Entries from March 2009 ↓

News: God-based Morality Is Dangerous

The Pope, as a primary spokesman for God-based morality, again demonstrates its immorality to people. It’s that thorny issue for God according to the Pope and the Roman Catholic church apparently, but for few others. Is it morally okay to use condoms to reduce HIV infection? According to the Pope on behalf of his God it is No.  The Pope is quoted in a Times article as saying

‘that contraception was “an offence against the law of God and nature”’ (full article here)

Morality is a human issue. We should not allow self-appointed spokespeople for invisible - many would say non-existent - deities to proclaim absurd moral laws to deliberately harm others.

Alex McCullie

Comment: Non-theist, Anti-theist and Agnostic

The meaning of atheism creates disputes even amongst atheists. The two most popular definitions are (1) disbelief in god(s) and (2) rejection of the existence of god(s). It’s rightfully argued, I think, the second meaning really needs a more specific concept or definition of god to deny. So if we are talking about the classical definition of the Christian god, then someone can reasonably argue rejection based on the logical incoherence of the collection of omni…’s that their god is supposed to be. For good measure also throw in the problem of evil.

Steven Schafersman argues that an someone can hold both of these definitions of atheism at the same time. Non-belief against all gods, non-theist as he calls it, and rejection against a specific definition of a god, anti-theist. For that matter the same person could also believe that god(s) or any supernatural presence(s) are by definition unknowable to physical creatures like humans. Check out Steven’s article – its’ good reading.

 

Alex McCullie