Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[Belacqua]

Religious people do it ALL the time.

This is certainly true. Because human beings do it all the time, and religious people are a subset of human  beings. 

It would be equally true to say that Jews do it all the time, or gay people do it all the time. Because they are also subsets of human beings, and human beings do it all the time. I suspect we would be reluctant to type out such sentences, because even though they're true, they sound bad. Which raises the question of why we are willing to specify it's true for "religious people." 

(It's no doubt also true for white art historians who live in Japan, as well. Since I should mention a group of which I am a member.) 

If someone wanted to argue that religious people are more likely to justify their bad actions than others, I think we'd want a logical argument or empirical evidence, so as not to come across as just prejudiced. I'm not convinced yet that religious people self-justify more badly than, say, atheist Marxists or atheist CEOs of insurance companies. 

It seems to me more likely that people are wont to justify their bad actions, and to do so they will reach for whatever tools are handy. If they go to church, they will find concepts from religion. If they live in a capitalist society, they will find capitalist concepts handy. If they read Ayn Rand, the justifications will be handed to them. If they imagine they are scientists, they have been able, in history, to point to the supposedly smaller brains of women and black people. And since the majority of people who have ever lived have been religious, it isn't a surprise that bad justifications are found in religion. The question is whether human beings would be any better if they didn't have religion. I see no reason to think they would be, although, since this is counterfactual, we don't really know.

[LadyForCamus]

Religious people do it ALL the time.

This is certainly true. Because human beings do it all the time, and religious people are a subset of human  beings. 

It would be equally true to say that Jews do it all the time, or gay people do it all the time. Because they are also subsets of human beings, and human beings do it all the time. I suspect we would be reluctant to type out such sentences, because even though they're true, they sound bad. Which raises the question of why we are willing to specify it's true for "religious people."

Because, many, many religious people assert that they don’t, and we atheists do. That was my only point.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, morally speaking, people would be better off without religion. It gets morality completely wrong and offers no better behavior or outcomes. That's not really the question...but if someone is batshit enough to ask it, it has an answer.

[R00tKiT]

Humans disagree over facts all the time.

And that's exactly why religion should have a take on morality. Again, we don't claim moral deeds can't be done without believing, nor that religious people are morally superior. It's simply that we need guidance, because the moral systems we can come up are inherently fallible. And morality is too serious of a matter to leave it altogether to **rational inquiry**, especially, as I said, when there are so many divergent, and competing, viewpoints saying different things about issues as critical as rape, murder, etc.

I just don't need those facts, and if those facts existed.....which they don't... they would be subjective rather than objective facts - by definition.

And yet you failed, miserably, at pointing out what's wrong in infidelity from a realist viewpoint. As far as I'm concerned, cheating is perfectly moral under your system if it goes unnoticed.

So, for example, if it is a fact that an open relationship is harmful, then it would be bad to be in an open relation. 

It is a fact that open relationships are harmful. Relationships are closed and should concern two people by definition. You're simply backing up all kinds of sexual depravity widespread and freely done in your country.

Consenting to an "open relationship" means there was no relationship to begin with, let's not play with the definitions.

Following?  Disagree?  Didn't you think it was compelling when you asserted that the little girl Big Mo raped didn't have a problem with it, and no one else complained? 

Muhammad married someone, pal. As I already said, if you really think it was rape, you might need to build a more solid case than mere assertion, that would be an outstanding historical insight already.

Since we're talking about traditional marriage, there is no possible comparison with an "open relationship" since it's an invalid, immoral engagement under any respectable moral system.

If I tell you that there's a certain amount of money in my pocket, and do not tell you an amount, wouldn't it be honest of you to say that you do not know how much money is in my pocket? In fact, wouldn't the most honest thing of all be to admit that you don't know if I even have any money in my pocket? I mean, certainly you wouldn't assume that I'm lying, but in all reality, isn't the most honest thing to admit that you don't even know if I'm carrying any money?

Your example is invalid in this context. The existence of god is hardly the same as the existence of money in your pocket. I already explained that if a just god exists, then he already left - as a result of his justness - clear evidence, or revelation for his existence. If there is no clear evidence then this just god surely doesn't exist.

---

Huh? How does this verse expressly forbid the murder of rape victims by their fathers? It might metaphorically do so, but I don't see the metaphor.

We don't need an explicit verse for every imaginable crime, you know. It's not how Islamic jurisprudence works.

And (apparently) some practitioners of Islam don't see the metaphor either because they brashly and without apology strangle their daughters to death for the crime of having been raped.

Then you can take it up with these practitioners in person.

Why don't you give a full and thoughtful analysis of why honor killings persist in areas of the world dominated by Islam?

Maybe because this world happens to be the Arab world, too? Where tribal values/practices still prevail despite *Islamic* ruling.

[Fake Messiah]

And that's exactly why religion should have a take on morality.

So we should stone women on their wedding night if they're not virgins, kill firstborn sons, have slaves, etc. because the Bible tells us so?

[R00tKiT]

And that's exactly why religion should have a take on morality.

So we should stone women on their wedding night if they're not virgins, kill firstborn sons, have slaves, etc. because the Bible tells us so?

It's still better than rationalizing, with a straight face, killing haemophiliac infants.

[Rahn127]

Religious people do it ALL the time.

This is certainly true. Because human beings do it all the time, and religious people are a subset of human  beings. 

The "it" in the phrase is referring to a justification for doing harm.
When human beings attempt to justify the harm they do, many use a religious justification. People who aren't religious may do harm out of an emotional response to something that has happened to them.

Larger conflicts like war, are often justified through religious means. Just because religious people are a subset of human beings doesn't mean the justification is the same.

When looking at justification, religious reasons are at the top of the chart. The normal everyday human response of anger will cause some harm, but when you compare that to the religious justification for widespread hatred, civil unrest, regional conflicts, world wars, there is truly no comparison.

The justification used for world wide harm is religious in nature.

Saying that domestic cats are a subset of all felines doesn't make the number of people killed by lions over the centuries any less harmful.

[Fake Messiah]

So we should stone women on their wedding night if they're not virgins, kill firstborn sons, have slaves, etc. because the Bible tells us so?

It's still better than rationalizing, with a straight face, killing haemophiliac infants.

That is exactly what Bible demands of its followers: to kill hemophilic infants by circumcising them.

How many millions of babies do you think have died because they were hemophilic and their parents circumcised them because it was a "moral" thing to do according to Bible?

[The Grand Nudger]

Humans disagree over facts all the time.

And that's exactly why religion should have a take on morality. Again, we don't claim moral deeds can't be done without believing, nor that religious people are morally superior. It's simply that we need guidance, because the moral systems we can come up are inherently fallible. And morality is too serious of a matter to leave it altogether to **rational inquiry**, especially, as I said, when there are so many divergent, and competing, viewpoints saying different things about issues as critical as rape, murder, etc.

If you really believed in human fallibility you wouldn't advocate for an order following system in place of a moral system.  You would appreciate the value of reason when it comes to assessing counter-claims to fact.

However, you don't.  In mere reality, you want to privilege a specific product of human fallibility over reason and take orders from a magic book. 

I just don't need those facts, and if those facts existed.....which they don't... they would be subjective rather than objective facts - by definition.

And yet you failed, miserably, at pointing out what's wrong in infidelity from a realist viewpoint. As far as I'm concerned, cheating is perfectly moral under your system if it goes unnoticed.

You -believe- that there's some failure..on account of how employing reason lead to a position which contradicted your mindless order following.  In mere reality, I explained why and when infidelity could be wrong, and also when it wouldn't be.

As for cheating..I'm sure that you'd be convinced that whatever garbage thing you wanted to do was "perfectly moral" in my system - I can already see that you treat your own much the same way.

So, for example, if it is a fact that an open relationship is harmful, then it would be bad to be in an open relation. 

It is a fact that open relationships are harmful. Relationships are closed and should concern two people by definition. You're simply backing up all kinds of sexual depravity widespread and freely done in your country.

Consenting to an "open relationship" means there was no relationship to begin with, let's not play with the definitions.

It would be trivially easy to find examples of open relationships that are, and aren't, harmful.  Since I refer to facts as a realist, and since we've both identified harm as the relevant fact...an open relationship being wrong, or not wrong, depends on whether that specific relationship is harmful.

If we take harm out of the picture, why would an open relationship still be bad?  Must be something other than harm.  Something like your incoherent and fact free religious beliefs, for example. It's fine to believe as much - I'm just pointing out the borders of your moral agency.

Following?  Disagree?  Didn't you think it was compelling when you asserted that the little girl Big Mo raped didn't have a problem with it, and no one else complained? 

Muhammad married someone, pal. As I already said, if you really think it was rape, you might need to build a more solid case than mere assertion, that would be an outstanding historical insight already.

Since we're talking about traditional marriage, there is no possible comparison with an "open relationship" since it's an invalid, immoral engagement under any respectable moral system.

Yes, he did...a bunch of people.  A very open relationship, at least for him.  One was a child.  This is your magic books assertion.

[R00tKiT]

If you really believed in human fallibility you wouldn't advocate for an order following system in place of a moral system.  You would appreciate the value of reason when it comes to assessing counter-claims to fact.

It's the exact opposite, actually. If moral systems - the products of **reason **- struggle hard to rule out rape, infidelity, utilitarianism, etc. then they are a miserable failure. And it's not surprising that they would fail, because we work through trial and error. We know unlawful murder, rape, etc. are wrong, we don't need to **try** them and see the consequences.

You -believe- that there's some failure..on account of how employing reason lead to a position which contradicted your mindless order following.  In mere reality, I explained why and when infidelity could be wrong, and also when it wouldn't be.

Again, once you tell me infidelity might not be wrong in some obscure corner of your moral system, we're done. You're advocating for the exact sexual depravity my religion - all religions, actually, came to stand up against. 

It would be trivially easy to find examples of open relationships that are, and aren't, harmful. 

I think I already explained how these examples are not relationships. Call them open prostitution, orgies, whatever. Leave the word relationships out of this swamp.

If we take harm out of the picture, why would an open relationship still be bad?  Must be something other than harm.  Something like your incoherent and fact free religious beliefs, for example.

Allowing open "relationships" obviously undermines the value of marriage in its traditional sense.  It's basically an incentive to be less committed to one's spouse. Again, if your moral system struggles with that, then it's a miserable failure.

---

It's still better than rationalizing, with a straight face, killing haemophiliac infants.

That is exactly what Bible demands of its followers: to kill hemophilic infants by circumcising them.

How many millions of babies do you think have died because they were hemophilic and their parents circumcised them because it was a "moral" thing to do according to Bible?

That would be closer to a mistake than to rationalization, which is what our moral systems tend to do.