The more I read stuff from these reformed apologists, the more suspicious of them I become. For instance, when they ask questions like, "why is it immoral or wrong to hurt someone," or, "how do you know that it's immoral or wrong to hurt someone else for no reason," or questions to that effect, could it be that they are truly, genuinely in the dark on this? Could it be that these people are actually lacking in sympathy, empathy, or what we call a "conscience"?
Based on a passage from his "Professional Morons" (which is in a pdf document and I couldn't figure out how to quote from it, but I can link to it), I gather that Mr. Vincent Cheung really doesn't have any idea why a non-believer might consider it to be morally wrong to hurt another person for no reason. Cheung, and people like him, cannot seem to fathom why an atheist would be compelled to treat his fellow human being with decency and care, because the atheist isn't getting anything out of the deal, at least nothing that the religious fanatic can see or understand.
Maybe it doesn't bother the religious fanatic to observe a fellow human being in pain, causes him no unease whatsoever? This would go a long way in explaining why some of the extremely zealous theists, such as the Dominionists or Christian Reconstructionists, have no problem whatsoever with biblical atrocities. It doesn't bother them to think of millions of people being drowned in a flood, or of God's armies ruthlessly slaughtering their enemies, or of babies' heads being dashed against the stones, or of people having excrement spread on their faces, or of millions of people being damned for eternity; and it could also explain why some of these extremists would have no problem with executing people for various infractions, or why a few of them even advocate stonings.
What rational person with a healthy conscience could condone lobbing rocks at human beings until they die? For whatever reason? I wouldn't be able to kill someone by throwing rocks at them even if they had murdered my wife and children. I might want them to die, but not that way. I wouldn't even kill a toad that way, let alone a human being.
I think that maybe we need to come to terms with what we might be dealing with: intelligent people with no conscience, people who do not intuitively or instinctively know right from wrong, but whose idea of right and wrong, or moral and immoral, comes purely from a book. Maybe for this kind of religious zealot, killing an innocent person isn't wrong because it's repugnant to his conscience, to his basic sensitivities as a human being, it's wrong because it's an offense to God, and that's the only reason he needs; moreover, it's the only reason he feels entitled to have.
It's really no wonder, in light of this, that religious fanatics through out the ages have been capable of such brutality and cruelty. Perhaps because, in large part, they have no moral sense, they have no conscience? Because all they understand is obedience and force? And perhaps all of of their arguments are essentially grounded in one simple, scriptural premise: that everyone else is just as morally bankrupt as they are?
Based on a passage from his "Professional Morons" (which is in a pdf document and I couldn't figure out how to quote from it, but I can link to it), I gather that Mr. Vincent Cheung really doesn't have any idea why a non-believer might consider it to be morally wrong to hurt another person for no reason. Cheung, and people like him, cannot seem to fathom why an atheist would be compelled to treat his fellow human being with decency and care, because the atheist isn't getting anything out of the deal, at least nothing that the religious fanatic can see or understand.
Maybe it doesn't bother the religious fanatic to observe a fellow human being in pain, causes him no unease whatsoever? This would go a long way in explaining why some of the extremely zealous theists, such as the Dominionists or Christian Reconstructionists, have no problem whatsoever with biblical atrocities. It doesn't bother them to think of millions of people being drowned in a flood, or of God's armies ruthlessly slaughtering their enemies, or of babies' heads being dashed against the stones, or of people having excrement spread on their faces, or of millions of people being damned for eternity; and it could also explain why some of these extremists would have no problem with executing people for various infractions, or why a few of them even advocate stonings.
What rational person with a healthy conscience could condone lobbing rocks at human beings until they die? For whatever reason? I wouldn't be able to kill someone by throwing rocks at them even if they had murdered my wife and children. I might want them to die, but not that way. I wouldn't even kill a toad that way, let alone a human being.
I think that maybe we need to come to terms with what we might be dealing with: intelligent people with no conscience, people who do not intuitively or instinctively know right from wrong, but whose idea of right and wrong, or moral and immoral, comes purely from a book. Maybe for this kind of religious zealot, killing an innocent person isn't wrong because it's repugnant to his conscience, to his basic sensitivities as a human being, it's wrong because it's an offense to God, and that's the only reason he needs; moreover, it's the only reason he feels entitled to have.
It's really no wonder, in light of this, that religious fanatics through out the ages have been capable of such brutality and cruelty. Perhaps because, in large part, they have no moral sense, they have no conscience? Because all they understand is obedience and force? And perhaps all of of their arguments are essentially grounded in one simple, scriptural premise: that everyone else is just as morally bankrupt as they are?
No comments:
Post a Comment