Atheists are Dangerous!

[Tom 1]

Alternatively, our moral values are an expression of our instinctive behaviours that arose through evolution. (Evolutionists and creationists alike seem to focus on the "Nature red in tooth" and claw aspect of evolution, overlooking the vital role that cooperation plays, from the biochemical level all the way up to the entire biosphere.) That being the case we would not be rudderless.

Yes, but those instinctive or learned behaviours are not a moral system in themselves. They may have played a role in the development of millennia of belief, the formation of societies, civilisations, laws and be part of what drives philosophy and religion, but they aren’t those things in themselves. A boat with a functioning engine but no rudder is still rudderless. The moral and legal systems we have didn’t arise spontaneously as an objective result of evolution independent of human interactions and thought. An entirely atheist, new, society wanting to divest itself of all traces of religious influence would have its work cut out firstly to actually move away from the profound affect of millennia of belief and secondly to create an ethical system that enabled that society to function. Understanding what is meant by the biblical notion of sin is impossible without understanding the context of the society God intended to build, and why, and without actually living it - I think it is only possible to understand the actual nature of a particular sin when you have gone through the process of mastering it, and it no longer masters you. Anyway getting off track a bit, but my point is that while you might argue that society runs on systems that developed out of evolutionary imperatives, it doesn’t function directly by means of those imperatives, just like you can’t get a car to go anywhere by just setting fire to the petrol in the tank.

 

[Occams Barber]

Alternatively, our moral values are an expression of our instinctive behaviours that arose through evolution. (Evolutionists and creationists alike seem to focus on the "Nature red in tooth" and claw aspect of evolution, overlooking the vital role that cooperation plays, from the biochemical level all the way up to the entire biosphere.) That being the case we would not be rudderless.

It appears we're making the same argument, in separate threads, about morality having its roots in evolutionary behaviour.
Atheists Overreach ... Why do they do that?
OB

 

[stevevw]

Who creates an ideology out of gender dysphoria? That doesn't even make sense to me--it's like saying that someone who is left-handed has created an ideology.

Gender dysphoria is the distress that a persons biological sex does not match their gender identity. Up until recently this was classed as a mental disorder where people suffered physical and mental problems as a result. But now it is seen as a normal part of being human because gender is a spectrum of many different identities including identifying as the opposite sex and the mental and physical problems are more to do with stigma. Up until 10 years ago biology was an important part of determining gender and was widely used through society.

But since then an ideology has been created which claims the subjective view that a person has in their mind about their gender identity is the only way that gender is determined and the physical traits have nothing to do with it. We are assigned a sex at birth and then gender comes later when people identify with a gender. So a male can self identify as a female by just saying so and a person can self identify with any number of other gender identities by just saying so. The ideology is that subjective feelings about gender identity now trump the scientific basis of biology being a part of gender. This reclassifies Gender dysphoria and rather than perhaps see it as an problem that therapy can help with people are encouraged to transition into whatever gender identity they identify with. For transgender this can have harmful consequences that can never be undone.

Gender dysphoria was viewed as a rare and distressing condition that could be alleviated by accommodating sufferers as legal exceptions to the rules of biology. But a decade and a half later, a more radical notion is sweeping across the Western world, with English-speaking countries in the vanguard. The brainchild of a few sexologists, trans-activists and academics, it has spread via lobby groups and the internet, and on liberal campuses. It is now becoming consolidated in practice and codified into law, with profound consequences—not just for people who wish they had been born the opposite sex, but for everyone.


That notion is the deceptively simple, quasi-mystical idea that everyone is born with a “gender identity”—an innate sense of being a man or woman that usually, but not always, aligns with biological sex. If the two are in conflict, the person is “transgender” and it is their gender identity, not their biological sex, that indicates who they truly are. The theory has been expanded to include people who regard themselves non-binary, “agender,” gender-fluid or a host of other terms, meaning that they belong to neither sex or feel located at some indeterminate (and possibly shifting) point between the two. According to this theory, no one can determine a person’s gender identity except that person, and no one else can challenge it. As with religious belief, it is entirely subjective. A simple declaration— “gender self-identification”—is all it takes to override biology.
The New Patriarchy: How Trans Radicalism Hurts Women, Children—and Trans People Themselves - Quillette
The Fake Ideology That Could Do Real Harm

An ideology is a collection of normative beliefs and values that an individual or group holds for other than purely epistemic reasons.[1] In other words, these rely on basic assumptions about reality that may or may not have any factual basis.
Ideology - Wikipedia

 

[Speedwell]

Gender dysphoria is the distress that a persons biological sex does not match their gender identity. Up until recently this was classed as a mental disorder where people suffered physical and mental problems as a result. But now it is seen as a normal part of being human because gender is a spectrum of many different identities including identifying as the opposite sex and the mental and physical problems are more to do with stigma. Up until 10 years ago biology was an important part of determining gender and was widely used through society.

But since then an ideology has been created which claims the subjective view that a person has in their mind about their gender identity is the only way that gender is determined and the physical traits have nothing to do with it. We are assigned a sex at birth and then gender comes later when people identify with a gender. So a male can self identify as a female by just saying so and a person can self identify with any number of other gender identities by just saying so. The ideology is that subjective feelings about gender identity now trump the scientific basis of biology being a part of gender. This reclassifies Gender dysphoria and rather than perhaps see it as an problem that therapy can help with people are encouraged to transition into whatever gender identity they identify with. For transgender this can have harmful consequences that can never be undone.

Gender dysphoria was viewed as a rare and distressing condition that could be alleviated by accommodating sufferers as legal exceptions to the rules of biology. But a decade and a half later, a more radical notion is sweeping across the Western world, with English-speaking countries in the vanguard. The brainchild of a few sexologists, trans-activists and academics, it has spread via lobby groups and the internet, and on liberal campuses. It is now becoming consolidated in practice and codified into law, with profound consequences—not just for people who wish they had been born the opposite sex, but for everyone.


That notion is the deceptively simple, quasi-mystical idea that everyone is born with a “gender identity”—an innate sense of being a man or woman that usually, but not always, aligns with biological sex. If the two are in conflict, the person is “transgender” and it is their gender identity, not their biological sex, that indicates who they truly are. The theory has been expanded to include people who regard themselves non-binary, “agender,” gender-fluid or a host of other terms, meaning that they belong to neither sex or feel located at some indeterminate (and possibly shifting) point between the two. According to this theory, no one can determine a person’s gender identity except that person, and no one else can challenge it. As with religious belief, it is entirely subjective. A simple declaration— “gender self-identification”—is all it takes to override biology.
The New Patriarchy: How Trans Radicalism Hurts Women, Children—and Trans People Themselves - Quillette
The Fake Ideology That Could Do Real Harm

An ideology is a collection of normative beliefs and values that an individual or group holds for other than purely epistemic reasons.[1] In other words, these rely on basic assumptions about reality that may or may not have any factual basis.
Ideology - Wikipedia

So your not objecting to gender dysphoria as such but to trans radicalism as exaggerated by a right-wing webzine. OK.

 

[stevevw]

So your not objecting to gender dysphoria as such but to trans radicalism as exaggerated by a right-wing webzine. OK.

That's right. Gender dysphoria is recognized in the The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes, but those instinctive or learned behaviours are not a moral system in themselves.

Correct. They are far more valuable. The objective of a moral system is to encourage the practice of certain behaviours and to prohibit the practice of others. When such encouragement and prohibition are instinctive we cut out the middleman of a moral code. (Judging by bonobo society (pan paniscus), a species not known for its literary bent, one can have a very peaceful, happy society without writing down the rules. )

They may have played a role in the development of millennia of belief, the formation of societies, civilisations, laws and be part of what drives philosophy and religion, but they aren’t those things in themselves. .

I didn't say they were. However, all those things you mention arise from the instinctive behaviours generated by evolution. Those instincts underpin the moral codes by which we seek to live and which inform our society. If our instincts were different, so too our moral codes.

A boat with a functioning engine but no rudder is still rudderless.

Irrelevant. Natural selection, by choosing the instinctive behaviours that work, retrospectively imparts a direction. The sapient character of man enables that direction to be consciously controlled into the future, but in much the same manner that a train driver is restricted to the tracks.

The moral and legal systems we have didn’t arise spontaneously as an objective result of evolution independent of human interactions and thought.

Of course they didn't! But the human interactions and thought were governed by the instinctive behaviours developed by evolution. We could not have produced a moral code that conflicted, in any significant way, with our instinctive behaviours. (Note: the apparent diversity of human moral codes is readily explained. As a simplified explanation I shall just say Maslow's Hierarchy.)

An entirely atheist, new, society wanting to divest itself of all traces of religious influence would have its work cut out firstly to actually move away from the profound affect of millennia of belief and secondly to create an ethical system that enabled that society to function.

An entirely atheist society would, by definition, carry no baggage of "millenia of belief". And I cannot think of any atheist I know who would wish to eradicate, the pyramids, Stonehenge, Notre Dame, or the Cistine Chapel; or erase a cross from the side of all ambulances. I think you have erected a strawman argument there.

The required ethical system/moral codes would not be created ex novo. We would run, pretty much with what we already have, since it is a codification, as I keep noting, of instinctive behaviours. We would simply abandon the conceit that it derived from God rather than nature.

Understanding what is meant by the biblical notion of sin is impossible without understanding the context of the society God intended to build, and why, and without actually living it - I think it is only possible to understand the actual nature of a particular sin when you have gone through the process of mastering it, and it no longer masters you.

No. The religious explanation of sin is designed to discourage people from behaving in ways that are injurious to themselves and others. One does not need a religious background to do that.

Anyway getting off track a bit, but my point is that while you might argue that society runs on systems that developed out of evolutionary imperatives, it doesn’t function directly by means of those imperatives, just like you can’t get a car to go anywhere by just setting fire to the petrol in the tank.

Unfounded assertion.

 

[Ophiolite]

It appears we're making the same argument, in separate threads, about morality having its roots in evolutionary behaviour.
Atheists Overreach ... Why do they do that?
OB

Indeed. It seems so obvious one wonders if any serious scientific objection can be raised to it. (As an exercise I shall see if I can come up with seven. )

 

[Tom 1]

Correct. They are far more valuable. The objective of a moral system is to encourage the practice of certain behaviours and to prohibit the practice of others. When such encouragement and prohibition are instinctive we cut out the middleman of a moral code. (Judging by bonobo society (pan paniscus), a species not known for its literary bent, one can have a very peaceful, happy society without writing down the rules. )


I didn't say they were. However, all those things you mention arise from the instinctive behaviours generated by evolution. Those instincts underpin the moral codes by which we seek to live and which inform our society. If our instincts were different, so too our moral codes.

Irrelevant. Natural selection, by choosing the instinctive behaviours that work, retrospectively imparts a direction. The sapient character of man enables that direction to be consciously controlled into the future, but in much the same manner that a train driver is restricted to the tracks.

Of course they didn't! But the human interactions and thought were governed by the instinctive behaviours developed by evolution. We could not have produced a moral code that conflicted, in any significant way, with our instinctive behaviours. (Note: the apparent diversity of human moral codes is readily explained. As a simplified explanation I shall just say Maslow's Hierarchy.)

An entirely atheist society would, by definition, carry no baggage of "millenia of belief". And I cannot think of any atheist I know who would wish to eradicate, the pyramids, Stonehenge, Notre Dame, or the Cistine Chapel; or erase a cross from the side of all ambulances. I think you have erected a strawman argument there.

The required ethical system/moral codes would not be created ex novo. We would run, pretty much with what we already have, since it is a codification, as I keep noting, of instinctive behaviours. We would simply abandon the conceit that it derived from God rather than nature.

No. The religious explanation of sin is designed to discourage people from behaving in ways that are injurious to themselves and others. One does not need a religious background to do that.

Unfounded assertion.

I agree with most of what you are saying there. I do think the Bonobo example is a bit naive though, and the idea of people not having ‘baggage’ - whether they are aware of it or not - is delusional. I think it is overly reductionist to assign all of that to underlying drives. That may be true either entirely or to one degree or another, but it is still speculative. It’s a focus on the things that can be quantified extrapolating itself too far, I think. But this discussion could go on for ages.

 

[jayem]

I haven't read all 100+ posts in this thread. This may have been stated already,

I have absolutely no intention, desire, or expectation to convert anyone to my way of thinking. I just don't want government at any level to show preference to one lawful religion over another, or to favor religion over non-religion. And I don't want private businesses that act as public accommodations to do the same.

 

[Ophiolite]

I agree with most of what you are saying there. I do think the Bonobo example is a bit naive though,

What is naive about the Bonobo example? If you prefer, we can consider beavers, or dolphins, etc. I chose Bonobos since they are one of our closest relatives.

and the idea of people not having ‘baggage’ - whether they are aware of it or not - is delusional.

You will have to explain that one to me. We are talking about a society that has chosen to become atheist. Those atheists fall into one of two categories: there are those who have always been atheists and so have no 'religious baggage' to discard; and there are those who have consciously decided to discard those that are irelevant.

There are many ancillary aspects of theism that will not be discarded - the architecture I have already noted, but there is also magnificent music. (I can still recall with pleasure attending a performance of Bach's St. Mathew Passion in The Royal Albert Hall five decades ago.) My atheism towards the Christian God has not stopped me admiring the Sermon on the Mount, for it expresses very effectively our cooperative and protective instincts.

So, I don't think I am in the least delusional. We would absorb those aspects of religion that have merit on an aesthetic or moral level and chuck the rest.

a I think it is overly reductionist to assign all of that to underlying drives.

I agree. So, I think its just as well I didn't do that. It's just as well I noted that it was the application of our intellect that allowed us to recognise our drives and develop suites of rules and regulations that seemed to best reflect those.

That may be true either entirely or to one degree or another, but it is still speculative. It’s a focus on the things that can be quantified extrapolating itself too far, I think. But this discussion could go on for ages.

There is good correlation between instinctive behaviour in humans and other vertebrates and the relevant "rules of society". There is no alternative scientific explanation I am aware of to account for this correlation. So, it may be speculative, but it is very well founded speculation.

But this discussion could go on for ages.

I can keep going till a coronary or stroke cause an interruption of play. I'm sure I can wear you down.

 

[Tom 1]

What is naive about the Bonobo example? If you prefer, we can consider beavers, or dolphins, etc. I chose Bonobos since they are one of our closest relatives.

Just the idea that people don't do more irrational and bizarre things, that make no sense and are pointlessly destructive, than other primates.

 

[Ophiolite]

Just the idea that people don't do more irrational and bizarre things, that make no sense and are pointlessly destructive, than other primates.

Humans and other primates are naturally irrational. Some humans have trained themselves to be rational much of the time. Many maintain a facade of rationally. Most have no idea what I am talking about.

Please provide an example or two of bizarre, pointless behaviour, excluding anything associated with Brexit.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Or at least so says one Christian here who started such a thread in the Christians only
area.

Atheists Are Dangerous

Providing this link to an opinion piece on Fox.

Today's atheists are bullies -- and they are doing their best to intimidate the rest of us into silence

I am in fact dangerous, but far from ignorant. I know a lot of Christians here rarely if ever go into the Christians only area (save perhaps a denomination specific one for their denomination). This sort of thing seems to happen often so I have decided to start dragging some of these into areas where those accused can answer. Forcing them into the sunlight so to speak.

So this is a chance for atheists to disagree and a chance for a more balanced representation of Christianity to show us where you stand.

When I joined Christian Forums at an age so young it's not permissible anymore, my mom made the effort to give me a detailed warning of the dangers those who self-identify as Christians pose, and instructed me to never give unguarded, unearned trust to anyone here. She had no experience with CF and was not making an indictment of it or of any specific members, or being derogatory towards Christians; she simply wanted to equip me with ways to protect myself from harm. She does have ample experience with the methods frequently used by those who aim to prey on and exploit others; with socializing with strangers on the internet; and with human nature from having lived for 30+ years longer than I. She used to be an attorney with the FBI and DOJ and often focused on human trafficking and sexual abuse cases. She was aware of the decades of serious allegations of sexual, physical, and psychological abuse by Southern Baptist leaders years before the crisis became public knowledge, just as she had been about the Catholic sexual abuse scandals. She knows that predators often choose positions that will gain them trust, such as being coaches, teachers, Boy Scout troop leaders, or religious adherents. A wolf masquerading in sheep's clothing poses a significantly higher level of risk than an undisguised wolf. Her warning wasn't exclusively about the insidious potential threat of predators, but maintaining sensible safeguards to my heart and mind from attacks to my faith, to me as a person. She knew what I didn't at the time, that Christians don't always behave as Christ instructed, that adults don't always act with the maturity of their years, that bullying isn't confined to youth and Christians aren't immune from being the perpetrators or the victims of it. I've fended off predators but have not been as successful at shielding my heart. I've actually never been hurt by an atheist or agnostic, on here or in my daily life where I'm surrounded by them on a campus that is predominantly nonreligious, which isn't to say they're not capable of inflicting damage, just that none ever have. But I have most definitely been hurt by other Christians, far more than I could have anticipated even with her warning.

Ironically, I'd logged onto CF with the express intent of making a thread about the teen section, and including in it the importance of giving such cautionary advice to new young members when I got distracted by the thread about atheists being dangerous. It went up during the final week of the summer quarter at my school, so I didn't have the time to actually respond but I did read the article. I got in a workout from shaking my head! I actually thought it was intended to be satirical at first because it feels so hyperbolic, but then I read about the writer and was dismayed to realize it's not. The writer begins with a falsity, that there's no polite way to articulate his grievances with atheists. He sets a belligerent tone that is polar to Colossians 4:6. Instead of letting his speech be gracious, seasoned with salt, to know how to answer everyone, he wrote a salty diatribe maligning all who are atheists. He then proceeds to do precisely what he's accused atheists of - loudly, nastily, unapologetically and in-your-face bullying them, making ignorant statements, and in the process of doing so inciting danger by striving to convince his readers to regard atheists as hostile enemies who pose an existential threat. He shows not one morsel of charity or recognition of their worth as people who, according to his own beliefs, to his own choice of words, were created by God in his image, and as such possess "infinite value and dignity." He deals with none of the problems he lists with compassion, in a loving and sacrificial way, stating that such tactics don't work with bullies. Perhaps he thinks that because he himself is a bully. After berating atheists for what he perceives as their selfishness and amoral egocentricity he ends the article with a plug for his book, making it evident that the true agenda was self-promotion.

 

[Cimorene]

When I joined Christian Forums at an age so young it's not permissible anymore, my mom made the effort to give me a detailed warning of the dangers those who self-identify as Christians pose, and instructed me to never give unguarded, unearned trust to anyone here. She had no experience with CF and was not making an indictment of it or of any specific members, or being derogatory towards Christians; she simply wanted to equip me with ways to protect myself from harm. She does have ample experience with the methods frequently used by those who aim to prey on and exploit others; with socializing with strangers on the internet; and with human nature from having lived for 30+ years longer than I. She used to be an attorney with the FBI and DOJ and often focused on human trafficking and sexual abuse cases. She was aware of the decades of serious allegations of sexual, physical, and psychological abuse by Southern Baptist leaders years before the crisis became public knowledge, just as she had been about the Catholic sexual abuse scandals. She knows that predators often choose positions that will gain them trust, such as being coaches, teachers, Boy Scout troop leaders, or religious adherents. A wolf masquerading in sheep's clothing poses a significantly higher level of risk than an undisguised wolf. Her warning wasn't exclusively about the insidious potential threat of predators, but maintaining sensible safeguards to my heart and mind from attacks to my faith, to me as a person. She knew what I didn't at the time, that Christians don't always behave as Christ instructed, that adults don't always act with the maturity of their years, that bullying isn't confined to youth and Christians aren't immune from being the perpetrators or the victims of it. I've fended off predators but have not been as successful at shielding my heart. I've actually never been hurt by an atheist or agnostic, on here or in my daily life where I'm surrounded by them on a campus that is predominantly nonreligious, which isn't to say they're not capable of inflicting damage, just that none ever have. But I have most definitely been hurt by other Christians, far more than I could have anticipated even with her warning.

Ironically, I'd logged onto CF with the express intent of making a thread about the teen section, and including in it the importance of giving such cautionary advice to new young members when I got distracted by the thread about atheists being dangerous. It went up during the final week of the summer quarter at my school, so I didn't have the time to actually respond but I did read the article. I got in a workout from shaking my head! I actually thought it was intended to be satirical at first because it feels so hyperbolic, but then I read about the writer and was dismayed to realize it's not. The writer begins with a falsity, that there's no polite way to articulate his grievances with atheists. He sets a belligerent tone that is polar to Colossians 4:6. Instead of letting his speech be gracious, seasoned with salt, to know how to answer everyone, he wrote a salty diatribe maligning all who are atheists. He then proceeds to do precisely what he's accused atheists of - loudly, nastily, unapologetically and in-your-face bullying them, making ignorant statements, and in the process of doing so inciting danger by striving to convince his readers to regard atheists as hostile enemies who pose an existential threat. He shows not one morsel of charity or recognition of their worth as people who, according to his own beliefs, to his own choice of words, were created by God in his image, and as such possess "infinite value and dignity." He deals with none of the problems he lists with compassion, in a loving and sacrificial way, stating that such tactics don't work with bullies. Perhaps he thinks that because he himself is a bully. After berating atheists for what he perceives as their selfishness and amoral egocentricity he ends the article with a plug for his book, making it evident that the true agenda was self-promotion.

QFT! Same! I haven't been hurt by atheists either but have been hurt by other Christians both irl & online.

 

[Tom 1]

I can keep going till a coronary or stroke cause an interruption of play. I'm sure I can wear you down.

Fair enough, as long as you don't mind long waits between posts.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

An addendum to my previous post!
My jaw literally dropped when I got to the part of the article (posted in the OP) where the writer haughtily lists notable accomplishments of scientists who are theists (or at least who at the time were believed to be). Without an apparent trace of irony, he proudly boasts about the Catholic priest and the Augustinian monk who significantly contributed to the knowledge that formed the Big Bang theory and evolution. I don't know if it was out of obtuseness or having blinders on that made him focus only on disparaging atheists, but it was astonishing to me that he brought those specific achievements up considering the contentions some Christians, especially Young Earth Creationists, have dedicated themselves to attempting to refute. I joined CF after experiencing a civil war of sorts between Christian girls that broke out due to conflicting beliefs about the Big Bang theory and evolution. A homeschooled fundamentalist taught to have an antagonistic stance towards much of established modern science attacked the faith of other Christian girls who simply gave scientific facts and explained how they interpreted the Bible differently than she did, but their faith was just as sincere and deeply personal as hers. For them, for me, faith and science are in harmony with one another, not discord. The feud piqued my curiosity about Christian views I'd never previously encountered, such as YEC, so I joined here. I was dismayed to learn that dramatic infighting between Christians about their divergent hermeneutics wasn't unique to tween and teen girls. Nor is it at all unique to this forum (please note I'm not trying to insult it or anyone here or be condemnatory); it simply was new to me. I learned about the No True Scotsman fallacy after repeatedly being told that no true Christian believed what I, my family, what the majority of all Christians important in shaping my life, believed. It was hurtful and damaging. There are endless fights stretching back to the beginning of this forum, stretching back to before the advent of the internet, to before any of us were born, to the very beginning of Christianity, between Christians about differences of belief. I think we need to assess our own dangers to our faith, to take the planks of it out of our own eyes, before blaming atheists for the speck of sawdust in theirs.

There was controversy earlier this year regarding a tweet Donald Trump made following a Fox & Friends segment on proposals in a couple handfuls of states to mandate that Bible literacy classes be offered at public schools. Some Christians in Trump's tribe gleefully boasted of how it infuriated liberals. They felt jubilant. However, once the conversation got rolling beyond the surface of it, Christians began to bicker with one another about the specifics of how the Bible should be taught in such classes to give students literacy of it. Creationists argued with each other whether it should be taught that the Earth is young or old. Some discussions sadly dissolved into juvenile spats. English classes studying the Bible as literature have actually been taught with less quarreling at liberal-leaning public schools such as Santa Monica High School and independent private schools like the one I attended. Friends who've taken them have said there were many non-Christians in the class, and that actually facilitated calmer, more dispassionate and productive conversations because they were discussing the Bible from a literary perspective rather than as a personal faith one.

The Barna Group has conducted several studies on why young people brought up as Christians leave their religion in early adulthood, and the perception of science and faith being hostile towards one another - a tug of war where you had to put your full weight behind one or the other, was consistently cited as a leading reason. It's especially unfortunate to me because I see that as a false dichotomy.

There was a survey of over 4600 students at my school about our personal and political beliefs. On religious affiliation, the survey found that 42.9% of students identify as agnostic or atheist. In discussions about the data on our private forum only open to students, there was a thread about the exodus from Christianity, and asking for reasons why. Many cited other Christians as the ones who damaged their faith to a turning point. There were also discussions of attitudes towards atheists prior to coming to college, and since. Unsurprisingly, those who grew up in more homogenous environments where there were fewer atheists who are "out" had more negative perceptions, but once actually meeting atheists, that changed for the better. I grew up with atheists as neighbors, friends of my parents, parents of my friends, teachers. I know some who are kind and wonderful, others who aren't. They're individuals, just as Christians are. That brings me to a point about the thread this thread is discussing. The original poster of it is 19. I'm the last person to diminish the viewpoints of someone my own age due to it, but I think perhaps it provides some context. It's absolutely possible to be that age and to have never in life had a single personal relationship with someone who is atheist, and to instead form impressions from online postings and God's Not Dead-like caricatures. I have no idea if that is the case, but it's a possibility.

 

[Tom 1]

When such encouragement and prohibition are instinctive we cut out the middleman of a moral code.

I don't find this idea convincing. Do you have an example of something like this happening among humans, from any point in history? People rarely behave through conscious choice independent of any underlying factor, and underlying factors depend on specific conditioning, whether it is conditioning we are aware of, or not. This is obvious in ways that are direct and ways that are indirect. A direct example would be recruits new to military training - in their natural, untrained state, when for example after a long night march they are suddenly being fired on and everything is 'going off' you immediately see the fight or freeze reactions completely taking over, like really taking over. The flight option is the only limited one as even as new recruits people already have a fear of being chastised, so, without any awareness of the process, people instinctively opt to freeze or fight. In that moment and for a good while afterwards, if there isn't some intervention, there is no conscious thinking going on at all. The same is true to a lesser or greater degree in any other scenario you can think of; the only reason a soldier later learns to react constructively is that they have training and experience - conditioning. To extend the analogy, these instincts by themselves are completely useless in actually dealing with a complex situation - they are useful to animals because their enemies also behave in instinctive, largely unthinking, predictable ways. In a firefight, the instinctive 'fight' response is useless if that is all you have, it's the difference between pointlessly firing off a whole magazine before you get killed, and taking cover, assessing the situation, laying down effective fire and so on. The same is true in any other area of human life, we behave the way we do because of our social conditioning. There is nothing instinctive about any of it, our instinctive behaviours come out when we need to respond to a genuine emergency or when some stress or stimulus temporarily overrides our conditioning. In the latter case we often 'go back' mentally and re-write our memories of the situation in order to justify our actions to ourselves, as a way of making them fit in with our conditioned thinking. I suppose you could consider that an instinctive response, a kind of self-defence or a defence of our conditioned values, but it only 'works' because the values are coded in at a deep level through social conditioning.

any serious scientific objection

Science isn't the only thing there is. Science focuses on and explains things that can be usefully explained in scientific terms. The idea that everything can fit into that mold is a belief that arises out of a particular way of thinking - a particular conditioned mindset. It's possible that science will continue to develop to some point in the distant future when literally everything there is can be explained in scientific terms. It's also possible that at some point the scientific method or some later iteration will outlive its usefulness as we become aware of some greater reality, and an entirely new way of thinking about everything that we can't yet conceive of will develop. Who knows?

There is good correlation between instinctive behaviour in humans and other vertebrates and the relevant "rules of society". There is no alternative scientific explanation I am aware of to account for this correlation. So, it may be speculative, but it is very well founded speculation.

Yes, it is speculation well founded / rooted in a way of thinking about the world. We all mold what we come across according to the way we already think. An example of this is the designation 'primitive man'. It's hard to read anything with purely scientific bent without coming across this idea in one form or another. Behind it is a lack of any distinction between things we know, e.g. the sun is a ball of burning gas, not a god, and our overall conception of the universe. But, going down one avenue of thinking excludes other ways of thinking, not necessarily because they are wrong per se but because they don't fit. We have a limited capacity for holding different paradigms and everything that goes with them, our general mileu and professional and other concerns impinge on that and squeeze it down even further. As one example, Yuval Noah Harari in Sapiens briefly discusses discoveries of the earliest cuneiform writings, but says something like 'unfortunately these are wholly just records of transactions', or something to that effect, and moves on, whereas in fact although this is more or less true of the vast majority of findings there are literally thousands of literary texts of different types, personal letters and so on going back to Summeria, Babylon and Akkadia. It's hard to believe that Harari isn't aware of that, so what might be the case is that he is making an unconscious dodge. Working through all of that material would require or lead to an entirely different way of thinking; it is much easier to dismiss very ancient writings as some early attempt to 'do science' in some kind of primitive way. However this idea only makes sense if you already think that science is the only way of thinking about the world. The idea that everything simply fits into the way a person in the 21st C happens to think is hopelessly naive. With changing epochs it isn't just the facts that change, but also the whole way of thinking that we create to fill in the gaps.

Please provide an example or two of bizarre, pointless behaviour

Do you really need examples of this? People continually do things that are harmful in an immediate way or harmful in some kind of broader, longer term sense. Animals follow ways of behaving that generally have some benefit to them or are explicable in other ways. Human behaviour is a lot messier, it only makes sense theoretically.

 

[stevevw]

Sure, yes, this is a small concession. But also if the pregnant woman doesn't survive the fetus also doesn't survive. Forcing her to go through with the pregnancy will result in two lives lost, allowing her to have the abortion results in only one life lost. The end result is the abortion saves a life.

But then you have the Catholic stance where they don't allow a simple abortion, they insist on the medical malpractice of removing the fallopian tube and hence unnecessarily damaging the woman's body in support of their ideology.

But many Christians are not open to discussion with regards to a raped child who has become pregnant or poor girl who would then need to leave school.

It seems that people in support of abortion always emphasize the rare exceptions as to why abortion should be allowed. But rare exceptions are not the main reason people want to allow abortions and they don't justify most abortions which are done for convenience sake. The right not to be inconvenienced seems to be a part of modern day life in individualist societies that promotes self above all else.

The main issue I have is that people are trying to make life decisions for other people. In particular, for women. The woman is best placed to make her own decisions, not government and not religious leaders. But I don't think this thread is for debate on this, and I don't think many Christians are up for debate on this. Their stance is immovable. This is one area where many Christians and many atheists conflict in unresolvable ways.

I think Christians being firm on their position about abortion does not mean they are not open to considering circumstances. At the end of the day they see things differently. If a fetus is classed as life then they have a point and their position is protecting that life. Apart from some rare situations I think abortion has become a convenient way to get out of a responsibility that began well before getting pregnant. After-all it is the values and morals about sex and relationships that cause someone to end up in a situation where they get pregnant when they did not want to and this speaks a lot about societies morals in the first place. Abortion is just part of the same breakdown in morality and responsibility regardless of whether people think about abortion is right or wrong.

In China, when they had the one child policy, there was much pressure for families to have a son. Many Chinese are poor and a son has more prospects than a daughter towards bring needed resources into the family. Plus they have a culture of valuing males more, it carries the family name, girls don't.

But there are many countries that have developed beyond this mentality. Generally those countries where education is provided and where people are "well off" and aren't fighting just to survive.
For example, I have two girls and no boys and I couldn't care less whether they were boys or girls.

The point is ethical decisions like allowing abortion usually begins with exceptions and then is quickly justified for other reasons. This devalues life and soon we are justifying what would usually be seen as unethical. Access to the media and images of death have desensitized us towards life and death. In a me generation individual rights trump all else. Technology allows us to manipulate life and soon we feel we can play god regarding who lives and dies. We are beginning to see this in how people are orchestrating child birth through commercial surrogacy and manipulation of a fetus with genetics.

Soon we will be demanding designer babies with certain colored eyes, looks, and abilities. This is the natural progression that stems from devaluing life and seeing it as a commodity that can be ended and manipulated for our own wants and convenience. What may have been a good thing in helping others does not justify the bad. Humans have a weakness towards a sinful nature.

Perhaps what you call a regression of ethics, I would call an expansion of personal freedoms.

I think there is a fine line between unethical behavior and personal freedom. What may be a personal freedom to some is a cost to others. What is personal freedom anyway. Is it the right to sexual freedom. Some will say it allows people to have the choice in who they have relations with and how that happens. But as a result we see a lot of negative consequences such as abortions, STD,s and broken relationships that cause problems for the individual and children. Personal freedom may be women's rights to be independent and get a career which is fine. But the cost is family breakdowns, neglected children and generally more stress which causes many problems as we live to work rather than work to live.

I agree with this observation too.
At one point it was somewhat expected that men work and women stay home and look after the babies. Once women entered the workforce in full force, it now seems we need two incomes to thrive as a family.
I certainly see this as a problem, but also I don't like the idea that women shouldn't work. I see women as my equals and they should be allowed to work if they want. I don't pass judgement on a working mother.

I see the greater picture here that the progression of rights, equal rights is not just about rights but also about self, what I can get out of it and control of others. We see this with all the new age ideas that are actually restricting freedoms like safe spaces, me too movement, accusations of white privilege, non staging etc. People demanding their rights and not wanting to hear opposing ideas. This is creating a conflict between two imaginary unequal sides and a problems that may not have been there in the first place.

Role conflicts between sexes may be about too much importance on materialism. It may be that a women is better at nurturing the child and evidence seems to support this and males are better and more at home as the hunter type role. But due to so much emphasis on rights we end up throwing this out. People keep saying we are a patriarchy society and are now attacking men and masculinity. I like Jordan Petersen's views on this. He reckons that all the animal kingdom has a hierarchy and this is a natural thing that works best.

Its OK not to be at the top and some are better at it. Its OK to not have equality all the time because that's just the way it is. But because of pushing individual rights all the time by activists we are upsetting this and causing conflicts that are worse than the perceived problem of inequality. That does not mean women are being made inferior or that men are superior but it always seems to end up that way because people want their freedoms and rights.

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/li...cure-for-misogynist-rage-20180523-p4zh0u.html

 

[Ophiolite]

Do you really need examples of this? People continually do things that are harmful in an immediate way or harmful in some kind of broader, longer term sense. Animals follow ways of behaving that generally have some benefit to them or are explicable in other ways. Human behaviour is a lot messier, it only makes sense theoretically.

I am setting aside the rest of your post for the moment. I shall return to it later. (Please remind me if I fail to do so.)

I really do need examples from you. I do not accept your assertion. I think you are missing two things:
1. All animals, including humans, can and do behave in counter-intuitive manners when under high degrees of stress. (If you doubt the point about the animals give me a couple of days to track down relevant research.)
2. Apparently bizarre behaviour can often be explained when all circumstances are fully examined. I don't want to waste your time or my time giving examples that don't match those you are thinking of. I need two or three of your own.

 

[Tom 1]

All animals, including humans, can and do behave in counter-intuitive manners when under high degrees of stress. (If you doubt the point about the animals give me a couple of days to track down relevant research.)

True, I know, I've worked with animals quite a lot. Generally though the cause, effect and remedy are simpler. Not so much with humans. With humans there is no such thing as 'all circumstances' being fully examined, more like a bit of knowledge, some rough estimates, and a process of finding a way forward. I worked in crisis management for years.
It's hard to know where to start. I'll have a think about it, but I have a lot of related thoughts about this and I have a lot of other things to do, so I'll post another time.