How are theists able to claim the moral high ground?

[Cynic]

This is the most bizarre thing I have found with debating theists (mainly Christians which will be the focus of this thread, although I have met one or two Muslims that are guilty of this) , the constantly attempt to claim the moral high ground despite the absolutely immoral passages of the bible which include rape, murder, slavery and ritual human sacrifice and the dehumanisation of the victims of these beliefs, and according to them they get their morals from this book.

This is not limited to philosophy, but history. Religious wars and persecution have killed millions, if not billions over the last 2000 years and yet I struggle to think of an atheist who has blown himself or flown a plane into a building. There is no doubt that there have been atheists who were bad people, Stalin was one of the worst mass murderers in history however he did not slaughter people for his religious beliefs he did it gain and tighten his control over the soviet union by slaughtering political rivals and threats. Monstrous figures however are not limited to atheists, possibly the most infamous mass murderer in history,Hitler, was a Catholic so the argument that atheism produces mass murders is invalid.

The statistical comparisons between western societies show a correlation between high rates of atheism and low crime rates,higher income and better health and education ( This is discussed in detail in Hermes' thread High rates of atheism: low crime, higher pay, better health and education).
 
Statistical analysis of America shows that of people in America's prisons are atheists. That atheists are on average are more affluent, have a higher IQ, lower divorce rates, lower rates of teen pregnancy, lower abortion rates, lower Sexually transmitted infection rates. Yet atheists are accused of being immoral.

My question is this with the overwhelming evidence for Atheists being more productive members of society on average how are theists able to use the "immoral atheists" argument time and time again?

[Omen]

I do not allow them to do so, unfortunately their every argument requires vast amounts of baseless presuppositions.  The inevitable conclusion is that the theist will either stop participating in the discussion or insist it must be believed before it can be believed ( like Tbright ).  Religion in claiming something supernatural ( invisible, immaterial, and to every extent non-existent ) has only one choice in spreading itself and that is dictating through authoritarian values.

Unfortunately, inquiry is just really a brick wall to religious apologetics just like it would be a brick wall to authoritarian claims.

[ThePhilosopher]

why do you try to impose the morality of the bible onto christians?
read catholic theology of morality and tell me if you see anything in it that propagates rape, murder, ritual slavery, and so forth.
the bible is not a morality guide, as the time difference is too vast.
but if you want to bring up christian morality to debate, then first learn about it before making assumptions as to what it advoctates and what it doesnt.


in response to the OP.
there is not a single error in the morality that is advocated by the catholic church.
all of its 'rules' flow logically and are impossible to be honestly deemed as incorrect.

[Omen]

in response to the OP.
there is not a single error in the morality that is advocated by the catholic church.
all of its 'rules' flow logically and are impossible to be honestly deemed as incorrect.

Well of course, tautologies work like that.  However, in reality propagating myths about sexuality and generally condemning the use of prophylactics encourages human suffering through the spread of disease.  It is of course, not in the church's prerogative to care about that so it cannot be deemed 'incorrect'.  Just like it can't be deemed 'incorrect' to shuffle child molesters from one flock of preyed upon children to the next, hide predators to avoid prosecution, hide documents to avoid legal actions, and move individuals over seas to avoid likely incrimination.  Not to mention holding onto age old antiquities that belong to other cultural beliefs or generally fighting against the only thing known to work against poverty ( women's rights ).  My favorite is excommunicating church members because a 9 year old girl is raped by her father and they performed an abortion because the pregnancy was a threat to her life.  Btw, the father was/is not excommunicated.  Oh yah, can't forget they are setting on the fruits of over a thousand years of genocide, war, inquisition, and totaltalitarian rules - is it ok to profit from that?  When did the 'perfect' interpretation from the bible arrive? Before or after that?

[JTW]

in response to the OP.
there is not a single error in the morality that is advocated by the catholic church.
all of its 'rules' flow logically and are impossible to be honestly deemed as incorrect.

Well of course, tautologies work like that.  However, in reality propagating myths about sexuality and generally condemning the use of prophylactics encourages human suffering through the spread of disease.  It is of course, not in the church's prerogative to care about that so it cannot be deemed 'incorrect'. 

But it is in the church's prerogative to deem infidelity, promiscuity and hedonism incorrect - hence there would be no need for prophylactics if there was no initial immorality. The "end user" is therefore responsible - not the church.

Just like it can't be deemed 'incorrect' to shuffle child molesters from one flock of preyed upon children to the next, hide predators to avoid prosecution, hide documents to avoid legal actions, and move individuals over seas to avoid likely incrimination.  Not to mention holding onto age old antiquities that belong to other cultural beliefs or generally fighting against the only thing known to work against poverty ( women's rights ).  My favorite is excommunicating church members because a 9 year old girl is raped by her father and they performed an abortion because the pregnancy was a threat to her life.  Btw, the father was/is not excommunicated.  Oh yah, can't forget they are setting on the fruits of over a thousand years of genocide, war, inquisition, and totaltalitarian rules - is it ok to profit from that?  When did the 'perfect' interpretation from the bible arrive? Before or after that?

Isolated and stupid examples of bad apples rotting the basket. You know better.

[Omen]

in response to the OP.
there is not a single error in the morality that is advocated by the catholic church.
all of its 'rules' flow logically and are impossible to be honestly deemed as incorrect.

Well of course, tautologies work like that.  However, in reality propagating myths about sexuality and generally condemning the use of prophylactics encourages human suffering through the spread of disease.  It is of course, not in the church's prerogative to care about that so it cannot be deemed 'incorrect'. 

But it is in the church's prerogative to deem infidelity, promiscuity and hedonism incorrect - hence there would be no need for prophylactics if there was no initial immorality. The "end user" is therefore responsible - not the church.

That is simply ignorance of human nature and the attempt to dictate authoritarian control of sex.  It is also the propagation of lies based the idea that prophylactics need be opposed, they don't have an actual logical or rational reason to oppose prophylactics so they instead lie and try to encourage fear of them instead.

The inevitable conclusion is the spread of human suffering and disease, to people who engage in sex and those that are entirely non-participatory such as children.

When did it become ok to contribute to actions to further human suffering?

When did it become ok to lie about something in order to encourage fear?

Just like it can't be deemed 'incorrect' to shuffle child molesters from one flock of preyed upon children to the next, hide predators to avoid prosecution, hide documents to avoid legal actions, and move individuals over seas to avoid likely incrimination.  Not to mention holding onto age old antiquities that belong to other cultural beliefs or generally fighting against the only thing known to work against poverty ( women's rights ).  My favorite is excommunicating church members because a 9 year old girl is raped by her father and they performed an abortion because the pregnancy was a threat to her life.  Btw, the father was/is not excommunicated.  Oh yah, can't forget they are setting on the fruits of over a thousand years of genocide, war, inquisition, and totaltalitarian rules - is it ok to profit from that?  When did the 'perfect' interpretation from the bible arrive? Before or after that?

Isolated

Most if not all of these examples involve current examples of actions taken by a majority of church organizers and leadership over all.

Not to mention the example of opposing women's rights is simple a stance of the church itself, which is again in propagation of furthering human suffering because of it.

Nothing about anything above can be described as 'isolated' considering the depth and numbers of people involved in the organization itself which would have overseen these actions.

and stupid examples of bad apples rotting the basket.

Then the majority of the catholic church and its philosophy are 'bad' apples.

You know better.

You havn't made a case that anything above is a faulty analogy, you instead engaged in special pleading and generally ignored much of the post as is common for you.

Another deeper concern here is that the philosophy itself ( like most religious claims ) work in the manner of tautologies that only serve to avoid responsibility.  It is common to shuffle the problems under the rug and avoid transparency, even to the point of being belligerent or incriminating the victim as happened with many individuals who sought legal action against church organizers for sexual abuse.

[Omen]

As I've stated before, you can't claim the moral high ground without first dictating from an authoritarian presuppositional.  You don't even possess an argument to do anything other then that.

[JTW]

in response to the OP.
there is not a single error in the morality that is advocated by the catholic church.
all of its 'rules' flow logically and are impossible to be honestly deemed as incorrect.

Well of course, tautologies work like that.  However, in reality propagating myths about sexuality and generally condemning the use of prophylactics encourages human suffering through the spread of disease.  It is of course, not in the church's prerogative to care about that so it cannot be deemed 'incorrect'. 

But it is in the church's prerogative to deem infidelity, promiscuity and hedonism incorrect - hence there would be no need for prophylactics if there was no initial immorality. The "end user" is therefore responsible - not the church.

That is simply ignorance of human nature and the attempt to dictate authoritarian control of sex.  It is also the propagation of lies based the idea that prophylactics need be opposed, they don't have an actual logical or rational reason to oppose prophylactics so they instead lie and try to encourage fear of them instead.

The inevitable conclusion is the spread of human suffering and disease, to people who engage in sex and those that are entirely non-participatory such as children.

When did it become ok to contribute to actions to further human suffering?

When did it become ok to lie about something in order to encourage fear?

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Just like it can't be deemed 'incorrect' to shuffle child molesters from one flock of preyed upon children to the next, hide predators to avoid prosecution, hide documents to avoid legal actions, and move individuals over seas to avoid likely incrimination.  Not to mention holding onto age old antiquities that belong to other cultural beliefs or generally fighting against the only thing known to work against poverty ( women's rights ).  My favorite is excommunicating church members because a 9 year old girl is raped by her father and they performed an abortion because the pregnancy was a threat to her life.  Btw, the father was/is not excommunicated.  Oh yah, can't forget they are setting on the fruits of over a thousand years of genocide, war, inquisition, and totaltalitarian rules - is it ok to profit from that?  When did the 'perfect' interpretation from the bible arrive? Before or after that?

Isolated

Most if not all of these examples involve current examples of actions taken by a majority of church organizers and leadership over all.

Not to mention the example of opposing women's rights is simple a stance of the church itself, which is again in propagation of furthering human suffering because of it.

How? What rights are women being stripped of?

Nothing about anything above can be described as 'isolated' considering the depth and numbers of people involved in the organization itself which would have overseen these actions.

Oh? This is the first instance I've heard where a 9 year old's abortion causing the abortees to be excommunicated.

and stupid examples of bad apples rotting the basket.

Then the majority of the catholic church and its philosophy are 'bad' apples.

Personal opinion.

You know better.

You havn't made a case that anything above is a faulty analogy, you instead engaged in special pleading and generally ignored much of the post as is common for you.

The case is simple. One time events are being cast in the light of commonplace by you. End of discussion, chump.

Another deeper concern here is that the philosophy itself ( like most religious claims ) work in the manner of tautologies that only serve to avoid responsibility.  It is common to shuffle the problems under the rug and avoid transparency, even to the point of being belligerent or incriminating the victim as happened with many individuals who sought legal action against church organizers for sexual abuse.

Except that Catholic priests are now stereotyped as pedophiles. But oh, that's ok. It's a fair trade, right?

[JTW]

As I've stated before, you can't claim the moral high ground without first dictating from an authoritarian presuppositional.  You don't even possess an argument to do anything other then that.

The argument of moral high ground stems from [supposed] protection of the self.

[Omen]

When did it become ok to contribute to actions to further human suffering?

When did it become ok to lie about something in order to encourage fear?

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Irrelevant, an action is being taken that propagates human suffering.  The victim includes both individuals that have sex without using prophylactics and those victims who took no such action.

The church lied about the prophylactics and used fear, to dictate imagined values from a presuppositional authoritarian position.  The obvious problem is that an unnecessary belief is directly causing harm through ignorance and dishonesty.

In effect, you don't get to dictate what is an imagined crime then ignore when you cause suffering because of it because people don't do as you wish.

Just like it can't be deemed 'incorrect' to shuffle child molesters from one flock of preyed upon children to the next, hide predators to avoid prosecution, hide documents to avoid legal actions, and move individuals over seas to avoid likely incrimination.  Not to mention holding onto age old antiquities that belong to other cultural beliefs or generally fighting against the only thing known to work against poverty ( women's rights ).  My favorite is excommunicating church members because a 9 year old girl is raped by her father and they performed an abortion because the pregnancy was a threat to her life.  Btw, the father was/is not excommunicated.  Oh yah, can't forget they are setting on the fruits of over a thousand years of genocide, war, inquisition, and totaltalitarian rules - is it ok to profit from that?  When did the 'perfect' interpretation from the bible arrive? Before or after that?

Isolated

Most if not all of these examples involve current examples of actions taken by a majority of church organizers and leadership over all.

Not to mention the example of opposing women's rights is simple a stance of the church itself, which is again in propagation of furthering human suffering because of it.

How? What rights are women being stripped of?

The catholic church has classically opposed women's rights throughout the world, virtually every kind of women's suffrage was opposed and is still condemned.  From voting rights to equal participation in the church itself, not to mention the roles of women in society.  This would also include the right to abortion.

Nothing about anything above can be described as 'isolated' considering the depth and numbers of people involved in the organization itself which would have overseen these actions.

Oh? This is the first instance I've heard where a 9 year old's abortion causing the abortees to be excommunicated.

It caused a world wide reaction and condemnation just a few months ago.  Regardless of whether you heard about it or not, it is common practice to excommunicate people for abortions or for taking actions the church claims they should not make.

and stupid examples of bad apples rotting the basket.

Then the majority of the catholic church and its philosophy are 'bad' apples.

Personal opinion.

You just cited all of the behavior as examples of 'bad apples', it is obviously you're opinion as well.  The issue is that this easily describes the majority of church organizers.  The problem is that catholic ideology and religious philosophy in general is so poor that it uses any number of tautologies to avoid taking responsibility.  It is really all about dictating authoritarian values and then blaming the victims when it back fires.

You know better.

You havn't made a case that anything above is a faulty analogy, you instead engaged in special pleading and generally ignored much of the post as is common for you.

The case is simple. One time events are being cast in the light of commonplace by you. End of discussion, chump.

Opposition to women's rights, increasing the suffering of human beings, helping the spread of disease, and generally dictating baseless authoritarian values is not 'isolated'.  Nothing about these can be described as 'one time' events.

Another deeper concern here is that the philosophy itself ( like most religious claims ) work in the manner of tautologies that only serve to avoid responsibility.  It is common to shuffle the problems under the rug and avoid transparency, even to the point of being belligerent or incriminating the victim as happened with many individuals who sought legal action against church organizers for sexual abuse.

Except that Catholic priests are now stereotyped as pedophiles. But oh, that's ok. It's a fair trade, right?

The church itself is trying to place blame on homosexuality when no such research has ever demonstrated such a correlation and in fact demonstrates either the opposite or that we should be more concerned with heterosexuals pedophiles them homosexual.  It is fair trade to treat the church exactly how it treats others.

We can also add the opposition of human rights to the Catholic church.

[ThePhilosopher]

But it is in the church's prerogative to deem infidelity, promiscuity and hedonism incorrect - hence there would be no need for prophylactics if there was no initial immorality. The "end user" is therefore responsible - not the church.

That is simply ignorance of human nature and the attempt to dictate authoritarian control of sex.  It is also the propagation of lies based the idea that prophylactics need be opposed, they don't have an actual logical or rational reason to oppose prophylactics so they instead lie and try to encourage fear of them instead.

it is in human nature to be jealous of something one doesnt have. does that mean that laws against stealing should be removed due to 'ignorance of human nature?' the case is this, it is our job to rise above our natures and selfish wants, not just accept them as part of our nature and move on.
there is logical reasoning against the use of prophylactics, and the best way to show this is by the fruit prophylactics and premarital sex reap. first off, sex is to make love and reproduce, its in its nature, and we cannot isolate one from the other simply because it suits us and our pleasures. tell me, do you honestly see prophylactics as a good thing? can you say with completel honesty that you support premarital sex?

The inevitable conclusion is the spread of human suffering and disease, to people who engage in sex and those that are entirely non-participatory such as children.

there would be no suffering or disesae if the people obeyed the laws against premarital sex in the first place. why should the church 'accept human nature' and deem abortion and prophylactics as good and allowed, simply because the majority will do it anyway?

When did it become ok to contribute to actions to further human suffering?

meaningless. the church does not further human suffering. humans further human suffering and then want annulment for their actions that caused the problems in the first place.

When did it become ok to lie about something in order to encourage fear?

'to lie about something in order to encourage fear'...
what did the church lie about? that premarital sex is wrong?

[Grimm]

'to lie about something in order to encourage fear'...
what did the church lie about? that premarital sex is wrong?

Why, for someone outside of your faith - meaning, someone who doesn't believe the Bible has any authority - is (responsible) premarital sex wrong?

Now I'm terribly curious. 

I'm not terribly certain you understand the core principles underlying the concept of liberty, and given that they're key to any Western democracy, if you're going to start talking about laws in any sense, you really should start there.  Let me offer you a very quick introduction.  Try this:  http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

[ThePhilosopher]

'to lie about something in order to encourage fear'...
what did the church lie about? that premarital sex is wrong?

Why, for someone outside of your faith - meaning, someone who doesn't believe the Bible has any authority - is (responsible) premarital sex wrong?

ah what's that 'responsible' doing there?
sex is naturally to make love and to reproduce.
if someone is having sex premaritally, do they 'love' the partner? and if so, why dont they marry them?
and if they dont love them, they wont want to have kids with them, so they will use prophylactics. now, the sex is no longer ot make love, nor to reproduce, it is solely for the selfish pleasure of each individual party.
now we can argue, that maybe this is not wrong, if we take god out of the picture, maybe sex really doesnt matter to be for reproduction and love only. okay, well now what fruit does that mentality towards sex reap?
 high abortion rates? high divorce rates? high teenage pregnancy rates?
tell me, what good can be reaped from this mentality?
freedom?
there is no such thing as freedom from consequences. you can aspire to be as sexually free as you want, but have fun scrubbing green discharges from your left pantleg.

Now I'm terribly curious. 

I'm not terribly certain you understand the core principles underlying the concept of liberty, and given that they're key to any Western democracy, if you're going to start talking about laws in any sense, you really should start there.  Let me offer you a very quick introduction.  Try this:  http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

liberty
liberty from consequences?
it wont happen, i tell your right now.
and also, i never said that there should be laws against premarital sex.

EDIT: to add, whose talking about laws? im talking about morality, not about societal standards.

[Omen]

That is simply ignorance of human nature and the attempt to dictate authoritarian control of sex.  It is also the propagation of lies based the idea that prophylactics need be opposed, they don't have an actual logical or rational reason to oppose prophylactics so they instead lie and try to encourage fear of them instead.

it is in human nature to be jealous of something one doesnt have.

Human nature can be described along any lengths of behavior humans participate in, including socially cooperative behaviors.

does that mean that laws against stealing should be removed due to 'ignorance of human nature?'

The analogy is obviously different, theft is inevitably having a harmful effect on someone else and the very definition of theft implies that something is being taken from someone else against their will.

The condemnation of prophylactics has no similar correlation or association to the analogy.  It is used in an action between consenting parties rather then one party enacting their will against another non-participating party.  In fact, the actual condemnation of prophylactics has nothing to do with human ethics itself, the only way it could possibly be claimed to be part of human ethics is to insist from an authoritarian position that it need be believed as if it is so.

the case is this, it is our job to rise above our natures and selfish wants, not just accept them as part of our nature and move on.

It doesn't relate to anything I've stated or the situation being described.

there is logical reasoning against the use of prophylactics, and the best way to show this is by the fruit prophylactics and premarital sex reap. first off, sex is to make love and reproduce, its in its nature, and we cannot isolate one from the other simply because it suits us and our pleasures.

Irrelevant.  Why would you dictate from an baseless authoritarian position that we can't separate love and reproduction?

You just stated that there is a logical reason, then you went about simply making up assertions that you offer no explanation for.

tell me, do you honestly see prophylactics as a good thing? can you say with completel honesty that you support premarital sex?

Sex is sex.  Marriage is irrelevant.

This is simply a special pleading appeal, you didn't make a case in the first few statements then you simply make this appeal that has no more explanation then the prior.

Where did this logical reasoning go? When did you even start?!?

The inevitable conclusion is the spread of human suffering and disease, to people who engage in sex and those that are entirely non-participatory such as children.

there would be no suffering or disesae if the people obeyed the laws against premarital sex in the first place.

False.  STD's can easily spread with or without sexual intercourse and even to your children.  They can also spread with or without marriage since marriage is nothing more then a subjective social contract and not a magical shield.  You also have no ability to make this assertion in itself, since you have absolutely nothing to base it upon.

Not to mention that your entire reasoning would be moot if there were no disease.  Are you saying that you'd be ok with pre-marital sex in a disease free world?

why should the church 'accept human nature' and deem abortion and prophylactics as good and allowed, simply because the majority will do it anyway?

Begging the question; since when was it bad?

Again, as I've stated before, you're arguing from a presuppositional authoritarian position.  When asked to justify or validate your claim, you inevitably make statements and appeals as if anything you claimed was presumed to be true to any/all parties.

I must also, lovingly, point out that the manner in which the church condemns prophylactics involves actually lying about prophylactics in order to inspire fear/terror in a populace.  Irregardless if you think something is acceptable or not, even if it is a baseless authoritarian position - when did it become ok to lie?

When did it become ok to contribute to actions to further human suffering?

meaningless. the church does not further human suffering.   humans further human suffering

And the tautology begins.

It doesn't matter if the church had a stance saying torture human beings for not believing or lie about prophylactics, in either case you could always respond by saying,"The church does not further human suffering.  Humans further human suffering.."

The church is human, humans are the church.

and then want annulment for their actions that caused the problems in the first place.

Annulment for commandments that have nothing to do with human ethics, that only further human suffering, and generally are so baseless that they need not even be believed before hand.  Its a convenient place to be, dictating what is right or wrong but never being responsible when it doesn't work.

When did it become ok to lie about something in order to encourage fear?

'to lie about something in order to encourage fear'...
what did the church lie about? that premarital sex is wrong?

Religious organizations frequently lie to further political goals; whether it is lying about homosexuals, prophylactics, gay marriage, abortions, or non-christians ( or non religious people of whatever religion ).  It was common practice to lie about prophylactics by understating their potential at reducing pregnancies, insisting that they don't stop disease at all, or were the evil conspiracy of white men throughout africa.

[OldChurchGuy]

This is the most bizarre thing I have found with debating theists (mainly Christians which will be the focus of this thread, although I have met one or two Muslims that are guilty of this) , the constantly attempt to claim the moral high ground despite the absolutely immoral passages of the bible which include rape, murder, slavery and ritual human sacrifice and the dehumanisation of the victims of these beliefs, and according to them they get their morals from this book.

This is not limited to philosophy, but history. Religious wars and persecution have killed millions, if not billions over the last 2000 years and yet I struggle to think of an atheist who has blown himself or flown a plane into a building. There is no doubt that there have been atheists who were bad people, Stalin was one of the worst mass murderers in history however he did not slaughter people for his religious beliefs he did it gain and tighten his control over the soviet union by slaughtering political rivals and threats. Monstrous figures however are not limited to atheists, possibly the most infamous mass murderer in history,Hitler, was a Catholic so the argument that atheism produces mass murders is invalid.

The statistical comparisons between western societies show a correlation between high rates of atheism and low crime rates,higher income and better health and education ( This is discussed in detail in Hermes' thread High rates of atheism: low crime, higher pay, better health and education).
 
Statistical analysis of America shows that of people in America's prisons are atheists. That atheists are on average are more affluent, have a higher IQ, lower divorce rates, lower rates of teen pregnancy, lower abortion rates, lower Sexually transmitted infection rates. Yet atheists are accused of being immoral.

My question is this with the overwhelming evidence for Atheists being more productive members of society on average how are theists able to use the "immoral atheists" argument time and time again?

From my perspective, it is easier to claim the moral high ground than it is to listen, think, and examine the beliefs (or non-beliefs) of others.  One runs the risk of having to change a belief or idea if one listens to ideas that may run counter to what one believes to be true.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

[Petey]

From my perspective, it is easier to claim the moral high ground than it is to listen, think, and examine the beliefs (or non-beliefs) of others.  One runs the risk of having to change a belief or idea if one listens to ideas that may run counter to what one believes to be true.

Very wise words.  Well said.

[Positiveaob]

the bible is not a morality guide, as the time difference is too vast.

Morality is timeless, my friend.  If you want to use the bible as your guidebook for life, then you take the good with the bad.  And there is plenty of bad in the bible.

By the way, according to the report commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2004_02_27_JohnJay/index.html#prev2), more than 4,600 priests have been accused of child sexual abuse.  Not exactly a few isolated instances.

[Confused.com]

the bible is not a morality guide, as the time difference is too vast.

Morality is timeless, my friend.  If you want to use the bible as your guidebook for life, then you take the good with the bad.  And there is plenty of bad in the bible.

By the way, according to the report commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2004_02_27_JohnJay/index.html#prev2), more than 4,600 priests have been accused of child sexual abuse.  Not exactly a few isolated instances.

Just to reinforce your point..
This definitely helps me in choosing which religion I would never let my kids become a part of if they ever chose that route.

[Grimm]

ah what's that 'responsible' doing there?

Responsibility for one's own actions is a fundamental part of adulthood.  Irresponsible action - meaning someone who sloughs off responsibility for their own activity - is a wholly different issue, and I'm making an attempt to separate the two.

If we're talking about an action taken between two responsible adults, that's vastly different than your apparent belief that premarital sex involves running around putting reproductive organs in, on, or around anything approximating their opposite on a whim or without forethought.

sex is naturally to make love and to reproduce.

... okay.  I will give you that definition, as far as it goes, but I question your source that allows you to stop there.  Meaning - most sociologists would certainly concede those two points, but would add a slew of others that are common in our society.  You make this assertion from feeling, not from authority - and that makes it baseless, though it does show your own, personal perspective.

Personal perspective =/= absolute truth.

if someone is having sex premaritally, do they 'love' the partner? and if so, why dont they marry them?
and if they dont love them, they wont want to have kids with them, so they will use prophylactics. now, the sex is no longer ot make love, nor to reproduce, it is solely for the selfish pleasure of each individual party.
now we can argue, that maybe this is not wrong, if we take god out of the picture, maybe sex really doesnt matter to be for reproduction and love only. okay, well now what fruit does that mentality towards sex reap?
 high abortion rates? high divorce rates? high teenage pregnancy rates?
tell me, what good can be reaped from this mentality?

Well... let's take God out of the picture, shall we?

By way of http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm - as part of the summary:

Barna's results verified findings of earlier polls: that conservative Protestant Christians, on average, have the highest divorce rate, while mainline Christians have a much lower rate. They found some new information as well: that atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rate of all.  George Barna commented that the results raise "questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families." The data challenge "the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriage."

Well, that's divorce.  Howabout abortion rates?  From a summarized commentary from http://bhascience.blogspot.com/2008/10/religion-and-abortion-facts.html:

So, what can we conclude from this? Yes, countries that are more religious do indeed have higher abortion rates, and it's probable that this is because when the religious get hold of the reins of power they introduce policies that lead to more abortion (usually highly dangerous illegal abortions). Why? Because the best way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies. And the best way to do that is high quality sex eduction and easy access to contraception.

Woah.  Really?  (feel free to peruse the deeper links!  It's all interesting stuff.)

Teen pregnancy - check out http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/07/ap/health/main4703826.shtml - January of this year.  Of especial interest is the list of the states that have the highest teen pregnancy rates - every last one is part of the bastion of Conservative Christianity:

Do I really need to keep going?

freedom?
there is no such thing as freedom from consequences. you can aspire to be as sexually free as you want, but have fun scrubbing green discharges from your left pantleg.

Of course there's no freedom from consequence!   Not even the consequence of believing in abstinence-only sex-ed, encouraging kids to marry young, and.. oh, any number of other things.

liberty
liberty from consequences?
it wont happen, i tell your right now.
and also, i never said that there should be laws against premarital sex.

EDIT: to add, whose talking about laws? im talking about morality, not about societal standards.

First - did you even see the link?  Liberty is not about freedom from consequence - it's about responsibility - that's something of the point.    As for the latter.. what do you think morality is, if not societal standards?  Morality comes from responsibility, and responsibility is the core of liberty, as a concept.

You are speaking solely from belief, without evidence.  If what you say is true, Christians should (as a whole!) have lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy, lower abortion rates, and so on, so forth, ad infinitum - they have precisely the opposite, as has been proved dozens of times over.

What does that mean for your standard?  Could it be that the standard you espouse leads straight to these ideas when it intersects the real world?

[ChristChex]

I'm not really sure exactly what you mean "claim the moral high ground?"

How so?
I'm not defending the Christians you supposedly spoke to but honestly try not to past judgement. I'll try to stick to the heart to this mainly 'did G-d condone evil upon people in the old estimate? i will say no

Evil- morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; (dictionary.com) God is not morally obligated to keep me or anyone alive. It's that simple! what most, that bring this point, ignore is that this was a judgement brought to those people. The real question is, was it just? and honestly i don't know. the rape is only extrapolated from the text; Slavery? Exodus is a book contrary to that claim. Please, lets not judge a philosophy by its miss use. Christianity wasn't what drove Hitler to commit evil as neither Stalin's disbelieve "caused" him to do so. What i find odd is why can make excuses for Stalin? Is it because there is a philosophical overlap between you and him? i don't get it. You forgot to mention one statistic...higher suicide rates.

[12 Monkeys]

in response to the OP.
there is not a single error in the morality that is advocated by the catholic church.
all of its 'rules' flow logically and are impossible to be honestly deemed as incorrect.

Well of course, tautologies work like that.  However, in reality propagating myths about sexuality and generally condemning the use of prophylactics encourages human suffering through the spread of disease.  It is of course, not in the church's prerogative to care about that so it cannot be deemed 'incorrect'. 

But it is in the church's prerogative to deem infidelity, promiscuity and hedonism incorrect - hence there would be no need for prophylactics if there was no initial immorality. The "end user" is therefore responsible - not the church.

Just like it can't be deemed 'incorrect' to shuffle child molesters from one flock of preyed upon children to the next, hide predators to avoid prosecution, hide documents to avoid legal actions, and move individuals over seas to avoid likely incrimination.  Not to mention holding onto age old antiquities that belong to other cultural beliefs or generally fighting against the only thing known to work against poverty ( women's rights ).  My favorite is excommunicating church members because a 9 year old girl is raped by her father and they performed an abortion because the pregnancy was a threat to her life.  Btw, the father was/is not excommunicated.  Oh yah, can't forget they are setting on the fruits of over a thousand years of genocide, war, inquisition, and totaltalitarian rules - is it ok to profit from that?  When did the 'perfect' interpretation from the bible arrive? Before or after that?

Isolated and stupid examples of bad apples rotting the basket. You know better.

These are NOT isolated to a few bad apples...........everyone who ran the churches from the top down had to be involved in the conspiracy to get away with it. Very few of the guilty have ever been charged with ANY crime,you can bet if it was your uncle charlie diddling little boys in the schoolyard near his house the same churchies whom conspired  would be leading a brigade of followers to string him up

[nogodsforme]

But it is in the church's prerogative to deem infidelity, promiscuity and hedonism incorrect - hence there would be no need for prophylactics if there was no initial immorality. The "end user" is therefore responsible - not the church.

That is simply ignorance of human nature and the attempt to dictate authoritarian control of sex.  It is also the propagation of lies based the idea that prophylactics need be opposed, they don't have an actual logical or rational reason to oppose prophylactics so they instead lie and try to encourage fear of them instead.

it is in human nature to be jealous of something one doesnt have. does that mean that laws against stealing should be removed due to 'ignorance of human nature?' the case is this, it is our job to rise above our natures and selfish wants, not just accept them as part of our nature and move on.
there is logical reasoning against the use of prophylactics, and the best way to show this is by the fruit prophylactics and premarital sex reap. first off, sex is to make love and reproduce, its in its nature, and we cannot isolate one from the other simply because it suits us and our pleasures. tell me, do you honestly see prophylactics as a good thing? can you say with completel honesty that you support premarital sex?

The inevitable conclusion is the spread of human suffering and disease, to people who engage in sex and those that are entirely non-participatory such as children.

there would be no suffering or disesae if the people obeyed the laws against premarital sex in the first place. why should the church 'accept human nature' and deem abortion and prophylactics as good and allowed, simply because the majority will do it anyway?

When did it become ok to contribute to actions to further human suffering?

meaningless. the church does not further human suffering. humans further human suffering and then want annulment for their actions that caused the problems in the first place.

When did it become ok to lie about something in order to encourage fear?

'to lie about something in order to encourage fear'...
what did the church lie about? that premarital sex is wrong?

Did you miss this? Atheists are doing exactly what you claim you want people to do, staying married, having fewer abortions and teen pregnancies, fewer diseases. Without god or religion. The more religious people have way higher rates of all the things you think are bad: divorce, STD's etc. What does that tell you? Nothing you want to hear.....

Statistical analysis of America shows that 10% of Americans are atheist yet only 0.25% of people in America's prisons are atheists. That atheists are on average are more affluent, have a higher IQ, lower divorce rates, lower rates of teen pregnancy, lower abortion rates, lower Sexually transmitted infection rates. Yet atheists are accused of being immoral.

[gonegolfing]

From my perspective, it is easier to claim the moral high ground than it is to listen, think, and examine the beliefs (or non-beliefs) of others.  One runs the risk of having to change a belief or idea if one listens to ideas that may run counter to what one believes to be true.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

I'm certainly glad that this is your perspective and not your position OCG  

This is the bizarre nature of the theist however. They have the idea in their minds that they have the superior morality because of course they are aligned with what they believe to be the giver of absolute morality ...god. Yet as stated in the OP, the real data says different, and shows people of unbelief to be on, at the very least, equal footing with them with regards to morality. How can that be !? The theists claim to higher morality should be able to be backed up with evidence and yet the evidence that we have and see states very clearly otherwise.

The answer to this is that theists are amoral. Yes, that's correct, they lack personal moral sense, and have willfully given over the capacity to judge, of their own volition, the rightness or wrongness of something to the moral absolutes of religion. This is irrational. It has become an instinct in us to be a moral species, and so this amorality is accomplished by giving over their moral faculties to a religious philosophy. This is ridiculous behaviour and is simply an irrational response to the uncertainties of their existence, their fear of our species, the existence of evil, and the problem of suffering.

Since biblegods morality is one of the most atrocious examples of morality that we have seen, and due to the fact that theisms foundation rests on this god, we can expect then that the individual who is not amoral(unbelievers) will generally make better moral judgements than those who have given over this faculty to the doctrines of theism.

I am living proof of better judgements. Can I prove this to you ? No . But I don't need to. I know in my heart of hearts that I'm a more morally correct person since my move away from theism. I honestly believe that there is this twisted mentality in many theists, that due to their god of the second chance they can get all the forgiveness required for their moral failures, and so those failures are more often than not and in fact become habitual to some. Myself being one of them formerly. Faced with a moral choice, and one that is covered clearly by my doctrines, I would many times willfully make the wrong choice thinking that god will unconditionally forgive me after the action was committed. Pathetic ! Hypocritical !

Yet I still thought that I held the higher moral ground over those of nonbelief and who were of better moral character!

Now that's delusional !!

How are theists able to claim the moral high ground?

Clearly they are not.

[screwtape]

sex is naturally to make love and to reproduce.

Reproduction is a possible consequence of it. To say there is reason is to assign meaning where there may be none.  Sex feels good. We are driven by genetics and hormones to do it.  To say much more than that is kind of silly.

And what do you mean by "make love"?  I could be a pill and take that literally and make fun of you, but I'm feeling charitable.  Please clarify.

if someone is having sex premaritally, do they 'love' the partner? and if so, why dont they marry them?

Who cares? and who cares?  To quote the great Tina Turner, what's love got to do with it?  None of that matters.  Do you see chimps getting all uptight about it?  Heck no.  They trade meat for sex.  Quid pro quo. That's right - chimp prostitution.  I wish we were that civilized.  I'd like to plop down a pack of hot dogs in exchange for a hummer.  What a great world that would be.

and if they dont love them, they wont want to have kids with them, so they will use prophylactics. now, the sex is no longer ot make love, nor to reproduce, it is solely for the selfish pleasure of each individual party.

Oh, heaven forbid!  We cannot have people running around indulging in pleasure!  Society will completely break down.

Have you ever had sex?

now we can argue, that maybe this is not wrong, if we take god out of the picture, maybe sex really doesnt matter to be for reproduction and love only. okay, well now what fruit does that mentality towards sex reap?

Orgasms.  Have you ever had one of those (on purpose)?

high abortion rates? high divorce rates? high teenage pregnancy rates?
tell me, what good can be reaped from this mentality?
freedom?

Ha ha.  Grimm and reality drank your milkshake on that point.  You see Phil, you have this habit of posting opinion and fantasies without backing them up with evidence or facts.  When you do that it leads to embarrassing - humiliating even - moments like this.  I sincerely hope you learn from this.  But I don't think you will.

there is no such thing as freedom from consequences. you can aspire to be as sexually free as you want, but have fun scrubbing green discharges from your left pantleg.

Consequences are indeed inescapable. It is funny that you protray sex so negatively.  Are you really that terrified of it?  Someone did a real number on you.

[OldChurchGuy]

From my perspective, it is easier to claim the moral high ground than it is to listen, think, and examine the beliefs (or non-beliefs) of others.  One runs the risk of having to change a belief or idea if one listens to ideas that may run counter to what one believes to be true.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

I'm certainly glad that this is your perspective and not your position OCG  

This is the bizarre nature of the theist however. They have the idea in their minds that they have the superior morality because of course they are aligned with what they believe to be the giver of absolute morality ...god. Yet as stated in the OP, the real data says different, and shows people of unbelief to be on, at the very least, equal footing with them with regards to morality. How can that be !? The theists claim to higher morality should be able to be backed up with evidence and yet the evidence that we have and see states very clearly otherwise.

The answer to this is that theists are amoral. Yes, that's correct, they lack personal moral sense, and have willfully given over the capacity to judge, of their own volition, the rightness or wrongness of something to the moral absolutes of religion. This is irrational. It has become an instinct in us to be a moral species, and so this amorality is accomplished by giving over their moral faculties to a religious philosophy. This is ridiculous behaviour and is simply an irrational response to the uncertainties of their existence, their fear of our species, the existence of evil, and the problem of suffering.

Since biblegods morality is one of the most atrocious examples of morality that we have seen, and due to the fact that theisms foundation rests on this god, we can expect then that the individual who is not amoral(unbelievers) will generally make better moral judgements than those who have given over this faculty to the doctrines of theism.

I am living proof of better judgements. Can I prove this to you ? No . But I don't need to. I know in my heart of hearts that I'm a more morally correct person since my move away from theism. I honestly believe that there is this twisted mentality in many theists, that due to their god of the second chance they can get all the forgiveness required for their moral failures, and so those failures are more often than not and in fact become habitual to some. Myself being one of them formerly. Faced with a moral choice, and one that is covered clearly by my doctrines, I would many times willfully make the wrong choice thinking that god will unconditionally forgive me after the action was committed. Pathetic ! Hypocritical !

Yet I still thought that I held the higher moral ground over those of nonbelief and who were of better moral character!

Now that's delusional !!

How are theists able to claim the moral high ground?

Clearly they are not.

I think the opening reply was a compliment.

Why would it be a problem if my original post were my position?

As always,

OldChurchGuy

[JTW]

But it is in the church's prerogative to deem infidelity, promiscuity and hedonism incorrect - hence there would be no need for prophylactics if there was no initial immorality. The "end user" is therefore responsible - not the church.

That is simply ignorance of human nature and the attempt to dictate authoritarian control of sex.  It is also the propagation of lies based the idea that prophylactics need be opposed, they don't have an actual logical or rational reason to oppose prophylactics so they instead lie and try to encourage fear of them instead.

it is in human nature to be jealous of something one doesnt have. does that mean that laws against stealing should be removed due to 'ignorance of human nature?' the case is this, it is our job to rise above our natures and selfish wants, not just accept them as part of our nature and move on.
there is logical reasoning against the use of prophylactics, and the best way to show this is by the fruit prophylactics and premarital sex reap. first off, sex is to make love and reproduce, its in its nature, and we cannot isolate one from the other simply because it suits us and our pleasures. tell me, do you honestly see prophylactics as a good thing? can you say with completel honesty that you support premarital sex?

How about we ask Omen if he'd knowingly have sex with someone infected with AIDS even if he or they wore a condom?

This issue is about respect and education - neither of which are solved with a piece of thin latex.

[Nam]

People who think they are right in what they believe in, no matter what it is, always believe their morality trumps everyone else's. Just the way of the world. Statistics doesn't mean anything to these people; and what you point out as being immoral to them may be moral in their view or they dismiss it by stating: "different times". Or something as trivial as that.

-Nam

[JTW]

When did it become ok to contribute to actions to further human suffering?

When did it become ok to lie about something in order to encourage fear?

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Irrelevant, an action is being taken that propagates human suffering.  The victim includes both individuals that have sex without using prophylactics and those victims who took no such action.

The church lied about the prophylactics and used fear, to dictate imagined values from a presuppositional authoritarian position.  The obvious problem is that an unnecessary belief is directly causing harm through ignorance and dishonesty.

In effect, you don't get to dictate what is an imagined crime then ignore when you cause suffering because of it because people don't do as you wish.

How? What rights are women being stripped of?

The catholic church has classically opposed women's rights throughout the world, virtually every kind of women's suffrage was opposed and is still condemned.  From voting rights to equal participation in the church itself, not to mention the roles of women in society.  This would also include the right to abortion.

Right to abortion is a right to life issue. Gender is irrelevant. Equal participation in the church itself shouldn't bother you. The church defined the rules of the club - a Patriarchal club. Women know this going into it. They can leave and start their own church if they want.

It caused a world wide reaction and condemnation just a few months ago.  Regardless of whether you heard about it or not, it is common practice to excommunicate people for abortions or for taking actions the church claims they should not make.

Uh, no, I heard about it. I've just never heard about any other instance like it. Perhaps it is common place in developing nations but it's not commonplace in the north western hemisphere or Europe.

Btw, it is common practice to throw people in jail for breaking laws. Do you have problems with that also?

So, being excommunicated is part of the rules of the club. When you break rules you are penalized. I find it ironic that you're opposed to people being "let go" from an organization you deem despicable.

and stupid examples of bad apples rotting the basket.

Then the majority of the catholic church and its philosophy are 'bad' apples.

A couple of bad apples can spoil the basket but the apple itself isn't irreparably marred forever.

You just cited all of the behavior as examples of 'bad apples', it is obviously you're opinion as well.  The issue is that this easily describes the majority of church organizers.  The problem is that catholic ideology and religious philosophy in general is so poor that it uses any number of tautologies to avoid taking responsibility.  It is really all about dictating authoritarian values and then blaming the victims when it back fires.

Child molestation easily describes the majority of church organizers?

Will somebody cut this guys cough syrup supply off please?

Opposition to women's rights, increasing the suffering of human beings, helping the spread of disease, and generally dictating baseless authoritarian values is not 'isolated'.  Nothing about these can be described as 'one time' events.

You have yet to show me the opposition to women's rights and the willful implicit collaboration to increase the suffering of human beings.

The church itself is trying to place blame on homosexuality when no such research has ever demonstrated such a correlation and in fact demonstrates either the opposite or that we should be more concerned with heterosexuals pedophiles them homosexual.  It is fair trade to treat the church exactly how it treats others.

We can also add the opposition of human rights to the Catholic church.

Really? Because all I see are church officials being charged with pedophilia.

[ThePhilosopher]

sex is naturally to make love and to reproduce.

Reproduction is a possible consequence of it. To say there is reason is to assign meaning where there may be none.  Sex feels good. We are driven by genetics and hormones to do it.  To say much more than that is kind of silly.

And what do you mean by "make love"?  I could be a pill and take that literally and make fun of you, but I'm feeling charitable.  Please clarify.

no, reproduction is the purpose of it, the good feeling is a side effect.
and 'make love', i mean that it is the expression of love between a man and a woman.

if someone is having sex premaritally, do they 'love' the partner? and if so, why dont they marry them?

Who cares? and who cares?  To quote the great Tina Turner, what's love got to do with it?  None of that matters.  Do you see chimps getting all uptight about it?  Heck no.  They trade meat for sex.  Quid pro quo. That's right - chimp prostitution.  I wish we were that civilized.  I'd like to plop down a pack of hot dogs in exchange for a hummer.  What a great world that would be.

that would all be dandy if we were chimps.

and if they dont love them, they wont want to have kids with them, so they will use prophylactics. now, the sex is no longer ot make love, nor to reproduce, it is solely for the selfish pleasure of each individual party.

Oh, heaven forbid!  We cannot have people running around indulging in pleasure!  Society will completely break down. [/quote]
i never said there should be societal laws against this...
in terms of morality, its a different story.

high abortion rates? high divorce rates? high teenage pregnancy rates?
tell me, what good can be reaped from this mentality?
freedom?

Ha ha.  Grimm and reality drank your milkshake on that point.  You see Phil, you have this habit of posting opinion and fantasies without backing them up with evidence or facts.  When you do that it leads to embarrassing - humiliating even - moments like this.  I sincerely hope you learn from this.  But I don't think you will.
[/quote]
cant argue with that.
laziness is a problem.

there is no such thing as freedom from consequences. you can aspire to be as sexually free as you want, but have fun scrubbing green discharges from your left pantleg.

Consequences are indeed inescapable. It is funny that you protray sex so negatively.  Are you really that terrified of it?  Someone did a real number on you. [/quote]
sex is great.
but it is not an off-limit ground for morality's intrusion.