Atheists are having it too easy.

[ibis]

Do not worry, you do not have the capability to offend me. That is a comment about me, not you by the way. I intend no derision of you in it. I merely know the pre-requisites required for someone to offend me, and it is not present here.

However to re-iterate, the moral standpoint I am espousing is my own. I couple it inextricably with democracy after that however. I know how I reach my moral standpoints, and I educate others on the same and campaign for what I believe is right and why.

At the end of the day however I live in a democratic society and I go with the will of the people. If, somehow, my own morality led me to think murder was great for example I still recognise that I am in a less than 1% minority on this and I concede to live by the position that murder is wrong as long as I want to live in this society. I of course have the option to bugger off and find a society more in line with my views.

Similarly I am pro-choice. I campaign, education, debate, argue and inform everyone of my opinion on it. However I realise it is considered wrong and immoral and illegal in society currently and I would demand the prosecution of anyone who performs an illegal even early term abortion in Ireland. I would demand their prosecution while still demanding that the law on this be changed and abortion (up to 16 weeks in my opinion but that’s the subject on another thread) be allowed to anyone who wishes to avail of it.

Freedom - under the law.

[ibis]

Giving one's life for others must, logically, be the ultimate act of madness, for an atheist.

Not necessarily - there are circumstances in which it makes sense, except for solipsists. And there's no requirement for an atheist to be a solipsist.

[Almanac]

There is no usefulness or call to be snide. All I am asking is that you reply to what I have said, not what someone else has said. My positions are my own, not theirs and theirs not mine. Am I asking a lot in this?…

Maybe address others in the tone that you yourself wish to be addressed in.

[Almanac]

What you've 'pointed out' is still under argument. You didn't point it out at all: you asserted it.

No, there were no counter arguments. And they were separate arguments, which you'd have understood if you weren't in such a rush to be smart. Pay attention if you want to post criticism.

Your philosophical skill has still to prove itself. And it's nearly time for tea here in Berlin.

[Toland]

Giving one's life for others must, logically, be the ultimate act of madness for an atheist.

Not one who believes in evolution.

What was that Haldane joke (I think it was Haldane)?
Q: Would you give up your life for your brother?`

A. No, but I would for two brothers ... or for four cousins.

[Toland]

No, there was no counter argument. And it was a separate argument, which you'd have understood if you weren't in such a rush to be smart. Pay attention if you want to post criticism.

I know the arguments. They're stock arguments thrown at first year philosophy students. By the end of first year most philosophy students can deal with them.

Cmon, cmon, try to lay your "violates causality" argument on me, cmon...

[nozzferrahhtoo]

Giving one's life for others must, logically, be the ultimate act of madness, for an atheist.

Not really. In fact it is perfectly consistent with the position I just espoused.

For example there are many people I love more than I love myself. I would like to think that if one of them were drowning in a river tomorrow someone would risk and maybe even lose their life to jump in and save them.

Therefore if I saw someone drowning tomorrow I would jump in to save them without consideration for my own safety. Why? Because I want to live in a society where that is the done thing and thereby know that my loved ones are similarly protected.

If giving my life tomorrow is required in order to help build such a society for those I love, then my life is theirs.

[nozzferrahhtoo]

Maybe address others in the tone that you yourself wish to be addressed in.

I do, which is why I reply to everything you say instead of reading what you write and then replying to something I read on some blog somewhere, as you just did to me.

[sondagefaux]

Interesting case here from the UK, involving Cherie Blair.

Shamso Miah (a British Muslim was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm and came up before Cherie Booth, wife of former prime minister, Tony Blair, on 24 January this year. She suspended his six month sentence for two years, on the grounds that he was "a religious person and have not been in trouble before … you are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour."

So Terry Sanderson of the NSS has complained that this is discrimination against atheists:

"What would have happened if he had been an atheist? Would Mrs Blair/Booth have refused to suspend the sentence on the grounds that non-believers have no guiding principles that tell them that smashing people in the face for no good reason is not the right thing to do?

This is a very worrying case of discrimination that appears to show that religious people get different treatment in Cherie Blair's court."

But the point isn't discrimination. Judges are paid to discriminate among prisoners before them, and to distinguish those for whom prison is the right treatment from everyone else. Defendants of otherwise good character should obviously get different sentences to habitual recidivists.

The real disagreement is whether being a devout Muslim (or Christian) is in itself a sign of good character. Cherie Booth seems to be arguing that it is, though less important than his previously spotless record. For Sanderson and those who think like him, being a devout believer is quite the opposite. It's evidence of bad character.

In Sanderson's world, judges should say things like "Although you have no previous convictions, you are none the less a follower of Pope Benedict XVI and so unable to tell right from wrong. I therefore find myself compelled to impose a custodial sentence"

I don't myself think that "religion" or even being a Muslim, or a Christian is a distinction fine-grained enough to be useful in this context. Some sorts of religious belief make some crimes more likely; some positions of religious authority add to the gravity of offences committed by their holders. It is reasonable for a judge to say "You are a follower of Anwar al-Awlaki and therefore especially dangerous"; or even "You are the Archbishop of Canterbury, and so should set an example. Your sentence will therefore be heavier."

But if some religious beliefs make crimes more likely or more serious, it follows that there are others which have the opposite effect. It would be absurd not to take those into account when sentencing. Someone who is part of a supportive congregation is knitted into society in a useful way. The beauty of the case of Shamso Miah is that we have no idea which he is. Nor is it clear whether first-time offenders of his sort are usually jailed, whatever their beliefs. So everyone can enjoy their opinions entirely from first principles, as we call our prejudices.

If I can dig out from the Home Office any statistics on the correlation between religious belief and re-offending rates, they would add some facts to the discussion. I will try. If they showed that religious belief made it less likely to re-offend, would judges be justified in taking it into account?

Cherie Booth unfair to atheists? | Andrew Brown | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

How 'religious' the defendant was is unclear - was he a nominal Muslim, a devout Muslim, in-between?

I wonder why Cherie Blair assumed that being 'religious' (whatever she meant by that) would be more likely to make a person know that assaulting another person was wrong?

What would she have said if she had been the judge in Scott Roeder's trial?

[fionnmccool]

Two positions;

a) "There is a god"; It is logically possible to prove this but as a hypothesis it is sorely lacking in evidence (Alamanc's sophisticated 'god of gaps' argument not withstanding).

b) "There is no god"; logically impossible to prove. However, given the lack of evidence for position 'a)' it is the most reasonable position to hold.

I'm an atheist in the same way that both of us is aunicornist; having never seen any evidence for the existence of unicorns we refuse to believe in them. Note that the statement 'there are no unicorns' is also logically impossible to prove but the truth of the statement is reasonably believed.

Well put. I was on the verge of saying something along the same lines myself (with Loch Ness Monster instead of Unicorns) when I saw your well written post.