Associated Press – September 24, 2008 12:43 AM ETA federal judge in Alaska is siding with Private-First-Class Michael Barnes. He had told the Army that his religious experience two years ago left him opposed to war in any form.Judge John Sedwich ruled that military investigators failed to prove that Barnes’ religious objections to war were insincere. Barnes enlisted in the Army in March 2005 and arrived in Iraq in September 2006. Soldiers in his unit testified that he devoted much of his spare time to reading the Bible.It’s not clear if the Army will file an appeal. An Army spokesman declined to comment.Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
What about MY sincere beliefs? Do they have to be religious to be moral? Can’t an Atheist abhor war? And what does this say to Father Bush lying so we get into the war??
I was draft bait during the Vietnam war. On Feb 14, 1967 I had an interview with my local selective service board on my application as a Conscientious Objector. I told them that I did not believe in God, but that I thought fighting in a war was immoral.
In their summary of my interview the board said “We have no doubt of this young man’s sincerity, however we do not see how he can qualify as a CO”.
In 1968 I refused induction into the US Army.
In 1970 I was arrested.
In January 1971 the gummint dropped the charges and I won. It seems that in failing to give a specific reason for denying my original application they had denied me due process.
So it would seem that an atheist can be a Conscientious Objector, or at least they could under the Selective Service Act of 1967.
I ended up teaching TV and small appliance repairs at a Goodwill facility as my alternative service.
Ungodly
Thanks for the post. And thanks for your commitment to rationally directed behavior even though it could have or may have cost you dearly.
Dave
This deserves a thread:
http://tinyurl.com/46mzmy
If this person spent a lot of his time reading the Bible, and loving it, he ought to WANT to be in the middle of combat. The Bible is part-religious mythology, and part-war manual. God’s chosen people went on a tour of the holy land, slaughtering tribes out of existence along the way. I don’t know what about that would ever conflict with combat in Iraq. America’s kill ratio in Iraq is probably at least as good as it was back then for the chosen people.
In the NT, Jesus promised to do the most killing in human history and never denounced the OT kill-fest for Jehovah. Later on in the Bible, we read about Armageddon.
Maybe the judge never read the Bible…
Joe Zamecki
Austin
Exactly what are you beliefs Dave?
I asked in an earlier thread of how one develops a moral foundation when their belief system basically says anything goes…
But instead on answering the question, the new president of AA took the easy path of character assassination and name calling…
Would one of those beliefs be killing is wrong? All killing? Why is killing wrong? Based upon what? And if it’s based upon something, why is that “something” valid?
You think I’m being argumentative, but I’m not. These are the questions I get from teenagers when we discuss the merits of being religious or non-religious…
Exactly what is the code of ethics a non-believer follows and who developed those codes?
“you”=”your”
phreedm,
Okay, let’s take your example to begin. You ask, essentially, if someone does not believe in a well-defined deity how would that person know killing in wrong?
Frankly it comes down to the nature of the act. Humans define killing another person (and animals in certain circumstances) as morally wrong when you voluntarily opt to prematurely end the life of another living creature.
Now morally there is some debatable wiggle room when it comes to things like coercion, assisted suicide, or self-defense, and those nuances to the question should be actively debated, but let’s remain talking about the core question for now.
Remember, killing as being morally wrong is a human construct; we created the rules of right and wrong. Other members of the animal kingdom (of which we are a part, like it or not) live in worlds of acting out of necessity absent of moral concerns (as far as we know at this time). If my studies serve me, Christians when Christianity was born were staunch pacifists, up to and including refusal to self-defend because killing was deemed wrong; however, the “wrongness” of killing was grayed during the many Crusades that came centuries later because “moral authorities” changed the rules.
There is another aspect you mentioned which also has bearing on the conversation. In my opinion, it appears that the “atheists/agnostics say anything goes” belief is inaccurately applied to the group. It has been my experience that the statement should be more like “anything goes that does not directly impact others and that does not violate the commonly agreed upon rules of our society.”
I know from experience that several of things I have written have common pitfalls and retorts, and these are general statements, but I look forward to continuing the discussion with you.
In order for any animal species to form a pack based society there must be a mutual understanding of non-aggression within the pack. This forms the basis for the morality of any animal not obsessed with imaginary rules allegedly sent by an invisible sky fairy.
You don’t kill me and I won’t kill you is a logical and self evident first basis for a moral code that does not require any Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy.
A truly imaginative creature might realize that mutual adoption of the golden rule would be a great add-on, and Jeebus did not invent the golden rule, so don’t even go there.
Sky fairies are not required for morality, in fact they nearly always pervert it into something obscene like a religion.
Hammurabi code style ethics evolved with the species.
Good on the soldier, but he should have thought about that more before enlisting.
I think soldiers who enlist in the Army then claim conscientious objector ststus are almost all lying.
That being said, I am in the Army and support anyone who wants to get out. I think they should have some sort of voluntary release where you forfeit all of your veterans benefits and instead of getting an honorable discharge you get some sort of neutral administrative seperation. The Army is a hard life and it is not for everyone. The reason I doubt the sincerity of those who apply for CO status is that when you join the Army you are asked are you now or have you ever been a conscientious objector? It’s 2008, the war in Iraq has been going on for five years now. If you join the Army, especially in a combat arms capacity, you have to be willfully ignorant to think you’re not going into the fight. If you are opposed to fighting war, there is an easy 100% effective way to get out of having to fight in it, don’t join the military. However, I understand sometimes people make mistakes or the Army doesn’t quite turn out to be like the movies, that’s why there should be an easy way out.
I meant status not ststus.
fosters24,
Willfully ignorant or unspeakably stupid. When I was in Navy boot camp a couple of guys I in my division got discharged because they were afraid of water. About a dozen more couldn’t swim. Granted, if you’re out to see and you have to jump in the water and swim something went seriously wrong but still.
Hopefully,without starting a NEW debate about definitions, I wonder if humans really are “social animals”. I am not arguing that humans don’t form societies, and develop systems to manage them, my doubt eminates from my knowledge of history, during which it was one empire after another gearing up under one dictator or another to conquer the known world. We split into factions, which split into factions, which split into tribes, villages, ethnicities, and religions. The conquerors who are in bold print in history didn’t unite these factions by politics, they did it with brute force. Two options, join or die.
Now, to my point, we look at each other and see ourselves. We know how much we love being alive, and understand how fleeting an opportunity it is. Our capacity for empathy tells us that to kill a person is to rob them forever of the treasure of life that we both possess. Therefore, a normal person, while he will kill to protect his family from harm, will not kill to advance a cause that he does not believe in, or even has doubts about. Then comes the delemma, “fight for us or we will kill your family”.
That really makes Ungodly’s post so relevant. Go to war or go to prison, either way your family is left alone. I guess in such a situation a person is left to evaluate their conscience and decide what they can live with for the rest of their lives. I’m sure people have faced tougher decisions in the past, but, I think it puts a spotlight on the fact that, even though organized religion is hugely responsible for the ignorance and the suffering of mankind, it’s not the only hurdle free thinkers have ahead of them. There is also the greedy sociopaths that will stop at nothing to accomplish their goals.
NeoWolfe
I suggest that you read this book if you want to understand how our sense of morals evolved out of our socialness as a species.
http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minds-Nature-Designed-Universal/dp/0060780703
UnGodly has it right:
You don’t kill me and I won’t kill you is a logical and self evident first basis for a moral code that does not require any Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy.
right on
I think the morality question is the last stand for monotheism….the sciences have made a mockery of genesis and the right over wrong question is really all that is left for this absurdity….
Charlie
I think it goes way beyond agreements between individuals or rationality. We have evolved in such a manner that their exist a limited set of circumstances which will trigger the impulse to kill or suppress the instinct to preserve the species – default species-preserving behavior. Without such genetically encoded default behavior we may have been eliminated from mammalian history.
I certainly stand educated….I am only a retired army sergeant issuing ROTC cadets thier clothing and equipment….
My idea with the morality issue is that it is evolutionary based and is as simple as describing the love that a mother has for her baby….
if that is in the genome…then I guess it must be a survival thang….
What,
The first thing I have to ask is which planet, in which galaxy you are halucinating from? You stated:
“We have evolved in such a manner that their exist a limited set of circumstances which will trigger the impulse to kill or suppress the instinct to preserve the species
First of all, I must conclude that you slept during World History classes throughout your entire public school career. Then you had the history channel blocked on your tv subscription.
Then, as an adult, you drank mercury hoping for eternal life.
Here’s the story of history, what, and when you haven’t a clue, you are free to shut the fuck up, empire after empire have taken large portions of the known world in the name of greed. They didn’t give a damn about whose life was turned from hope into catastophe, they just wanted to be the big cheese. None of them thought for a second whether or not their campaign of violence may escalate a cascade of circumstances that resulted in the extinction of humans, they just wanted to be number one as long as humans existed. And the gods and the priests were their main weapons for keeping the public fearfully in line.
I miss the days when you had something to say that made sense and had some relevance.
NeoWolfe
I think We have evolved in such a manner that their exist a limited set of circumstances….
thats where the phrase “it’s a small world” came from Im thinking….
Neo
You might want to rethink your manic rant.
Charlie
Agreed
That history is littered with warfare and devastation might only mean that those few circumstances that trigger the impulse to kill or silence the instinct for preservation of the species (assuming there really is such a thing) being taken advantage of during such times. Plus, of course, if you conscript a man and put him in a warzone and tell him to kill or he’ll be hanged for treason, I think that instinct for self-preservation trumps all.
agnosticks,
It is true that the early church was basically pacifist in nature. Not so much as an objection to killing as it was a way to emulate Christ…
But I believe that it wasn’t the crusades which changed this behavior, as much as it was the impact of Constantine becoming emperor.
As for a non-believers moral code. Would you be able to say that all non-believers follow the same moral code?
Now I will agree that all christians do not follow the same moral code but the do have the same founding documents (bible) to start from.
Would a non-believer from America follow the same moral code as a non-believer from India? I would say no, because there is no common starting point. And neither non-believer could claim the other to be immoral. That is the foundation of the comment of “anything goes”…
Please feel free to explain to me where I’m wrong. It’s a nice change to have an intelligent discussion with someone from this board.
Ed…are you paying attention?
“. That is the foundation of the comment of “anything goes”…”
That is just another excellent example from the excellent broken mind of phree.
Thinking that humans disagreeing on principals of morality means ‘anything goes’. Way to take a bizarre absolute again phree.
“Please feel free to explain to me where I’m wrong. “
I just did. You can’t claim that if different social groups don’t share some of their principals of morality does not mean that anything is possible. The golden rule is shown through out multiple cultures and people.
So again, phree takes a stance and throws it way out and into the sewer yet again.
“Now I will agree that all christians do not follow the same moral code but the do have the same founding documents (bible) to start from.”
Does the bible teach you that torture is immoral? On the contrary, it rather supports it doesn’t it phree? With the eternal torture of the already dead.
So where now do you get your morality on the evils of torture?
Human morality is all about preserving the lifves, and therefore the DNA, of yourself and your closest relatives so of course humans will engage in warfare if it benefits their family and tribe. Read the book “Moral Minds” that I suggested above for an education on the evolution of morality.
Yes phreedum all of the scientific evidence shows that there is an innate and universal moral code followed by humans across time and place. Sure there are some very minor differences but the major precepts are the same thanks to our common evolutionary history which has equiped us with this moral code. Chimpanzees and other primates show a very similar code of ethics as well as has been demonstrated in the lab.
I recommend any of these books for a clear explanation of the evolution of human morality:
http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minds-Nature-Designed-Universal/dp/0060780703
http://www.amazon.com/Primates-Philosophers-Morality-Evolved-University/dp/0691124477/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b
http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Animal-Science-Evolutionary-Psychology/dp/0679763996/ref=pd_sim_b_2
Phreedm said,
The highest per capita population of Christians exist in America’s prisons. That must be as a consequence of that ’same moral code’ you refer to above.
Comment from: thx1138
Was this statement suppose to make sense…?
The Federal Bureau of Prisons reports the following statistics on American prisoners and their religious affiliation:
Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009%
Those immoral atheists sure are prone to criminality, arent they phreedum? while the pious xians obviously have a superior moral code. Even when you correct for the numbers of the general population who are atheists it is clear that nonbelievers are much less likely to be criminals than the religious (whereas muslims are more likely than xians to be criminals based on their percent of the general population).
Where in the bible do you find support for being anti-war? The entire Old Testament is nothing but Israelites running around killing everybody in God’s name!
And if you claim Jesus is a pacifist, then why did he never condemn the behavior of his predecessors? Was Jesus peaceful?
Meant to include this link:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/sword.html
godless sodomite,
Yeah BUT, all them prinners is not “True Cristians”.
“godless sodomite,
Yeah BUT, all them prinners is not “True Cristians”.”
Ah yes, the No True Scotsmen fallacy.
Gotta love it, since it makes it super easy for Christians to condemn their own people to immediate hell for not agreeing with their prejudices.
Also makes for extra funny sessions where you account back when a specific theist was using the:
‘There are more Christians in the world then any other belief, therefore we are the correct one!’
Then later:
‘Christian group X are not true Christians for reasons Y, Z, and Cake.’
And when you point out the contradiction of using all Christians as a argument then relabeling the same people as non-Christians is when the fun begins.
gs – there is a flaw in your argument, I think. More Christians being in prison does not refute Christians having a moral foundation. In fact, these inmates would be in prison because of the crimes committed, which you would probably find are outlawed in scripture – murder, theft, etc. There being more Christians in prison as opposed to more atheists does not answer phreedm’s question: how does one develops a moral foundation when their belief system basically says anything goes?
Stay on point.
Phreedm – sorry to interupt, but his “look at how terrible Christians are therefore atheists are better” “argument” all the while dodging the question was a little too much to take.
What had this to say:
“Neo
You might want to rethink your manic rant.”
In retrospect, that was a little over the top. Sorry.
NeoWolfe
“gs – there is a flaw in your argument, I think. More Christians being in prison does not refute Christians having a moral foundation.”
It just throws a massive wrench in the argument that Christians at large are more moral then Atheists.
“In fact, these inmates would be in prison because of the crimes committed, which you would probably find are outlawed in scripture – murder, theft, etc.”
What about being thrown in jail for being a pedophile? The bible makes no claims that raping a child is wrong.
That argument works both ways.
“how does one develops a moral foundation when their belief system basically says anything goes? “
Because that statement is complete bullshit. There is no structure of which humans can take morality out of that says anything goes. Doing such is an contradiction. If a structure is claiming anything goes then it isn’t a structure to begin with.
“Phreedm – sorry to interupt, but his “look at how terrible Christians are therefore atheists are better” “argument” all the while dodging the question was a little too much to take.”
Completely ignoring the multiple articles cited by others that shows phree to be wrong.
stupid monotheism….
“stupid monotheism….”
Agree. We should just go back to worshiping trees. At least we know they exist.
phreedm,
You posed the question:”As for a non-believers moral code. Would you be able to say that all non-believers follow the same moral code?”
My response is no, not all non-believers follow the same moral code. I will acknowledge that you did admit the obvious that believers are not exempt from the same condition, so thank you.
I argue the point that while, yes, many flavors of the monotheistic religions dedicated to YHWH/God/Allah begin from a similar starting point, that doesn’t make that starting point good. As a journeying agnostic myself, I clearly come from that standpoint that I think that I get it right more often by not abiding to a scripture and using critical thinking skills to evaluate the conditions at hand.
I also submit that taken as a philosophical tool to add to the discussion the bible is not an entirely bad piece of literature. But I do not think that a human should place the entirety of their moral composition on one source.
You also state, to paraphrase, that a person from America and person from India couldn’t declare each other morally wrong since they have no common starting point. You seem to miss the glaring pert held in common: humanity.
As a species, we have come together and agreed that certain things are wholly unacceptable no matter you ethnicity or religion, genocide for example. Fanatics don’t get a free pass for killing others because that’s what they believe, or at least in a logical world they shouldn’t.
Logic not tempered by compassion is cruel; passion/belief not tempered by hope of common progress creates fear and stagnation.
No person, ethnicity, religion, text, or group has the totality of answers when it comes to creating a moral compass. Atheists and agnostics have a set of artificial moral standards like everyone else, and yes even ours can be flawed.
I’ll stop rambling here; ask more questions. I do better with the Socratic method than with exposition (I tend to ask myself too many questions and counter-questions as I type).
Agnosticks,
That is the most refreshing post I have read in days. Well done. Welcome to a website where agnostics are not quite understood. You made this statement:
” As a journeying agnostic myself, I clearly come from that standpoint that I think that I get it right more often by not abiding to a scripture and using critical thinking skills to evaluate the conditions at hand.”
As an agnostic, sometimes I feel looked down upon, and sometimes I get accused of looking down on atheists. You’ll find out soon enough that there are some idiots here, bent on causing disruption, but there are also some real free thinkers here who not only have opinions but are willing to weigh the opinions of others. This is not my site, but I welcome you. Nice to have another agnostic on board.
NeoWolfe
as the chant of the Agnostic goes
that young man better do some more praying cause uncle sam an pakistan are shooting at each other now.
Ah, but you are wrong. Humanity possesses a natural and innate set of universal moral standards thanks to our evolutionary history as a social primate. Please read “Moral Minds” by Marc Hauser. It lays it all out in an easy to read book.
godless sodomite,
True, I admitted that humans do possess a natural moral inclination but humans add an additional layer of moral construct.
To better explain myself, I would like to point out that when I talk about morals, I think of terms like right and wrong; a clear distinction between correct and incorrect generated by ethics.
For example, natural competition and taking of another’s resources is fine in a natural environment; humans deem stealing as wrong conceptually.
I would argue that my standpoint is that the layer in which humans say something is conceptually wrong from a moral perspective is artificial.
Perhaps that makes my point clearer. Again, I fully acknowledge the innate moral starting point. But that innate sensibility needs to be fed and grown over time; our society begins to step in at this point. And in my opinion I think that yes, a person can be trained/taught to think something is morally right (from the artificial side, i.e. religion) that is contrary to the natural moral inclinations.
Evolution alone does not define the aptitude of a being with higher orders of sentience (including, but not limited to humans); evolution provides for us a predisposition and beginning point for our society to develop. Where and how we choose to express that society is not dictated by nature exclusively.