Well, it’s not a fumbling and mildly awkward Fight Club reference, but, I do try.
And because it was a reply to a dismissal of *atheism *as a cute fantasy. :rolleyes:
No, it wasn’t. It was a response to “atheist fantasies” as being cute. And the particular fantasy called out was deservedly called “cute”:
Go outside and get some fresh air, John.
Thanks.
Bricker’s reply, though… well… I don’t think “desperate” is the word. “Strained”, perhaps. Actually, and without sarcasm, the labels religion would need (if such were ever applied with any rationality) would have to be more stern than those for homeopathic solutions. Homeopathic solutions are harmless.
Bricker is taking this all very seriously. Much more seriously than you are, obviously. Nothing wrong with that, especially this being the Pit and all.
I’m not sure how to prove that I’m serious, in the sense that I’m perfectly serious in describing organized religion as a net drain on society and something best left behind along with any number of socially inculcated irrational beliefs that might do some occasional good but more often do a fair amount of harm.
If Catholicism specifically is to be analyzed, finding major systemic problems is no harder than googling “abuse scandal”. I’m frankly a tad dismayed there wasn’t immense and irreversible abandonment of the Catholic Church in any country where the abuse of children is taken seriously, but I figure something one has been indoctrinated with since birth is very hard to abandon.
In the purely hypothetical, if I could make it illegal to indoctrinate anyone under the age of ten, I’d have to consider it. If someone older adopts a religion, well, that’s their choice, and I respect informed choice.
You’ll still be wrong. Don’t like to be corrected, do you?
Well, we knew that.
Ask him about 9/11 perps safely based in Montreal, John.
heh heh heh…
Do you believe that the “good” and “harm” you speak of above is something more objective than your personal view of what things are good and what things are bad?
I think raped children counts as “bad” by any reasonable standard, aggravated by an organization that moved the rapists around to protect itself from scandal. Don’t you?
Secular organizations have been broken for far less.
Wow! When you look at it that way, all of our ideas about “good” and “bad” are really just totally subjective!
Whoa, fuckin’ deep, bro!
Not even Brickerian definitions of words establish your view. Your claim is unusually silly even by your own standards.
When it happens, I’ll let you know, OK? 
Now, seriously, go get some fresh air. It will do you a world of good.
Absolutely.
But how do you weigh that bad against the good that even you concede exists? How many pounds and ounces of “bad,” is that, compared to how many pounds and ounces of “good?” How many hectares, or furlongs, or newtons?
Define “good”. Is preventing an abortion good or bad?
Heh, since I’ve made similar “can you quantify that?” requests of others, I’ve certainly no call to object to having one thrown at me. I’m willing to recognize that a strict mathematical analysis in which various and numerous acts of “good” and “bad” are thoroughly studied for their social impact, assigned values on a scale as consistent and nonarbitrarily as possible (complicated by having to choose a timeframe and dealing with records of decreasing accuracy the further back one goes) and then compared to find a single result, be it net positive (good > bad), neutral (good = bad) or net negative (good < bad) would be an overwhelming task even to measure the impact one specific religious congregation has had in one specific community.
That said, if a multinational corporation had workers who were molesting children and being transferred from factory to factory to keep them out of the hands of law enforcement, it wouldn’t matter if that corporation was curing cancer. The corporation would be subject to massive investigation, there would be no confidentiality issues getting in the way of mandatory-reporting laws (a corporate equivalent of Canon 983 would not be respected) and conspiracy charges, indictments and arrests would be brisk business.
Now since your initial question invoked relative morality, I think it fair to assume you’re leaning in the direction of implying that an atheist (especially a liberal atheist) can’t have a strong moral standard, indeed suggesting that the liberal atheist’s moral standards are endlessly flexible and determinedly situational with no consistency or integrity. I’d like to suggest the following insights:
-
Religion is not the exclusive source of moral standards; and
-
Religion is not even a good source of moral standards.
I’m prepared to expand on these concepts at length, and not in some vapid knee-jerky Der Trihs-style “religious people just want to destroy women” manner. It may be more appropriate in another thread if there is to be further discussion of Hobby Lobby and the impact of the SCOTUS ruling.
Correct.
Yes. But the corporation itself would still be in the business of curing cancer.
“The wicked flee where no man pursueth.” No, I didn’t say any such thing; I didn’t imply any such thing; I don’t believe any such thing. Atheists can certainly have strict moral standards and adhere to them consistently; religious folk can equally be discouragingly flexible about their standards. No conclusion can be drawn in either direction about strong moral standards.
Agreed.
Not enough information to agree or disagree.
Yes, I figured.
Well, not if it’s shuttered after numerous executives including those at its highest levels are arrested and imprisoned for conspiracy to molest children. I think a case could certainly be made that Joseph Ratzinger was complicit. I gather he could not have been arrested during his visit to the U.S. in 2008 since he was a Head of State (granting for the sake of argument that the Vatican qualifies as such) but I suppose it might have been amusing if he’d been declared non grata. Anyway, the Catholic Church has systematically covered-up the molestation of children and not cured cancer, so it doesn’t even deserve the consideration of the hypothetical multinational corporation.
Bullshit. Then why did you ask: “Do you believe that the “good” and “harm” you speak of above is something more objective than your personal view of what things are good and what things are bad?” Of course I’m going to speak from my personal view of what things are good and bad - what “objective” standard are you suggesting I use in substitution of my own judgement? The bible? The church canons? Certainly not the secular law, since my personal view incorporates the need and value thereof even if I occasionally personally disagree with the result. This is not the first time I’ve seen you ask a leading question and then claim innocence (and with that “wicked/pursueth” quote, too - a quick search shows you using the phrase 13 times on this board, it must be one of your stock phrases ) when your clumsy effort is detected and noted.
The reason I asked about an objective standard is you weren’t just chatting – you imagined enacting a law or regulation that would impose your view:
And expanded:
So that’s not simply you having your personal view, is it? It’s you proposing your personal view gets used as the standard for government reaction to religion. That’s why I asked about the existence of an objective standard.
Thirteen times in nearly fifteen years and 43,400+ posts? Yes, a “stock” phrase to be sure. :rolleyes:
It’s Proverbs 28:1, and refers to the idea that the guilty act guilty even when they haven’t yet been accused.
Yes, and I can’t help but notice you not quoting my use of the phrase “*n the purely hypothetical”. It’s an admitted “if I ran the zoo” observation. Truth be told, what I see as a plausible process that will end religion as a political force with special privileges in the United States (though not anytime soon, to be sure) is the gradual spread and social acceptance of agnosticism and atheism.
No, it’s me having my personal view of what I might consider doing if I had a magic wand.
Yes, I know what it means, I am not guilty nor feeling guilty nor acting guilty, and your little dance of indignation is duly noted. Now, will you defend or distance yourself from an organization whose members molest children and which systematically covers up these crimes? I recognize the possibility of alternate choices (I can see you already simply failing to address the issue, for example) so there’s no false dichotomy claim to be made here, in case you felt like using one to stall for time.