March 14, 2014

Surprisingly few people around the world think belief in God is essential to morality.

"Worldwide, Many See Belief in God as Essential to Morality."
Posted by Ann Althouse at 10:28 AM
Tags: , ,

208 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 208 of 208
Unknown said...

Can somebody explain why the hell atheism violates one of the most sacred and cardinal rules of grammar?

It's "I before E, except after C." Right? Right?

Unless you're an Atheist. It's E before I, if you're atheist.

Also seizure, that's another one. Which is like a crime, or a heart attack. Now I'm googling E before I.

Weird!

Foreign!

Feisty!

Is that a conspiracy possibility or what? And I'm not saying atheists are weird, foreign and feisty people who want to seize all our property. But it makes you think.

3/15/14, 1:18 AM
Unknown said...

The other thing is that atheists--and I keep mispelling that damn word, and now I just mispelled misspell, it is not my day--can kill their neighbor and bury him in the backyard and lie, lie, lie about it. That's a basic tenet of atheism, there is no higher law that is enforced.

You might argue that this causes atheists to try to improve our world. Although it's just as likely these feisty foreigners will seize our property, if you ask me.

And what about Christians or Jews who kill their neighbors and bury them in the backyard and lie, lie, lie about it? Well, obviously we called time out and went temporary atheist. Which is like temporary insanity except it does not work with juries.

But the whacked thing about Christianity, from a moral perspective, is that you can be a mass murdering scumbag, and yet still be redeemed. Redemption is always a possibility. So theoretically Christians can do all sorts of hell-raising on a theory that I'm not going to die anytime soon. Plenty of time to atone while I'm in prison. This is known as Pascali's bet, which is not quite the same thing as Pacal's wager. Pascali was a really horrible gambler which is probably why you never heard of him.

3/15/14, 1:31 AM
Dr Weevil said...

Saint Croix:
The 'I before E' rule is for diphthongs, where the two letters make a single sound and a single syllable, as in 'achieve' and 'receive'. Each has four vowels, but only two syllables, because the IE and EI are diphthongs, and the final Es are silent.

If the word you're worrying about were pronounced A-THEEST, it would be a diphthong, but it's three syllables, A-THE-IST, so the rule doesn't apply. THE- is the Greek root for God, as in THE-OLOGY, and A- is the Greek prefix for negatives (like IN in Latin), So an A-THE-IST is a 'not-God-ist'.

Since I can't resist a pun, do you know what linguistics professors wear at the beach when they want to take a dip? Dip-thongs!

3/15/14, 9:17 AM
jr565 said...

How are atheists holding that things are absolutely wrong, other than by saying it's their opinion that they are absolutely wrong? That's the entire basis of their morality.
The thing about opinions is that they are like assholes. Everyone's got one.
So are atheists moral people? Well if there opinion conforms with mine and I"m christian, then they are moral. If their opinion doesn't conform with mine, then they are still moral as long as it's their opinion that they are doing the moral thing, whatever that may be.
What is the basis for secular humanism? it certainly can't be absolute can it? Should secular humanism expect anyone to find their morality moral if they aren't secular humanists? And yet they expect to be able to tell others what is moral and what isn't moral when there's no actual authority behind their morality.

3/15/14, 1:22 PM
jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
3/15/14, 1:25 PM
jr565 said...

Ted Bundy's atheistic morality:
"Then I learned that all moral judgments are "value judgments," that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either "right" or "wrong." I even read somewhere that the Chief Justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured out for myself - what apparently the Chief Justice couldn't figure out for himself"”that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any "reason" to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring "” the strength of character "” to throw off its shackles. ... I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable value judgment" that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these "others"? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog's life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as "moral" or "good" and others as "immoral" or "bad"? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me"”after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self."

For atheists, how is Ted Bundy wrong? You have no argument but your own value judgements. Ted Bundy didn't need God to come to his morality. Other than your opinion that he's morally wrong, what else do you got to show that he's morally wrong?

3/15/14, 1:34 PM
ken in tx said...

When I was in college, I was an agnostic. I knew a girl who said that if she did not believe in God, she would feel free to lie, steal, and kill at will. I told her that I did not feel free to do those things, and I was not sure about God being there.

Now that I have been married three times and divorced twice, I understand her point of view much better. The only reason I am not guilty of murder is that I was too drunk to do it when I had the nerve to do it. The Bible says that wine is God's gift to mankind. I believe in God now.

3/15/14, 4:03 PM
Todd said...

jr565 said...
In other words, other than their objection to being killed, what is their moral case for why murder is actually wrong?
3/14/14, 5:19 PM

The moral case against murder is that it deprives another of their right to self. If you want to determine if an act is moral or not, first determine if it impacts another's right to self. If I steal from you, I take what you earned. A wrong. If I kill you, I take the ultimate from you. A wrong. I lie to you, I mislead you which could impact your self-determination. A wrong. If you respect everyone's right to self. You will lead a moral life.

For those that do not believe in God, religion is not needed for leading a moral life but it helps "explain the rules". For those that do believe in God, it gives additional incentive to be moral. One does not want to be outside of the grace of God.

As to the other comment about (basically) being a prick your entire live but being saved at the last minute so that you get to go to heaven, it doesn't work that way. You have to be redeemed and that includes truly repenting and wanting to be forgiven and saved. If you plan to do it, it doesn't work. You can not scam your way into heaven.

3/17/14, 9:03 AM
«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 208 of 208   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)