Historically Christian - discuss

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Indeed.

Anyway, a more considered response. The idea that morality defined by society is a "not getting caught" morality is obviously utter bullshit. Our society does not, as a rule condone "getting away with it". The fact that it can happen is no more a signal that society condones it than the fact that rape can happen is a signal that society condones rape.

On the other hand, if an organisation that claims to be God's authority on Earth indulges in covering up pedophilia by its staff, that is a "getting away with it" morality.

Lots of organisations have covered that up.
However the biblical warning is that Sin will find you out and it may be that the Roman catholic church is dissolved in the near future.

However the RC church or indeed any church has very little operative power in secular Britain and yet Sin, self interest and evil, not getting caught still seem alive and well and thriving.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

Nope, no idea. What are you even trying to say here?

You seem to be saying that wrong doing and immorality in a group is measured by the proportion of that group in prison.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Lots of organisations have covered that up.

However the biblical warning is that Sin will find you out and it may be that the Roman catholic church is dissolved in the near future.

However the RC church or indeed any church has very little operative power in secular Britain and yet Sin, self interest and evil, not getting caught still seem alive and well and thriving.

And yet the highly Christian US has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world at 716 per 100,000 (0.7% - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate), whereas the more secular UK is down at 0.13% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_prison_population). It’s lower still in even more secular countries (eg Sweden with just 66 per 100,000, ie 0.07%). 

Doncha hate it when facts get in the way of daft assertions?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

You seem to be saying that wrong doing and immorality in a group is measured by the proportion of that group in prison.

It's fairly crude, but still a useful indicator. If "atheist morality" is just about not being found out, why aren't the jails disproportionately full of atheists rather than the other way around?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

And yet the highly Christian US has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world at 716 per 100,000 (0.7% - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate), whereas the more secular UK is down at 0.13% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_prison_population
). It’s lower still in even more secular countries (eg Sweden with just 66 per 100,000, ie 0.07%). 

Doncha hate it when facts get in the way of daft assertions?

I do not dispute your facts but you are assuming each country has the same will to imprison. That is not true.

You are just diddling with the stats flip flopping between Christians in prison and numbers in prison.

Do you have the facts for the populations of Prison/Gulag inmates for the mainly atheist soviet union.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

It's fairly crude, but still a useful indicator. If "atheist morality" is just about not being found out, why aren't the jails disproportionately full of atheists rather than the other way around?

If it is useful then your logic applies to any group you apply it to...careful on that one.

I think you are confusing law with morality.

At the moment, Actual professed atheism by name will, I imagine in this country at least be extremely popular in well healed middle classes who, when, mainly Christian identifying would have been as represented in prison figures as they are now. Crude maybe but less crude than your approach.

I think this will change when the apatheist population comes into any equation.

Finally what other motivation, other than not getting caught, can 'atheist morality' appeal to?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

I do not dispute your facts but you are assuming each country has the same will to imprison. That is not true.

You are just diddling with the stats flip flopping between Christians in prison and numbers in prison.

Wrong again. Yes there’s an overlap between the “will to imprison” and the religiosity or otherwise of the inmates, but that doesn’t explain away why so many in a Christian country are committing crimes in the first place.

If you want figure for the atheist vs religious inmate percentages though try here:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/08/21/atheists-now-make-up-0-1-of-the-federal-prison-population/   

It comes with various caveats, but the bottom line is that the % of atheists in US prisons is extremely low – pretty much the opposite of what you’d expect if atheists didn’t behave immorally just for fear of being caught, whereas theists believed they were certain to be caught by an omniscient god. Remember, I’m not arguing here that atheists are necessarily better people because of their atheism – just that they’re not worse ones because of it despite your casual slur to that effect. 

Do you have the facts for the populations of Prison/Gulag inmates for the mainly atheist soviet union.

One of the more disgusting efforts you repeatedly attempt that one – guilt by association: “Stalin’s Russia was atheist, Stalin’s Russia did terrible things, therefore atheism…”.  Problem is, there’s no logical path of any kind from atheism to genocide (unlike OT Christianity by the way). At the time of the Gulags there was very little meat around so Soviet Russia was also pretty much vegetarian – why not then apply your slur to the causal effect of vegetarianism on Stalin’s Russia?

If it is useful then your logic applies to any group you apply it to...careful on that one.

I think you are confusing law with morality.

Wrong again. It’s not an exact fit, but acts generally considered to be immoral (murder, rape, theft etc) are also by and large treated as unlawful. Some religious idiocy (homophobia for example) is not longer unlawful (at least in most secular countries) but the fit is close enough for the argument to stand.   

At the moment, Actual professed atheism by name will, I imagine in this country at least be extremely popular in well healed middle classes who, when, mainly Christian identifying would have been as represented in prison figures as they are now. Crude maybe but less crude than your approach.

What are you trying to say here?

I think this will change when the apatheist population comes into any equation.

What will change, and what has apatheism got to do with it?

Finally what other motivation, other than not getting caught, can 'atheist morality' appeal to?

First, there’s no such thing as “atheist morality” as you put it – that’s just something you’ve made up.

Second, the answer is having no inclination to do it in the first place. Obviously. I’m an atheist, and it wouldn’t even cross my mind to rob a bank. Why would it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/08/21/atheists-now-make-up-0-1-of-the-federal-prison-population/   

I have a lot of time for this blog and the great work it has done about the recent New atheist misconduct affairs. That said, you are appealing to American atheism.

If it is valid to look at American encarceration statistics then it is special pleading to bid us not to consider Soviet encarceration.

Also since you think law and morality is such a good fit, we know that Law at least in this country is being commoditised meaning you get the law and justice you can pay and lobby for.

[jeremyp]

Atheism leads to monsters
Atheism can lead to monsters

You've failed to prove any causal link.

Smoking causes cancer
Smoking can cause cancer

The causal link there is well established.

Faith is the enemy of reason

You might as well say fun is the enemy of reason

Or

Morality is the enemy of reason

No. We can see that faith is the enemy of reason because your posts on any faith topic are devoid of reason. However, your posts on some topics e.g. Brexit are much more coherent.

And just to remind you: Stalin was introduced to Marxism whilst studying to become a priest. Stalin is (by your own arguments) a product of Christianity.

[SteveH]

Smoking causes cancer
Smoking can cause cancer

The causal link there is well established.

The point, surely, is that the first statement is inaccurate, and unnecessarily alarmist. If you smoke cigarettes, you stand a much greater chance of getting lung cancer (and a slightly greater chance if you smoke a pipe or cigars), but you may get away with it. Therefore, "Smoking can cause cancer" is more accurate.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

The point, surely, is that the first statement is inaccurate, and unnecessarily alarmist. If you smoke cigarettes, you stand a much greater chance of getting lung cancer (and a slightly greater chance if you smoke a pipe or cigars), but you may get away with it. Therefore, "Smoking can cause cancer" is more accurate.

No, the point was that he tried to draw an entirely false analogy between atheism and smoking.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

I have a lot of time for this blog and the great work it has done about the recent New atheist misconduct affairs. That said, you are appealing to American atheism.

No, I’m explaining to you the stats for the incidence of atheist inmates in the (highly religious) US context. It’s tiny, and so contradicts your claim that the only reason atheists don’t behave more badly is the fear of getting caught.   

If it is valid to look at American encarceration statistics then it is special pleading to bid us not to consider Soviet encarceration.

First, you don’t understand the meaning of “special pleading”. It’s no such thing.

Second the Soviet stats have bugger all to do with anything because they’d relate only to your slur by association attempt. 

Also…

There is no “also” – you just crashed and burned again.

…since you think law and morality is such a good fit, we know that Law at least in this country is being commoditised meaning you get the law and justice you can pay and lobby for.

Did that even mean something in your head when you typed it?

[ippy]

The causal link there is well established.
The point, surely, is that the first statement is inaccurate, and unnecessarily alarmist. If you smoke cigarettes, you stand a much greater chance of getting lung cancer (and a slightly greater chance if you smoke a pipe or cigars), but you may get away with it. Therefore, "Smoking can cause cancer" is more accurate.

A good example of cognative dissonence that's practiced by lots of smokers in an effort to rationalise their addiction to themselves.

Smoking does cause cancer without any doubt, by secondry smoke to unfortunate by standers etc

Unfortunatly stinking like a dirty old ashtray goes along with the habit too.

Regards ippy

[Maeght]

A good example of cognative dissonence that's practiced by lots of smokers in an effort to rationalise their addiction to themselves.

Smoking does cause cancer without any doubt, by secondry smoke to unfortunate by standers etc

Unfortunatly stinking like a dirty old ashtray goes along with the habit too.

Regards ippy

Regards ippy

Does it always cause cancer?

[SteveH]

A good example of cognative dissonence that's practiced by lots of smokers in an effort to rationalise their addiction to themselves.

Smoking does cause cancer without any doubt, by secondry smoke to unfortunate by standers etc

Unfortunatly stinking like a dirty old ashtray goes along with the habit too.

Regards ippy

Regards ippy

I'm not denying the great danger of smoking, but it doesn't kill every single smoker, so "...can cause cancer" is more accurate than "...causes cancer". It is also the case that cigars and pipes are much less dangerous than cigs, because you don't inhale - and if you don't believe me, ask Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), the main anti-smoking lobby group in the UK, who published figures showing that cigarette smokers are 70% more likely to die prematurely than non-smokers, but cigar and pipe smokers are 10% more likely. ASH are not likely to down-play the danger of any type of smoking, so I think we can assume that these are maximum figures. As a pipe-smoker, I recognise that 10% is a significant figure, but it's one I can live with.

[ippy]

I'm not denying the great danger of smoking, but it doesn't kill every single smoker, so "...can cause cancer" is more accurate than "...causes cancer". It is also the case that cigars and pipes are much less dangerous than cigs, because you don't inhale - and if you don't believe me, ask Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), the main anti-smoking lobby group in the UK, who published figures showing that cigarette smokers are 70% more likely to die prematurely than non-smokers, but cigar and pipe smokers are 10% more likely. ASH are not likely to down-play the danger of any type of smoking, so I think we can assume that these are maximum figures. As a pipe-smoker, I recognise that 10% is a significant figure, but it's one I can live with.

I'm using a tablet without a spell checker, I have a job spelling my own name so you'll have to manage some phonetic spelling from me.

Carcinogenics cause cancer, cigarettes contain carcinogenics therefore cigarettes cause cancer, there is no way around that fact other than for those few people that wrongly try to justify to themselves their continuing to smoke in spite of the well known fully understood facts about the downside of smoking tobacco products.

The facts remain whatever feeble attempt is made to somehow semitisise themselves in their own mind around these facts; it's called cognative dissonence.

Regards ippy

[SteveH]

I'm not denying any facts. Cigarettes are major killers. Pipes and cigars are much less dangerous, though they are still not harmless.

[trippymonkey]

Sorry but what's the title of this thread, please?

[Robbie]

'Historically Christian' which could mean 'Culturally Christian', ie living in a land when majority of people were Christian from a long time past - like here.People used to call us a 'Christian country' but we aren't now if ever we were - it was cultural and still is up to a point.

I lost the thread when it went on to smoking - to which I have no objection as long as not inflicted on others which it isn't nowadays. Who dares to smoke anywhere that non-smokers inhabit in this day and age? However I support the right of people to smoke if they want to, knowing the dangers, away from non-smokers. I hope I never change and don't ever become an anti-smoking bigot. In my house guests can smoke but I have a little area at the back of the house where they can do that, a sort of porch added on the utility room which opens out to back garden and, in good weather, outside; it affects no-one except the smokers.

[SteveH]

The unlamented former poster small thorny plant is an anti-smoking fanatic, who thinks it should be banned because she dislikes it. She was never noted for subtlety of thought.

[Robbie]

It is banned in public places, what more do people want?

[NicholasMarks]

It is banned in public places, what more do people want?

The idea that smoking is wrong is implied from Biblical teaching because it tells us about the purification of bodily functions so that we are able to repair and get stronger...anyone who can show me that destroying our bronchial tubes, and blackening our lungs so that they shrivel up into leaking and diseased organs in our body, is a useful practice...will never convince me of their sanity...and many scientists under the orders of their tobacco bosses, tried to tell us that it was...until it became indisputable. You see...God was right in the first place but we (including me) fell for all that deceit. 

[Maeght]

The idea that smoking is wrong is implied from Biblical teaching because it tells us about the purification of bodily functions so that we are able to repair and get stronger...anyone who can show me that destroying our bronchial tubes, and blackening our lungs so that they shrivel up into leaking and diseased organs in our body, is a useful practice...will never convince me of their sanity...and many scientists under the orders of their tobacco bosses, tried to tell us that it was...until it became indisputable. You see...God was right in the first place but we (including me) fell for all that deceit.

Which scientists said smoking was a useful practice?

[NicholasMarks]

Which scientists said smoking was a useful practice?

The ones who tried to tell us that no serious harm was done by smoking...and it didn't cause many health issues. Scientists  whom, it seems, all worked for the tobacco companies...I remember it clearly from my younger years. There was, towards the end of the debate, heated discussions among key people who, ultimately, got some useful legislation on tobacco advertising...but not without its debunkers.

[Maeght]

The ones who tried to tell us that no serious harm was done by smoking...and it didn't cause many health issues. Scientists  whom, it seems, all worked for the tobacco companies...I remember it clearly from my younger years. There was, towards the end of the debate, heated discussions among key people who, ultimately, got some useful legislation on tobacco advertising...but not without its debunkers.

Who were they? The scientific community recognised quite early that smoking was hazardous to health.  Getting that accepted proved difficult. Which scientists promoted smoking?