So much for the idea that religion makes people more moral.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Big RR - I agree. Is there something I wrote that indicates to the contrary? I must not have written well!

On certainty - that's why I put 'ha ha' after rubato's claim of proving something with certainty. I didn't want to get drawn into an argument against that falsehood.

[Big RR]

Meade--perhaps I misunderstood your comment

First, prove the universality of “obligations” and “rights” (I agree of course, since they are God-given). You however should be able to do that without God but with “certainty” after all.

?

I had thought you were asking for certainty to justify any concept of natural law without a creator, but it may be that I missed the humor. If so, I apologize.

[MajGenl.Meade]

OIC. Yes, that was supposed to be irony - hence the inverted commas.

[Guinevere]

Frankly, what was most disturbing about rubato's post wasn't his baiting, but the notion that of all "groups" even in those that oppose torture "the most" a full 38% of them feel torture is sometimes or often justified. Wow.

I agree. That was the most disturbing thing about it. Ones takes for granted that certain things are abhorrent on the face of it to the average person but perhaps there is less to any inherent sense of morality and it is all learned behavior. If you and i had not been brought up in educated liberal families and communities perhaps we would be indifferent to torture as well. There but for the grace of, well, good luck, could go you or I.

Well, for what it's worth (and I've said this before), I am to the far left of my family (my generation and the two generations ahead of me). Mostly they are (or were) moderately to extremely conservative. Some are very religious, on top of that. But we are mostly pretty well-educated, and grew up with a reasonable amount of privilege and access to resources, in a generally liberal state, but in one of the more conservative parts of that state. I was a moderate republican in High School.

Luckily, I can think for myself.

More on the substance later.

[RayThom]

... God DOES NOT EXIST. (And your proof "for" its existence is just as strong as my proof "against" it.) Ergo, morality cannot possibly be God-given.

rubato's chart is proof enough for me that my secular humanism has served me well. My belief system eliminates all the smoke and mirrors associated with theology and the hypocrisy of faith.

"That which we call sin in others is experiment for us. Go put your creed into your deed." Ralph Waldo Emerson

[MajGenl.Meade]

Thanks Ray. I offered no proof that God exists so ... well done on dragging in nothing new.

I am thrilled at your logical argument that BECAUSE neither one of us can prove that God exists or does not exist, THEREFORE God cannot possibly originate morality.

Isn't that the kind of logical thinking that caused the secular humanists to ask you to hand in your membership card?

Care to tackle the question of morality - what makes rubato's morality (or yours) more 'moral' than that of someone who disagrees with it? rubato was at least honest enough to say it's just whatever he happens to think it is (morality is a human construct and he endorses the parts he likes and rejects those he does not).

That makes nonsense of his claim that a graph shows respondents are 'as moral' or 'less moral' than he is - since he cannot prove that a universal morality exists or does not exist. (Using your logic perhaps such a lack of proof leads to the conclusion that THEREFORE God is the only possible originator of morality) (This para edited for clarity)

Got to go - I only just noticed that rubato posted a little squib between mine and Big RR's. Deserves a look

[MajGenl.Meade]

What it DOES show is a reduction in the level of cruelty in society, longer lives, greater security in their home, higher levels of education. The improvement in society has followed so exactly the reduction in the power of religion that it is difficult to believe that causation is not involved.

ON the whole people have become better after ditching religion.

Well, no actually. What your survey shows is the cultural background of persons matched to specific views on whether torture is justified in a certain context or not. I'm surprised you hadn't spotted that!

You may as well claim that the improvement in society (yet to be proven) followed so exactly the rate of deforestation that it is difficult to believe that causation is not involved. Congrats on finding such a coy way to sidestep post hoc ergo propter hoc - but if you try really hard you can probably avoid it.

Since neither improvement nor longevity nor home security nor forests are the subject of the survey, we'd best not claim them to be represented in it.

Since religious persons (and you identified specifically Christians) who support the use of torture have indeed ditched their religion, your conclusion is likewise false unless you believe that they, like you, have become "better".

[Gob]

Unlike you and Gob, many of us work for a living,

Oy!! I resemble that remark!!

[RayThom]

Thanks Ray. I offered no proof that God exists so ... well done on dragging in nothing new.

Damn, you're too slick for me. You got me again.

It was merely a statement made with your prior doctrinal history as my guide. Now I'll need to rethink my position. Just you wait, once I master the art of the 2500 word post written for the entertainment of perhaps fifteen people then you'll be sorry.

Carry on.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I'm already sorry. Mission accomplished.