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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.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??
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.