Re: Chicken and Xian Family Values

[En_Route]

Also, I love this article.  Yes, yes, and yes.

For me it reflected the fundie type atheism which is every bit as emotive and irrational as Theism. I note our rabid interlocutor accuses Cathy of being wrong at the moral and spiritual level; ok we can argue about objective morality ad infinitum ,and do, but spiritual?

[Ali]

I didn't find it irrational at all.  And yes, the topic of denying people civil rights is one that arouses a lot of emotion and passion in a lot of people.  As it should, if you ask me. 

[jumbojak]

Also, I love this article.  Yes, yes, and yes.

For me it reflected the fundie type atheism which is every bit as emotive and irrational as Theism. I note our rabid interlocutor accuses Cathy of being wrong at the moral and spiritual level; ok we can argue about objective morality ad infinitum ,and do, but spiritual?

I didn't see where the article accused Cathy of being spiritually wrong, and although I don't agree that his actions are emprically wrong, I do believe they are objectively morally wrong. To my eyes, the author went on an understandable rant motivated by spurious reasoning.

What we have here is a good piece of polemic ( and I do like polemic when it's well crafted ) from a talented writer. You would be suprised by the number of people who are pushed toward rational inquiry by this type of work. It has shock value and that shouldn't be underestimated.

Such a jarring effect is potentially greater given the highly publicised nature of the controversy. Although I'm not certain what impact this particular writer will have, if enough of this sort of material is produced the number of potential sympathisers should grow. More material, at the quality of this article or better can't hurt.

[markmcdaniel]

Also, I love this article.  Yes, yes, and yes.

For me it reflected the fundie type atheism which is every bit as emotive and irrational as Theism. I note our rabid interlocutor accuses Cathy of being wrong at the moral and spiritual level; ok we can argue about objective morality ad infinitum ,and do, but spiritual?

Correct me if I am wrong, but, if something is morally wrong can it be anything other than spiritually wrong.

[xSilverPhinx]

'Spiritual' is such a fuzzy word, I tend to want to not use it.

It's one thing in a religious context (even though I think it's based on falsehoods, but that's another matter) but when an atheist uses it, it's confusing.

[OldGit]

'Spiritual' is such a fuzzy word, I tend to want to not use it.

I agree.  It can encourage religious ideas to creep in by the back door.

[En_Route]

'Spiritual' is such a fuzzy word, I tend to want to not use it.

I agree.  It can encourage religious ideas to creep in by the back door.

If one talks of the spiritual dimension of man, it seems to me that you are in the supernatural zone, including but not exclusively religion.  Spiritual is not a synonym for moral, so what  spiritually wrong means I have no idea. As it happens for someone to argue that something is morally wrong as if that is an incontrovertible fact falls into the same trap of mistaking assertion for proof which is the hallmark of much theist grandstanding .

[The Magic Pudding]

Correct me if I am wrong, but, if something is morally wrong can it be anything other than spiritually wrong.

There's this definition for spirited:Displaying animation, vigour, or liveliness.
Spirit: A fundamental emotional and activating principle determining one's character.

Working as a paramedic, pulling badly injured children out of cars would be morally a good thing.  It is stretching it to say it's spiritually wrong but potentially damaging to the spirit. 

[Ali]

'Spiritual' is such a fuzzy word, I tend to want to not use it.

I agree.  It can encourage religious ideas to creep in by the back door.

If one talks of the spiritual dimension of man, it seems to me that you are in the supernatural zone, including but not exclusively religion.  Spiritual is not a synonym for moral, so what  spiritually wrong means I have no idea. As it happens for someone to argue that something is morally wrong as if that is an incontrovertible fact falls into the same trap of mistaking assertion for proof which is the hallmark of much theist grandstanding .

Yeah, but you don't even believe in morals, so according to you, nothing is morally wrong.    The writer and I disagree; actively working to deny people equal rights is some kind of wrong.  I don't care if you call it "morally wrong", or "spiritually wrong", or just "wrong wrong."  I'm not overly interested in the semantics of it.  It's wrong.  And the message of the article is, I don't have to be nice and play along and act like your opinion is equally valid if what you are doing is actively hurting people like that.  I don't see how that is "spurious reasoning" or irrational.  If that's irrational, is the rational response that yes, we should be nice to these people and play act like it's a-okay for them to use their personal opinions to keep a whole section of our fellow Americans second class citizens?  Because if that's rational, I'm just as happy to bump along in my own little irrational rut.

[En_Route]

'Spiritual' is such a fuzzy word, I tend to want to not use it.

I agree.  It can encourage religious ideas to creep in by the back door.

If one talks of the spiritual dimension of man, it seems to me that you are in the supernatural zone, including but not exclusively religion.  Spiritual is not a synonym for moral, so what  spiritually wrong means I have no idea. As it happens for someone to argue that something is morally wrong as if that is an incontrovertible fact falls into the same trap of mistaking assertion for proof which is the hallmark of much theist grandstanding .

Yeah, but you don't even believe in morals, so according to you, nothing is morally wrong.    The writer and I disagree; actively working to deny people equal rights is some kind of wrong.  I don't care if you call it "morally wrong", or "spiritually wrong", or just "wrong wrong."  I'm not overly interested in the semantics of it.  It's wrong.  And the message of the article is, I don't have to be nice and play along and act like your opinion is equally valid if what you are doing is actively hurting people like that.  I don't see how that is "spurious reasoning" or irrational.  If that's irrational, is the rational response that yes, we should be nice to these people and play act like it's a-okay for them to use their personal opinions to keep a whole section of our fellow Americans second class citizens?  Because if that's rational, I'm just as happy to bump along in my own little irrational rut.

So how do we know things are right or wrong? I am constantly told how sceptical and freethinking the Atheistic community is and of their principled rejection of anything which cannot be proven or which is based on irrational conviction. All too often people bandy around absolutist terms such as right or wrong or moral or immoral to authenticate or lend a weight to their own views. Once people say or imply  something is self- evident, then I  know as with convinced theists there is no room for argument.

[Ali]

So how do we know things are right or wrong? I am constantly told how sceptical and freethinking the Atheistic community is and of their principled rejection of anything which cannot be proven or which is based on irrational conviction. All too often people bandy around absolutist terms such as right or wrong or moral or immoral to authenticate or lend a weight to their own views. Once people say or imply  something is self- evident, then I  know as with convinced theists there is no room for argument.

Personally I look to questions like: is this just/fair?  Who does this harm?  Who does it help?  In the case of people working to actively keep gay marriage illegal, no, I do not believe that it is just or fair to deny people equal rights or protections under the law.  Who does it hurt?  Millions of families in the US who just happen to be gay, plus all of the rest of us because I believe that when we allow any of us to be oppressed, we open the door for all of us to be oppressed.  Who does it help?  No one, as far as I can tell.  Religious people that believe that gay marriage is a sin can continue to not enter into gay marriages when it is legal, so I don't see that they really have a dog in this fight.

I don't see how any of that is irrational.  I also don't believe you that you don't go through similar judgment exercises.  Otherwise how could you ever form an opinion on anything, and you have LOTS of opinions. 

[Ecurb Noselrub]

So how do we know things are right or wrong? I am constantly told how sceptical and freethinking the Atheistic community is and of their principled rejection of anything which cannot be proven or which is based on irrational conviction. All too often people bandy around absolutist terms such as right or wrong or moral or immoral to authenticate or lend a weight to their own views. Once people say or imply  something is self- evident, then I  know as with convinced theists there is no room for argument.

Unless there is some creator of all things or some other authority that establishes right/wrong, there is no universal, objective way to determine the issue. It becomes relative, and it's simply a matter of what a particular group of people in a particular community decide will be right/wrong among them.  That's what you see playing out in America now - there's a discussion about what we are going to conclude is right/wrong.  Christians by and large rely on the authority of scripture regarding the definition of marriage, while those on the other side rely by and large on the enlightenment ideal (embodied in the U.S. Constitution) that there should be equality.  You really can't arrive at either position by pure rational analysis alone, IMHO.

[Ali]

So how do we know things are right or wrong? I am constantly told how sceptical and freethinking the Atheistic community is and of their principled rejection of anything which cannot be proven or which is based on irrational conviction. All too often people bandy around absolutist terms such as right or wrong or moral or immoral to authenticate or lend a weight to their own views. Once people say or imply  something is self- evident, then I  know as with convinced theists there is no room for argument.

Unless there is some creator of all things or some other authority that establishes right/wrong, there is no universal, objective way to determine the issue. It becomes relative, and it's simply a matter of what a particular group of people in a particular community decide will be right/wrong among them.  That's what you see playing out in America now - there's a discussion about what we are going to conclude is right/wrong.  Christians by and large rely on the authority of scripture regarding the definition of marriage, while those on the other side rely by and large on the enlightenment ideal (embodied in the U.S. Constitution) that there should be equality.  You really can't arrive at either position by pure rational analysis alone, IMHO.

What about by using principles like justice and fairness?  You don't think it's possible to determine if a law is just, regardless of your personal belief system?  Why do we even have laws then?  (I'm aware that I'm debating this with two lawyers....)

[DeterminedJuliet]

Unless there is some creator of all things or some other authority that establishes right/wrong, there is no universal, objective way to determine the issue.

If you can't get a universal, objective way to discern the will of this being (which you can't), the existence of this being and its "authority" is irrelevant. It simply gives individual people credence to do whatever they subjectively think is right with an objective label -- which is more dangerous, to my mind, than developing a subjective morality that you have to defend in the real world. 

[Tank]

Unless there is some creator of all things or some other authority that establishes right/wrong, there is no universal, objective way to determine the issue.

If you can't get a universal, objective way to discern the will of this being (which you can't), the existence of this being and its "authority" is irrelevant. It simply gives individual people credence to do whatever they subjectively think is right with an objective label -- which is more dangerous, to my mind, than developing a subjective morality that you have to defend in the real world. 

Precisely. As long as people try to play the 'God' trump card we as a species a screwed. I'm not saying we wouldn't be screwed if everybody were atheists just that there's be one huge confounding variable removed from the path of human progress.