which doctor would you prefer?
You realize that if medicine aligned with atheism that it would be the end of freedom of conscience and freedom of thought. anaivethinker
Imagine your doctor is a Christian and suggests your depression is due to demons and convinces you to have an exorcism:
Christian GP performs ‘exorcism’ on patient because ‘God is your surgeon’
Imagine your doctor is a Muslim and refuses to examine you because you are the opposite sex.
Muslim medical students are refusing to learn about alcohol-related illnesses and sexually-transmitted diseases because they say it goes against their religious beliefs. And a small number are even refusing to examine patients of the opposite sex because they say it is forbidden by the Koran.
Imagine your doctor is a Catholic and refuses to give you birth control.
Doctors make charter challenge on right to refuse care on religious grounds
Imagine your doctor is a Jehovah’s Witness and refuses to give your child a desperately needed blood transfusion.
Patients, including children, who do not receive transfusions usually fare as well as or better than those who do accept transfusions.
Imagine your doctor follows no religion and makes all her decisions based only on science and evidence.
Which doctor would you prefer? Click on the links to get the full details on what your local religious medical professional can do for you!
Do I get a discount for treatment if I bring my own leeches?
Can I call Brandon a Dickhead yet?
LikeLiked by 1 person
On this post maybe but not on the last one because he was invited. He got really stroppy at the end there. You can always tell when he’s losing an argument.
LikeLike
See, he does get angry and terribly snarky when his ass is being handed to him
LikeLike
I see, I should be asking for permission first whenever I want to say someone is being silly
LikeLike
That’s just the rule for Ark, he gets carried away sometimes. 😉
LikeLike
SAY it isn’t so –!
LikeLike
Ark, Tiribulus wants a word with you on the demons post, bottom comment:
“As usual, you are a deplorable, self appointed and deluded false representative of Christianity. You are not only wasting these people’s time, but harming the cause of the real Christ, whom you do not know in the process.”
LikeLike
What prompted this tidbit of crazy-talk on the part of anaivethinker? Medicine has a pragmatic ethic, and no real meta-ethics. That’s why your examples appear deviant. What is the context for his bizarre comment?
LikeLike
He’s a doctor and he believes in demons and thinks exorcisms could be useful. Here’s where the conversation with tildeb started:
https://violetwisp.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/why-christians-must-face-their-demons/#comment-16898
LikeLike
Holy crap, I missed that comment! Note to Self: Should I be in the States and require attention, NEVER accept treatment from any doctor named Brandon.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did you get the chance to have a look, keithnoback? I think it would be interesting to see if he’ll discuss it with a fellow doctor, as he doesn’t seem to think anyone else understands.
LikeLike
I finally did. They cross a lot of ground – from philosophy of mind to sociology – at blazing speed and with much of it left ablaze in their wake. Much of that territory is interesting to me, so I’m quite happy to go on about it if you like. How much time do you have?
I think I understand Brandon’s comment: he got angry and said something angry. I’m not sure I’d have much to discuss with him on the clinical approach to delusions, because I think I basically agree.
Having treated a number of people with delusions of parasitosis, I think a limited and pragmatic approach is best. That relegates the parasites, real or imaginary, to the sidelines. They really are irrelevant then, be they real or imaginary.
LikeLike
“I’m not sure I’d have much to discuss with him on the clinical approach to delusions, because I think I basically agree.” Well if you agree it must be okay then. Best tell John Zande.
LikeLike
I certainly wouldn’t go that far. Mind you, I’m talking about delusions and how we approach them, and not taking his position on the existence of demons (whatever those are).
Disembodied/non-localized minds = nonsense, as in not a truly conceivable phenomenon.
LikeLike
In my list of qualifications a doctor must meet, at the top would be: “1) Isn’t Brandon”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said arch and I agree
LikeLike
Heathen. Where’s the doctor who believes in the Great and Divine Creator of the All-Thing, Veles?
Veles insists tickling and tea cures all, and who am i to disagree with such wisdom.
LikeLike
.
LikeLike
Now that sounds like sensible curing!
LikeLike
Enchanted woodland creatures should always be trusted
LikeLike
But John, do you follow the Veles sect that believes the tea should be consumed before the tickling, or the Veles sect that believes the tickling should come first, or the somewhat obscure fringe Veles sect that believes they should take place simultaneously, which, admittedly, often results in a great deal of tea being spewed from the nostrils, which could certainly account for that particular school of thought’s lesser popularity?
LikeLike
Child, I’ve moved beyond these minor schisms that so occupy the devoted, and today explore the last great mystery of our creator: Earl Grey or Mixed Herb, lemon or lime
LikeLike
Then it would seem that you have ascended to a higher plateau on your journey through the cosmos to Nirvana. May the Force be with you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And may enchanted forest creatures warm your bed at night, Brother Arch
LikeLike
Actually I’ve been looking for a woodland nymph to do just that —
LikeLiked by 1 person
But don’t forget your towel —
LikeLike
“You realize that if medicine aligned with atheism that it would be the end of freedom of conscience and freedom of thought”
Those are some serious words of wisdom right there, Violet. I wish I knew how to show you the truth of these words in a way you could understand.
LikeLike
Hi Insanity… I’m interested to hear your views on this.
LikeLike
It appears as if you’ve already heard the views of someone far smarter than me and rejected them. What chance do I have of trying to show you something you will only refuse to see?
LikeLike
No, seriously, i don’t understand that passage at all. To me it seems like unleashed nonsense. To tell you the truth, I can’t even understand what Brandon is even trying to say, but clearly you are seeing something there that i am not.
So, in all sincerity, I would like to at least know what this passage even means, and why you think its good.
LikeLike
90% of the people on this planet believe in some form of a higher power. Atheism demands non belief. So right off the bat we’ve now got a doctor with a complete disrespect for the beliefs, values, and perceptions of the patient. The arrogance that goes along with believing that your own perceptions of reality are far superior to those you serve, so superior in fact, that morally you are now compelled to perceive your patient as delusional and therefore incompetent to make their own medical decisions, is the first step towards totalitarianism.
It’s the end of freedom of conscience and freedom of thought, because the moment your patient begins to speak of demons or anything spiritual at all, you will be compelled to medicate them or lobotomize them or whatever it takes to completely annihilate the perceived threat to your own non belief. Your view of “healing” becomes all about you, all about bringing that patient more in line with what you believe to be “healthy” or “normal.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a really interesting perspective you have there. And thank you for trying to explain it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The arrogance that goes along with believing that your own perceptions of reality are far superior to those you serve, so superior in fact, that morally you are now compelled to perceive your patient as delusional and therefore incompetent to make their own medical decisions, is the first step towards totalitarianism.”
Isn’t that exactly how theists view atheists?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve never perceived any atheists as delusional or incompetent, nor have I ever suggested they must be made free of their delusions in a forcible manner.
However, this is exactly the attitude many atheists have towards theists, that you are obligated and entitled to rid us of our so called delusions.
LikeLike
“the attitude many atheists have towards theists, that you are obligated and entitled to rid us of our so called delusions.”
Only when your delusions cause harm to others e.g. making homosexuals feel so confused about same sex attractions that they become depressed and suicidal, making women feel they should stay and be subservient to abusive husbands because divorce is a ‘sin’, telling people in areas affected by STDs not to wear condoms, telling people it’s possible to be possessed by demons, making women cover themselves from head to toe so that men don’t get turned on, stopping women from having an education etc etc.
LikeLike
…and let us not forget the Christian Dominionists who want to stone children to death in American public squares.
I’m curious to hear if Insanity would permit them to act as they wish, or would she consider rational intervention necessary?
LikeLike
You left out teaching little children that men and dinosaurs lived side by side, and that they’re in danger of burning forever in a lake of fire if they don’t obey a bunch of man-made rules in a 3000-year old book!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not in the least. You wish to be an complete ass, as an adult, this is your right . You have no damn right to impose this crap on others, especially where it endangers the physical and mental health of minors. Are we clear?
Super!
Now, don’t forget to pray for the amputees ….
LikeLike
No Ark, being a complete ass is not your right as an adult. That is false believe held by arrogant children such as yourself.
LikeLike
Your comprehension skills are letting you down again, dear. Blinded by hate are we?
I said you have the right to be an ass as an adult but not impose this crap on others, especially where it impacts negatively on the physical and mental health of minors.
Got it this time?
Super. Sorry to interrupt you amputee prayer time.
Carry on …
LikeLike
“I said you have the right to be an ass as an adult..”
And I said, “No, you do not.” You are confusing rights with the entitled arrogance of self absorbed child who believe he is free to act anyway he wants because he is the center of the universe.
LikeLike
Oh dear, are we having a bit of a tantrum over there?
You would have to re-define ass, and in this case we are specifically referring to religion and its insidiousness.
To which you are a fully paid-up member IB, and make no mistake. How cool is that!
So, sadly, yes you do have the legal right to behave like an ass – as an adult. But I’m down with this.
”I don’t want a blood transfusion ‘cos I am a Jehovah’s Witless and it is my right.”
You go girl!
Common Sense to the fore.
Sadly some adults currently have the right to impose this shit on kids.
Now while you are not a Jehovah’s Witless and would probably balk in horror at such action toward a child you would most certainly impose other religiously based idiocy upon them, would you not?
Circumcision for instance,
Get it now?
If we hold hands we can both be the centre of the universe. How about that IB?
How’s that amputee’s arm coming along, growing back yet?
Pray harder IB … You really have to sweat blood just like whatsisface, remember?
LikeLike
You have child’s raging mind Ark, so filled with knee jerk emotionalism, all you can do is take swipes at people with your impotent little arrows.
I have no desire to waste my time with people trapped in infantile rage. If I wanted to do that I’d go hang out with some kids. They at least are cute.
LikeLiked by 4 people
“They at least are cute.” – Ooooh! Burn, Ark! Bad burn! 3rd degree!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“You have child’s raging mind Ark, so filled with knee jerk emotionalism, all you can do is take swipes at people with your impotent little arrows.” I have to agree with you Insanity, but I think he’s just as cute as one of those little kiddies. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s where you’re mistaken, Luv – he couldn’t be the center of the universe, I am.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Smile. I have no raging mind IB, I can assure you. I am not religious – remember.
It is you lot that spew out all the vitriol, damn the faithless, vilify homosexuals, claim Rock n Roll is the Devil’s Music and atheists are unpatriotic, leftist liberal god hating anti gun faggots.
Did I miss any particular favourite slur of yours?
Obama lover perhaps?
You are just a thoroughly indoctrinated ignorant petulant Christian who believes they are a naughty little sinner and thus must stamp their foot then beg forgiveness.
Tut tut …
Our Father who fart in heaven hollow is thy name … or something like that right?
Naughty Christians.
”Look, Mama, his thingy’s growing.”
”Dammit, child I said pray for his leg,”
”Jesus! God, you can be such an ass at times. Pay attention, for god … er your sake.”
LikeLike
Having worked on a locked psychiatric ward for most of my career, I can tell you the vast majority of our patients spoke of being the messiah, of either being possessed by demons or exorcising them in other people, of being able to walk on water, etc. Our medical staff, 99% of them christian, diagnosed these people as psychiatrically ill and gave them anti-psychotic medicine.
If you walk into to your doctor’s office and talk about being possessed, expect you will be locked up for 72 hours so your mental state can be assessed. You’re better off saying that kind of thing to a priest, who will then exorcise you and not bother to assess you for psychosis.
I was a christian nurse and treated my atheist patients the same as anyone else. I would expect atheist medical staff to do the same. Medicine is based on empirical and scientific evidence, not religious beliefs. At least that’s what I deeply hope for.
LikeLiked by 4 people
“If you walk into to your doctor’s office and talk about being possessed, expect you will be locked up for 72 hours so your mental state can be assessed”
And there’s that totalitarianism I spoke of. You would automatically lock them up and medicate them. The standards should be, “are you a danger to yourself or others,” not what you believe.
You just told me that the vast majority of patients where experiencing something of a spiritual nature and yet the standard procedure is to deny that there is any validity to any of those experiences and to treat people as if they are only physical bodies experiencing a chemical disorder. So already our psychiatric institutions tend to disregard the reported experiences of the vast majority and to perceive these things as nothing more than delusions in need of a good brain wiping. It’s not exactly respectful of the human experience, is it?
LikeLike
Sorry for not being clear: you are correct that “are you a danger to yourself or others” was our #1 criteria. However, the majority of people who were dangerous to themselves or others (and thus on our unit) had religious delusions. Did you read the part where I said our medical staff were 99% christian? It’s not atheists pushing our non-belief and locking these people up. There is the DSM-V, which is the psychiatric manual using for diagnosing mental conditions…it doesn’t care what religion you are.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hello. As a doc. who is also an atheist, I can assure you that you have nothing to fear. This is the realm of professional ethics.
You obviously have no idea what that’s about, and yet you continue to hold forth…
LikeLiked by 4 people
Insanity, I would also like to hear your thoughts…I agree with John that you must be seeing something the rest of us are missing.
LikeLike
IB – I’m being completely serious here – you seem to be a really nice person – I’ve read a lot of your comments on a number of blogs, and you never seem to lose your temper or resort to any but a noble demeanor. Other than that bat-shit crazy thing, you seem quite likeable.
LikeLiked by 2 people
IB, I really don’t know but if you consider smarmy Brandon smarter than you, then things must be really off upstairs. I don’t know if one can get worse than Brandon, ok maybe Som
LikeLike
(Ssh, she’s really good buddies with SOM)
LikeLike
It’s too late now for me :-P. I try never to handle SoM with a million mile pole if I can help it
LikeLike
I quite enjoy him at times, he’s made some classic comments. He’s either a very focused troll or a Christian with a drinking problem.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are a patient person V. I cannot stand his comments half the time. The other half, I can’t bear them
LikeLike
Well, at least SOM is locked away where he can’t hurt anyone, Brandon is loose on the world, and unless he’s a coroner, as I’m beginning to suspect, he’s out there treating vulnerable patients.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You had to ask —
LikeLike
All decisions based only on science and evidence, but I tend to avoid doctors as much as I can. 😀
Have a great day V. 😀 ♥
LikeLike
Definitely, me too!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m an atheist, and I consider religion to be a “physiological delusion” and one that I’m perfectly fine with my patients having (unless I need to refer them to the psych unit because “Jesus” is telling them to kill their children or something like that).
I have colleagues of many different faiths, and we all treat our patients basically the same, regardless of their religious persuasions—that’s evidence-based medicine. As someone in this field, I can say that this post of yours was the first that has annoyed me. I realize that it’s based on one ludicrous comment, but to imply that religious doctors are dangerous to their patients overall is going too far. It’s a straw man. Perhaps Muslim medical students in some cultures (likely where it’s accepted by the population) are being taught differently because of their faith. The 20-something Muslim students I can name off the top of my head (and I would venture to say all students in the Unites States at least) are being taught evidence-based medicine.
Perhaps you didn’t intend this, but you used a few extreme examples of religious doctors to imply that atheist doctors are the safe choice. I passionately disagree.
As a side note, if a doctor refuses to do what you want, just don’t go to that doctor. Need birth control? Don’t go to a Catholic doctor who won’t prescribe it. That doesn’t go outside of the “do no harm” idea as long as the doctor is willing to refer, and these doctors are almost always up-front about their position on this and willing to direct their patients to what they need. I think doctors have rights too.
LikeLike
I didn’t realise you were an atheist, congratulations! The point of the post wasn’t to suggest that all religious doctors are influenced by their beliefs in their clinical work, or that a doctor who is religious is therefore somehow automatically dangerous. That would make it difficult to get any kind of medical treatment in most countries.
The point of the post was merely to ridicule the comment that there would be some kind of problem if medicine aligned with atheism. In fact, it shouldn’t make a blind bit of difference. Religious doctors clearly should be and usually are practicing medicine based solely on science and evidence. Look what happens when they don’t!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Prescribing ground rhinoceros horn?
LikeLike
Science is one thing, ethics are another. Two doctors can see the same science and evidence, but have divergent ethical views about how to act in a situation.
Ironically, my bedtime reading right now is Nietzsche’s Twilight of the Idols, which besides criticizing Christianity, proclaiming atheism and lauding the wonders of science contains this gem of advice for doctors:
“The sick man is a parasite of society. In a certain state it is indecent to live longer. To go on vegetating in cowardly dependence on physicians and machinations, after the meaning of life, the right to life, has been lost, that ought to prompt a profound contempt in society. The physicians, in turn, would have to be the mediators of this contempt — not prescriptions, but every day a new dose of nausea with their patients. To create a new responsibility, that of the physician, for all cases in which the highest interest of life, of ascending life, demands the most inconsiderate pushing down and aside of degenerating life — for example, for the right of procreation, for the right to be born, for the right to live.”
Gotta love those atheist doctors, what with their logical superiority and all.
LikeLike
DP, Nietzsche was a philosopher, not a doctor. Unless you can provide evidence that a single atheist doctor has ever publicly endorsed the philosopher’s opinion/observation your attempt at a strawman has failed dismally.
LikeLike
Just the whole eugenics movement of the early 20th century.
LikeLike
Oh yes, most of those were Christians, like the Nazi’s.
Nice try, but fail, again 😉
LikeLike
Yes, the Nazis were such good Christians, which is why they threw so many clergymen into Dachau.
The eugenics movement came from the ideas of Nietzsche (not Darwin, I don’t think, as some people insist), the root of the argument being that without God, there must be a transformation of all values. The prime value would be what N. is there calling ascendant life.
Now, it may be possible that a person could nominally be a Christian and in reality be a nihilist bent on exterminating inferiors, such cultural contradictions happen, but when talking about the genealogy of ideas, where it comes from, the eugenics movement represented a coherently atheistic mentality, not a Christian one. (Though perhaps it is not the only possible atheist mentality about life.)
LikeLike
Now, DP, atheism makes one statement: there are no gods. In your mind, however, it seems to read as: “there are no gods… and therefore we promote the ideas of racial purity espoused by western Christians in the 19th and 20th Centuries.” In fact, I’m not even sure where you think atheism makes any statement about any human being, unlike, say, the founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, who urged his followers to hunt down and murder the filthy Jew, just for being Jewish:
Nice, huh?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I had to go back and reread to figure out when this became an argumentum ad hitlerum. It appears to have been my fault mentioning eugenics, but being a self referential New Englander I was thinking about the forced sterilizations of the Vermont Algonquins pre-WWII. But fine, Nazis too.
I am not aware of any serious historian who thinks Hitler was a sincere, motivated Christian. In fact it is laughable. As for the nauseating history of Christian antisemitism, yes, Luther or Torquemada can be seen, to a degree, as forerunners of Nazism. So is modern statism and nihilism, which are quite alien to Christianity.
I get a kick out of you complacent bourgeois atheists who think, “Oh good, now that God is dead we can do naughty things with our pelvises and everything else will just stay the same!” You sit back and criticize Christianity for, get this, not living up to its own ideals, ideals which you yourself presume. You don’t stop to think about where those ideals came from.
Which is why I appreciate Nietzsche: he knows that values are contingent on history and metaphysical presuppositions. He hates Christianity not for what it fails to be, but for what it claims to be. He has the balls to not only believe God does not exist, but to act like it too.
LikeLike
Yes, the diversion was entirely because of you and your ludicrous (but far too typical) strawman, and I’m afraid you still haven’t even returned to the topic at hand.
Seems I have to repeat the single and only statement made by atheism: there are no gods. It seems you’re however quite fond of marching off into your own merry little fantasy world where all sorts of things are attached to this one and only statement, but if that makes you happy, if it gives meaning to your life, if it makes you feel more secure, then fine, knock yourself out. Just don’t expect to be taken seriously.
LikeLike
Your brand of atheism says “There are not gods, and this has no effect on human culture and ethics, other than what we find comfortable; we shall examine the theme thus far, and no farther.” And I’m the one who is not serious.
LikeLike
“I” strongly believe that by our species growing out of primitive superstitions we will be best positioned to solve the very real problems facing us. That, DP, is called Humanism. Perhaps you’ve never heard of it, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. I know you’re American education systems lags well behind the rest of the first world, so you can’t really be blamed for your ignorance in this regard.
LikeLike
*your, not you’re
LikeLike
I am familiar with what calls itself “humanism”, especially its puzzling oscillation between belief in the perfectibility of man through technocracy on the one hand, and bouts of depressive misanthropy on the other.
I suspect it is because real humans always fail to live up to the humanist ideas of what is best for them: the humanist is forever disappointed by actual human beings.
But you surely have, either implicitly or explicitly, an ideal of what humanity is supposed to be, what a healthy man and a healthy race should look like.
That ideal, whatever it may be, is culturally conditioned and likely quite subjective. And if it has no relation to the absolute, it has nothing to which to appeal if some other humanist has quite ideas of what humanity is supposed to look like.
LikeLike
Congratulations! You’re spot on, and I wrote a post which dealt with precisely this subject. It begins:
As for the rest of your comment, it’s essentially nonsense. As far as I can see you are trying to argue that without your particular Middle Eastern god, and your particular branch of Christianity (whichever of the 42,000 sects that might be), man couldn’t possibly aspire to something. For this to be taken seriously you would have to show that until about 2,000 years ago humanity had achieved nothing wonderful… No art, no architecture, no science, no technology, no law, no philosophy, no education system, no medicine, no human rights.
LikeLiked by 2 people
https://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2013/04/28/an-offensive-appalling-waste-of-time/
LikeLike
I still don’t understand that post, but it is lovely.
LikeLike
Really, you do’t understand it? To quote Brandon, clearly the metaphysical space separating your (a human) and the celestial truth is too great 🙂
LikeLike
*you, not your… My fingers aren’t behaving today 😦
LikeLike
Hey, I just posted a comment with a link to an article of what morality will look like in 100 years, and it disappeared. Might have gone to your spam bin. Find it, you’ll like it
LikeLike
When an ideology causes such Jekyll-Hyde reactions there is usually something wrong with it, at least in the details if not the substance.
When I posit the need for an absolute point of reference, I don’t make any claim to for a specific religion, but the way people think: meaning and morality present themselves to humans as being absolute and not dependent on us, but as something discovered. This is the way humans tend to think, regardless of religion. If meaning and morals are not absolute, they have no moral force. There is no reason to obey.
But materialism (consequence of atheism so far as I can see) makes this impossible. Your ideal of humanity is therefore unstable, not capable of creating a social foundation.
LikeLike
You seem to be contradicting yourself here, DP. One moment you’re saying morality is something “discovered,” which it is (it is something worked at, something evolving), then suddenly you appeal to some objective nature of it, which is nonsense. Morality in 100 years from today will be vastly different from what it is today. In 100 years people will be appalled that we today ate animals. A great article (Once and Future Sins) was just published on this very subject, and I really like this section:
and this part:
And this:
“Morality” is not complicated.
LikeLike
I don’t know of anyone who takes dp seriously.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I misspoke – I should have added, “except dp.”
LikeLike
“my bedtime reading right now is Nietzsche’s Twilight of the Idols”
How nice for you. It may come as a surprise for you to learn that people who don’t believe in gods don’t all read the same books. In fact, people who don’t believe in gods, don’t even have a holy book of rules and supposed Truth to refer to. So I’m not sure how it’s relevant that a group of people who didn’t believe in gods did something around 100 years that is now generally considered immoral.
All the above examples illustrate problems that can occur when medical professionals take their interpretation of their holy book into the workplace. How can this compare with not having a holy book?
LikeLike
I can tell no one here reads Nietzsche.
I was not suggesting that all atheists believe what Nietzsche does, but that there are some atheists whom I would not trust as doctors.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure Mak has read Nietzsche. Why are you just making wild assumptions about people’s reading habits?
LikeLike
Because that is what I do. But seriously, what I like about Nietzsche is that he carries the thought through to its conclusion, while most contemporary atheists take easy ways out. Sorry if I painted with too wide a brush.
LikeLike
But don’t you think claiming “most contemporary atheists take easy ways out” is still painting with too wide a brush?
LikeLike
Consol, its a common tactic deployed by apologists these days. They’ve taken their cue from William Lane Craig who loves to try and put down criticism by claiming new atheists aren’t of the same caliber of past atheists. It’s really quite a pathetic ploy, but you see it repeated everywhere.
LikeLike
Ok, contemporary atheists I know or run into on the internet tend to have this flaw: they lambast a few aspects of Christian ethics (usually sexual) and then criticize Christians for failing to live up to their own ideals. Otherwise their ethics and politics are boring center – left stuff. I know nuns with the exact same opinions. It is taking the easy way.
N. on the other hand realizes that if he drops God he also has to drop caring for the poor or pitying the sick. He knows he is pulling out the linchpin of the whole cultural and moral edifice and he doesn’t sugar coat it.
LikeLike
“N. on the other hand realizes that if he drops God he also has to drop caring for the poor or pitying the sick.” – That’s patently absurd. We atheists do good things for others every day, and don’t need a 3000-year old set of Bronze and Iron Age laws to compel us either. And do you REALLY believe that a couple of thousand years ago, people behaved any differently than they do today, just because they had a book of Jewish rules to follow? Most couldn’t have read them anyway.
LikeLike
The average human being has his moral faculties intact. A pagan feels compelled to do a good deed, or to avoid evil; he thinks “hospitality is good, and must be done” and he attributes this to the Logos or to the Tao or the will of the gods. He attributes it to something he considers absolute and not dependent on himself.
A materialist can feel the same impulse and act on it, what he cannot do is give an account for it. He can’t explain why goodness compels him, because any moral impulse based on the arrangement of molecules is a matter of dumb luck, could have been different, and can be changed.
LikeLike
” could have been different”
But the fact is, it usually isn’t because we couldn’t have evolved the kind of stable societies we have without these instincts. When we don’t have those instincts I believe we use the label ‘sociopath’ or ‘psychopath’ and are even beginning to identify causes and damages areas of the brain responsible for this. It’s not dumb luck, it’s evolution – a society of psychopaths would have little chance of flourishing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If the human nature produced by evolution is normative, then gay sex is “unnatural”, and you should eat meat.
LikeLike
When actions have harmful outcomes I’m not prone to following them (common empathy). I don’t eat meat. Other people put tradition and gratification above empathetic logic, or don’t view animals as worthy of much respect.
When less common instincts don’t cause harm (like homosexuality) I’m unlikely to care if they are acted upon. Why would you?
LikeLike
The point being that I think you are trying to have it both ways: you want human nature to be the standard by which human behavior is judged (human capacity for empathy), but then you don’t (humans are omnivores).
And what makes empathy obligatory? What keeps someone from saying, “I feel bad for you, as you lie there suffering, but I’m not helping you.”
And as I’ve said elsewhere, empathy is selective. It is very easy to arbitrarily chose a preferred victim over another, but that is a different argument.
LikeLike
“If the human nature produced by evolution is normative, then gay sex is ‘unnatural’” – I don’t believe anyone can pinpoint with certainty the cause for a proclivity for gay sex. The most recent tendency is to say that some humans are “born with it,” but I suspect the reasons are not that simplistic. In ancient Greece, all soldiers took a young man to mentor, and to be his sexual companion on long campaigns, which was considered perfectly normal, and at the end of their campaigns, those soldiers returned to their wives.
A study with rats back in the 80’s determined that rats in overcrowded conditions spent an inordinate amount of time in homosexual activity, which tendency disappeared once they were moved to less crowded conditions – possibly one explanation is indeed evolutionary, in the sense that we are faced at present with global overcrowding.
There are many questions to which the atheist must honestly admit that the answers are unknown, but we’re OK with that and feel no need to conjure some explanation just to fill in the blanks, we just keep searching for answers. There was a time when Humankind wondered what was above the clouds – theists had the answer: god – the ones who said, “I don’t know, let’s find out” took us into space.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re making even less sense than usual. I wouldn’t recognize an “average human being” if I saw one, and neither would you.
As for why “goodness,” whatever that may mean to you, compels us, I don’t know why it needs an explanation, but if I had to offer one, which would be just as fact-based as your own, “goddidit!” theory, it would be that a moral sense evolved within the human race – not in the sense that our physical features evolved, i.e., genetically, but in the sense that those cultures – had they been whole civilizations or tribes of thirty – didn’t survive long that failed to develop it as a survival technique.
Why does a herd of wildebeasts form a circle, horns outward, with the young and weak in the center when faced with a predator? Did your god tell them to do that? Or did the behavior evolve simply because herds that didn’t, didn’t survive?
LikeLike
A person can care for the poor and pity the sick because they are naturally prosocial and hope for reciprocity in the future should they experience poverty or be stricken with a disease. A person can do those things because they actually care about other people and they’ve developed their own moral code in which they’re the type of person who wants to help others in need.
I don’t see why it should follow that if one drops the concept of G-d they need to jettison helping others.
LikeLike
No they don’t “need” to jettison helping others, but they don’t “need” to help them either. They can just develop a moral code that says the exact opposite.
Are we naturally disposed to care for the sick? Maybe in our own families, but don’t we also have an impulse to flee contagion and to preserve resources?
Why is caring about others good? Because it has some evolutionary benefit? Wouldn’t evolutionary benefits be greater if the chronically ill were disposed of? Who is to define evolutionary benefits when evolution is only about survival for survival’s sake? Why is evolution, a process of dumb luck, normative for human behavior?
LikeLike
Yet people can use the Bible to develop a moral code that is the exact opposite of other believers’ moral codes formulated from the same book. All this tells us is that people are capable of very different interpretations of books, morality, and even reality. This is not some unique quality inherent to an atheistic worldview.
Caring about others is good for its own sake. It is also pleasing to G-d. Evolution is not normative for human behavior as if people are walking around with a system of ethics called evolution, but rather it is a natural process that creates normative human behavior over time, which stamps in behaviors that helped our ancestors survive longer and mate.
LikeLike
I think you are exaggerating the “totally different” part. The ten commandments and beatitudes are not terribly mysterious.
But that is a side point to the main argument: materialist ethics can never be anything other than purely relative, inherently unstable, because there is no appeal to anything beyond luck. But that is not the shape of our moral impulses, which say “this act which I am contemplating is good, that act is evil”, as if referring to something beyond.
If you take the transcendent element away, or say it is an instinct based on luck, you are distorting how morals are perceived and acted upon.
LikeLike
“I don’t see why it should follow that if one drops the concept of G-d they need to jettison helping others.” – It doesn’t, Consoled – that’s just another of the straw men of which he seems inordinately fond.
LikeLike
“I can tell no one here reads Nietzsche.” – You’d be quite mistaken, but that would be nothing new.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Attention Violet: the christians are talking about atheists doing naughty things with their pelvises. Did I not tell you this was a thing?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, I didn’t know Hedonism was a prerequisite for atheism, either! 🙂
LikeLike
It’s not just hedonism…I’ve also had more than one christian tell me all atheists are sexual deviants (!!!) as well. I really need to stop speaking to catholics. One even told my husband he should divorce me, because now that God doesn’t control me, there’s no way I could ever remain faithful. Thankfully my husband has a sense of humor.
LikeLike
Perhaps you should point these people to this piece of wonderful Christian perversion:
http://www.christiandomesticdiscipline.com/
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Ain’t no …
I have always wondered about being a sexual deviant as I have read it comes as part and parcel with atheism.
It seems I must be living a sheltered life. Could you recommend a particular book I should read that could at least lay the ground work for a life of fulfillment being a sexual deviant?
Perhaps something off the shelf at Barnes and Noble or Amazon.
Nothing too stuffy, I am, after all, a simple bloke. One with pictures would help too as I tend not to have much of an imagination.
Yours in ( future) enlightenment
The Ark
LikeLike
I know this is a vast disappointment Ark, but I too am rather sheltered in this area. I hate to be such a disappointment to the devout. Never fear though, I shall ask the next catholic I meet for some useful references to help us out. I suspect they might point to the movie 50 Shades of Gray, though unfortunately that’s only R rated and not a very high level of deviance, so I hear (I haven’t seen it myself). Maybe they can suggest something in the XXX rating for us to peruse? Do you have anything XXX related I could steer them too? Being that I have a young child in my home, I’m limited to stuff like Elmo and Sid the Science Kid, and that simply will not do.
LikeLike
The Bible?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hehe…all that raping and pillaging…deviance galore! My indoctrinated mind still doesn’t think of these things, so it’s kind of you to help me out with reference materials. 🙂
LikeLike
Well, being the Son of the Devil ( I was recently called this right here in blogsville, I kid you not – my dad was quite surprised when I told him)
I have to know my material I supose? And let’s remember the incest, the genocide, eating shit and drinking piss ( kings somewhere – makes EL James look like Enid Blyton.
Aaah, good times, good times. A literary work to warm the cockles of any child’s heart – or sexual deviant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Welcome to the family of satan Ark….I’ve been a member for awhile now. Arch, are you a member of our bad ass family yet?
I can’t say I recall the biblical reference of eating shit and drinking piss in Kings…perhaps my eyes glazed over and my mind shut down during that one. Of course incest, genocide, and tying your kid down while you attempt to slit his throat is just par for the course in the Good Book. As a former psych nurse, I’ve always been concerned about Abraham’s son’s mental health after that whole incident.
LikeLike
Here y’go.
2 Kings 18:27
Dung not shit.
Must learn to quote exactly, right?
But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?
There is quite a lot of such unsavoury culinary details.
Here’s a super link. Make Jamie Oliver sit up and take notice.
http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/105319/religion/they_may_drink_their_own_piss_in_bible_versus_quran.html
LikeLike
Damn! I love how you know all the best verses, Ark. As many times as I’ve read the bible, I’m sorry to say that was not one of the passages I’d memorized…and I surely don’t recall the priest reading that during mass. As always, Violet’s blog is the place for the finest of educations. 😀
LikeLike
“Arch, are you a member of our bad ass family yet?”
I shalt have no other gods before me —
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’d volunteer (that’s just the kind of guy I am), but I understand you’re married.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arch, I’d hate for any of the believers to read this message, but the truth is I have huge orgies at my house daily. Please do stop by whenever you have a free minute. You may even find a nice, atheist, woodland nymph for yourself here…I entertain all kinds in my house of perdition.
LikeLike
LikeLike
I could have sworn you’d previously said woodland nymphs were your thing. Was it something else?
LikeLike
No, no – I’ll stick with the woodland nymphets —
(SmartAss!)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry Vi…I just realized I lowered your “tone.” I’ll remember to keep it classy from here on out.
LikeLike
I know, I saw it and I remembered what you said! It’s so annoying, I don’t have time for anything, all these things come up on my phone. I read between feeds and have about half an hour of typing a day … can’t respond to hardly anything at the moment. Mental note that we’re only atheists because we want more sex. It’s a great angle. 😀
LikeLike
Yeah, my kid’s on spring break from special ed preschool all week…he’s totally destroyed my house in one day, and is on the verge of destroying what’s left of my sanity as well.
I just love that on top of being an atheist, people also think I’m a whore. 😀
LikeLike
Just read to your comment to John. Didn’t realise you’d experienced it in REAL LIFE! I’d assumed it was internet nut Christian types …
LikeLike
I was a devout catholic for a long time, and I know a lot of them. They’re pretty outspoken since they know me from before and I’ve now “fallen to satan.” So I’ve had the sexual comments from both real life catholics and online catholics…no protestants (though I suspect the protestants would think the same).
LikeLike
I don’t know how you cope. Can you move??
LikeLike
No option to move for various reasons. *sigh*
I’ve found it’s rather useless trying to “battle” them when it’s person to person, because I just get really upset. It’s easier if you try to turn the conversation more humorous in tone. I start joking about how I’m getting all sorts of sex and inviting satan over for beer (with a wink, so they know for sure I’m joking). This blog in particular has helped me develop a great religious sense of humor. Atheist’s words here have saved me *many times* in real life and given me all sorts of ammunition in the form of humor. You’ve been very useful to me Violet!
The online catholics can be REALLY inflammatory…I’m getting to the point where I don’t want to engage with them at all anymore, and will likely be blocking their comments and not visiting their blogs anymore. It’s just too much, considering I was so recently a devout catholic.
LikeLike
Fantastic, I’d love to see their faces! Let me know if you think any of those blogs you block are worth lurking on. 😀
LikeLike
Yeah, there’s one, but he’s into catholicism REALLY deep. He’s only been a catholic for about a year but already blesses his kids with holy water when they have nightmares. I found him when I was still a catholic and then he contacted me again when I became an atheist. We tried to have a little civil debate, but it started making me nauseous rather fast. I gave him a link to your exorcism post, but I think he’s afraid he’ll lose his soul if he comes over here…which I hope pleases you. 😉
https://frontierruminations.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/the-eucharist-a-video-explanation/#comment-1570
LikeLiked by 1 person
Forgot to say, he heavily moderates his posts…similar to CS.
LikeLike
Just out of curiosity shrinkV,
Have ANY of your your comments been moderated? And if not, how would you know they are ‘heavily’ moderated?
LikeLike
Would you say mine have been, CS?
LikeLike
CS…I appreciate your point about moderating comments, but I’m not going to engage with you over it. I’m trying to lower my contact with christian idiots until I’m further recovered from the catholic cult.
LikeLike
“I’m trying to lower my contact with christian idiots” – Now who do we know who fits that description –?
LikeLike
🙂
I find some christians are epically more idiotic than others (though admittedly, that line can be rather thin at times).
Actually I should probably apologize for slinging around names like “idiot.” Seems I’ve been losing some of my niceness recently.
LikeLike
Yeah, well, Christ was said to have a devil, and Paul a madman, so I like the company.
Do you have any friends with such character?
And don’t be fooled by your friends observations about ‘heavy’ moderating. Strange how 99.99 percentage of commenters have free range.
Take a look at some of the commentary of your ‘friends,’ and you will agree prudence is a good thing.
LikeLike
But CS, I’ve also been called the arm of the devil, demon possessed, an instrument of satan by my former brethren christians…so which of us is in better company?
Only recently have I begun moderating comments on my blog, which is personal in nature and does not debate religious/atheist issues. I’ve received some horrific bible banging and name calling from the christians recently. So it goes both ways, you know?
By the way, I should have not called you an idiot and I apologize. My temper has been hot of late.
LikeLike
There is plenty of blame to go around, but I do not think we have ever wronged each other, so maybe I’ll see ya down the road.
Have a good holiday, if you can anyway.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can have a fine weekend CS, no worries. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
“By the way, I should have not called you an idiot and I apologize.” – Besides, that’s MY job! Are you trying to put me out of work?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry Arch! You and the other men do such a good work here there’s no way I could compete. I seek only to offer my more subdued voice on violet’s blog…until I become so pissed off I snap. I blame this on being so recently out of the cult that I’ve not grown a thick enough skin yet.
I noticed when Insanity snaps, her worst insult is that she’d rather go hang out with cute kids!
LikeLike
That leathery skin is due to being an intermediary species between dinosaurs and birds, in that evolutionary process that Colorstorm and his ilk insist never happened. You haven’t really “arrived” until you have an ilk.
LikeLike
Yes, I have a great fondness for your leathery, intermediary little bird…I looked it up a couple weeks ago because I had no idea what your name meant. Don’t be offended…I suppressed all the knowledge I gained with my biology degree so I could remain in the cult. Your bird gave me some interesting reading.
LikeLike
I must say I photograph rather well, if I do say so myself —
LikeLike
Lovely…both lizard-like and bird-like.
I think still a ferocious meat-eater though, if I recall correctly? Seems fitting for you.
LikeLike
Ah yes, I see your bird is going after some prey in the pic…definitely a meat eater.
LikeLike
Oh Violet, I see Ben came over to check out my link. I hope you two will enjoy each other. 🙂
LikeLike
I had a quick read of your conversation with him, he seems normal compared to most Christians in blogland. I doubt he’ll dip his foot in and comment on anything.
LikeLike
Normal? He blesses his kid with holy water when they have nightmares “just in case” they get demon possessed during them. He’s certainly not as crazy as some of your other visitors Vi, but I think “normal” is stretching it a bit. I don’t know if he’ll dip his toe in or not…we’ll see.
LikeLike
Yikes! I clearly didn’t read it very closely. Don’t tell Ark, he’ll freak!
LikeLike
Don’t worry, I’m not besmirching anyone’s virtue. My point is this: aside from their ideas on gay marriage and abortion, the ethical and political opinions of the atheist commentators are indistinguishable from those of your average Methodist clergyman or Roman Catholic Bishop: predictably center-left.
LikeLike
Well I love that you’re not besmirching my virtue. How entirely sweet. 🙂
I don’t think you’ve been talking to a lot of roman catholics lately though…see my comment above about “atheist’s being sexual deviants.”
LikeLike
I’m a somewhat ambivalent Catholic though I’ve been more observant of late. Spent my weekend boozing it up with very devout Catholics (judging from the multitudes of children underfoot…), some politically conservative, some moderate, most indifferent, and I had a great time. Most clergy I know are to the political left of their flocks.
Advice:
1) People who think they can judge you will one day learn humility the hard way. It happens every time, whether by fate or divine providence. Their current arrogance is not your problem.
2) Most people, whatever their religious upbringing, are adults who realize that not everyone agrees with them. Consider if are you are focusing too much on a few assholes. Assholes have a way of dominating our thoughts.
3) Sometimes religious people (or anybody, really) can form a protective ghetto culture. These can be like oases for a family trying to live their faith, but can eventually get self-referential and suffocating.
In the Catholic Church I’ve seen it happen around Regnum Christi and Fatima groups, especially the latter. Being wrapped too tight is NOT being devout. Most homeschooling families I know are perfectly normal and sweet, but some are creepy, judgey and weird. Usually these groups are run by an alpha female who knows more than the Pope. Again, their drama is not your problem.
LikeLiked by 1 person
DP, thank you for the sound and sensible advice…a lot of catholics around here are indeed “wrapped too tight,” and it’s always wise to remember that their drama is not something I need to embrace.
In the six months that I’ve been an atheist, this is the first time a catholic has said something nice to me. It makes me want to give you a little hug. ❤
Then we can go back to disagreeing over the catholic church. 😉
LikeLike
Shucks. Stop it, I have a bad reputation to maintain.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m sure it’s quite intact.
LikeLike
It is fully intact.
LikeLike
Ooooh, just found this: Once and Future Sins. You’ll like it Wisp, especially this part: “It will be an offence to eat any life-form. Once the sophistication, not only of other animals, but also of plants has been recognised, we will be obliged to accept the validity of their striving for life.”
http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/what-will-morality-look-like-100-years-hence/
LikeLike
Just found you in my spam bin, where I came to fish out higharka. Has someone been spamming you? Good article, only got half-way through but will come back to finish.
LikeLike
I think there’s something odd in the link. It bounced on someone else’s blog, too.
Hey, The Ark, is paying homage to you. You better pop over and heap praises on him 😉
LikeLike