XPost: alt.atheism, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
From: Jahnudvip@gamail.com
George Plimpton wrote:
> Usually, yes.
>
> Fuckwit Harrison is talking about "future farm animals" that don't exist
> - at least, they don't exist to any rational thinker. Fuckwit thinks
> they exist "in some sense" and have moral standing and deserve moral
> consideration. He's an idiot for thinking that. You're an idiot for
> thinking he might mean something else.
>
"Those weren't real believers. They just claimed to be believers as some
sort of excuse."
This is rather like the No True Scotsman fallacy.
What makes a real believer? There are so many One True Religions it's
hard to tell. Look at Christianity: there are many competing groups, all
convinced that they are the only true Christians. Sometimes they even
fight and kill each other. How is an atheist supposed to decide who's a
real Christian and who isn't, when even the major Christian churches
like the Catholic Church and the Church of England can't decide amongst
themselves?
In the end, most atheists take a pragmatic view, and decide that anyone
who calls himself a Christian, and uses Christian belief or dogma to
justify his actions, should be considered a Christian. Maybe some of
those Christians are just perverting Christian teaching for their own
ends--but surely if the Bible can be so readily used to support
un-Christian acts it can't be much of a moral code? If the Bible is the
word of God, why couldn't he have made it less easy to misinterpret? And
how do you know that your beliefs aren't a perversion of what your God
intended?
If there is no single unambiguous interpretation of the Bible, then why
should an atheist take one interpretation over another just on your
say-so? Sorry, but if someone claims that he believes in Jesus and that
he murdered others because Jesus and the Bible told him to do so, we
must call him a Christian.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
