Sure. For a parallel, a medieval blogger thought the best response to the recent violence in Kenya was to help out the white American evangelists in the area rather than sending money to the Red Cross. That is one example of a different response to an issue (presumably also different from yours). It is also a good example of how religious morality is wrong-headed, prioritising a potential afterlife over the real problems of this one.
argh, and here another example of how you leap from 'some cases of reasoning that includes religious morality are wrong' to 'all religious morality is wrong'. you admit that this blogger's response would be different from mine, even though we are both (presumably) using 'religious morality'; but then you conclude, 'religious morality [you give no exceptions here] is wrong-headed ...'
you can argue that what you really meant was 'some religious morality is wrong-headed...', but you do this a lot - make broad generalisations and then back away from them. if you think religion per se is the root of the problem, then argue that! if religion per se is wrong, then you have to have a good argument that applies to people like me, amy, these quiet liberals you refer to, etc.
Nonetheless, this is not the issue under discussion here. highlyeccentric and Christina were talking about the morality based on the carrot-or-stick. Christina claims that not all religious espouse it and the ones that do don't mean it anyway. I disagree; enough do that it is a problem, and they really do believe it. That it is factually untrue (they could stop believing in God and would still be moral; some do) is not the point: the point is that their belief is reprehensible.
this is an interesting question, actually. highly's hero (pete hobson) argues that even people who claim, fervently, to believe in hell, actually don't, because otherwise they would never sleep at night. now there may be a few exceptions. but it's another complex question - what does it mean to really believe in something? if you go around saying you believe it, do you really believe it? who knows?
anyway, whatever. their belief, if they do believe it (and yes it is certainly possible that they do), IS reprehensible. we all agree on that.
Yes it does. But that is, once again, a different argument. I am not, here, trying to argue that religion/theism is bad. Just that this particular facet of it is.
ah, but these arguments always seem to start off with, and occasionally fall back on, the premise that religion/theism is bad. it's easy to argue that this particular facet of it is. you don't have to be the sharpest tool in the shed to see that. i expect more from you :)
Re: Part One
argh, and here another example of how you leap from 'some cases of reasoning that includes religious morality are wrong' to 'all religious morality is wrong'. you admit that this blogger's response would be different from mine, even though we are both (presumably) using 'religious morality'; but then you conclude, 'religious morality [you give no exceptions here] is wrong-headed ...'
you can argue that what you really meant was 'some religious morality is wrong-headed...', but you do this a lot - make broad generalisations and then back away from them. if you think religion per se is the root of the problem, then argue that! if religion per se is wrong, then you have to have a good argument that applies to people like me, amy, these quiet liberals you refer to, etc.
Nonetheless, this is not the issue under discussion here. highlyeccentric and Christina were talking about the morality based on the carrot-or-stick. Christina claims that not all religious espouse it and the ones that do don't mean it anyway. I disagree; enough do that it is a problem, and they really do believe it. That it is factually untrue (they could stop believing in God and would still be moral; some do) is not the point: the point is that their belief is reprehensible.
this is an interesting question, actually. highly's hero (pete hobson) argues that even people who claim, fervently, to believe in hell, actually don't, because otherwise they would never sleep at night. now there may be a few exceptions. but it's another complex question - what does it mean to really believe in something? if you go around saying you believe it, do you really believe it? who knows?
anyway, whatever. their belief, if they do believe it (and yes it is certainly possible that they do), IS reprehensible. we all agree on that.
Yes it does. But that is, once again, a different argument. I am not, here, trying to argue that religion/theism is bad. Just that this particular facet of it is.
ah, but these arguments always seem to start off with, and occasionally fall back on, the premise that religion/theism is bad. it's easy to argue that this particular facet of it is. you don't have to be the sharpest tool in the shed to see that. i expect more from you :)