no problem with athiests or agnostics or zealot religionists, as long as they don't harm anyone else. I would accept that religious zealots have far more track record in harming people than scientists or evolutionists.

I myself believe in God. I also believe in evolution. I also don't need a church to tell me what's right and wrong in their eyes. I trust myself to know the difference.

However, all that aside, if you look at the old 10 commandments. Ignore the first 3 for the purposes of this discussion. (They're the ones about God). Look at the 'moral' ones. Is there anything you'd disagree with?

Honour your Father and Mother
Don't Kill
Don't Steal
Don't lie about somebody else
Don't be an adulterer
Don't waste your time wishing you had someone else's wife
Don't waste your time wishing you had someone else's property.

That's not a bad starter for a moral compass, regardless of what the various churches say after that.

Yeah not a bad set of principles to lead your life in a simplistic kind of way.