Killing in the name of......
- Thinking critical
- Posts: 1793
- Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
- Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)
Re: Killing in the name of......
When I previously stated "position" I was referring to the moral judgment of either the theist or atheist as a group, I do not like to stereotype.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Killing in the name of......
Having said that once a religion has started it does take on a life of its own, to some extent. So I'm sure there are many many instances of harmful actions done to fit into a group.
I guess what I'm really trying to say is that the phrasing is leading, too loosely defined, too broadly defined and not fair. You may as well ask which group is more harmful, those who like football or those who don't.
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am
Re: Killing in the name of......
The particular strain of 'belief' is irrelevant (God or money or Chevrolets or whatever), all strains share the same pathological symptomatology!Thinking critical wrote: ↑April 14th, 2018, 10:15 am I came across an interesting challenge recently, regarding the consequences of our beliefs.
The question proposed was wether or not anyone could think of a crime or action resulting in unnecessary pain and suffering that one would "only" cause due to the absence of belief in god(s)?..
No one ever deliberately harmed another unless he was infected with some strain of belief!
- Thinking critical
- Posts: 1793
- Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
- Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)
Re: Killing in the name of......
Agreed, belief is often an emotional attachment to an idea or concept which you may want or hope to be true in the absence of empirical knowledge (if such knowledge exists). Therefore belief can motivate us and give us a desire to act or react in away that one wouldn't expect if the belief was absent.Namelesss wrote: ↑April 22nd, 2018, 6:16 pmThe particular strain of 'belief' is irrelevant (God or money or Chevrolets or whatever), all strains share the same pathological symptomatology!Thinking critical wrote: ↑April 14th, 2018, 10:15 am I came across an interesting challenge recently, regarding the consequences of our beliefs.
The question proposed was wether or not anyone could think of a crime or action resulting in unnecessary pain and suffering that one would "only" cause due to the absence of belief in god(s)?..
No one ever deliberately harmed another unless he was infected with some strain of belief!
The strain of belief is irrelevant, but the context of the discussion was religion when Christopher Hitchens was debating a pope. The pope asked Hitchens how an atheist could possibly appreciate true morality without excepting there god, Christoper proposed this argument as the rebuttal.
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am
Re: Killing in the name of......
First, the Pope is a professional theologian/apologist, Hitchens is a professional entertainer.Thinking critical wrote: ↑April 24th, 2018, 9:32 am The pope asked Hitchens how an atheist could possibly appreciate true morality without excepting there god, Christoper proposed this argument as the rebuttal.
It was loaded from the beginning.
The question; "...action resulting in unnecessary pain and suffering that one would "only" cause due to the absence of belief in god(s)?"
Clarifying 'unnecessary' is the first step to a philosophical examination, but we'll move on to...
Segundo, as soon as the Pope asked 'me' "how an atheist could possibly appreciate true morality", I would respond that 'morality' is the sin of Pride, judgment of 'Good and Evil', the original forbidden fruit!
See how he squirms out of that one!
We don't see 'good and evil', we don't 'judge others', in a state of unconditional Love (what Christ was/is all about)!
If the Pope wants to 'associate' "unconditional Love" with his notion of 'God', then so be it, but that is not a logical refutation.
God tells us not to be 'moral' ("Do not eat from the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil" lest foolish man think he is like Us!").
Sanity tells us the same thing.
So, God or not, morality is insanity!
Those 'with a God' are warned of the toxicity of that fruit (the one and only Sin!), yet the hypocrites take fresh bites every day, often!
Were Hitchens a philosopher, he would be on good ground to field the questions that he sees fit to 'answer'.
Of course I did answer the question when I stated that the 'inverse' is true, that "no one ever deliberately harmed another unless he was infected with beliefs!"
That answers the question, and does an end run around the poor term 'unnecessary'.
All that exists is 'necessary', and that is everything!
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Killing in the name of......
Those liberties with vocabulary will include all motives of all people, all chains of causation. That will encompass a hundred forms of love, hate, fear, awe, dread, fealty, delusion, calculation, neurosis, greed, passion, sex, boredom, pride, socio- and psychopathology, envy and hunger.
But what's left to compare?
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023