Explain that "code of conduct" thing

Religious people - explain that “code of conduct” thing for me again.  You know, how the bible and the ten commandments is supposed to be:

the historical foundation of American law, moral values and code of conduct.

And then explain this:

A 24-year-old ski lift operator who fatally shot the general manager of the Eldora ski area was determined to kill co-workers who weren't Christian, according to court records obtained Thursday.

The documents, filed Wednesday in Boulder District Court, said witnesses told authorities that Derik Bonestroo walked into a building at work, fired a gun into the ceiling and said: "If you're not Christian, you're going to die."

Because from this story, it seems to me that this Christian “code of conduct” is pretty useless.

I’m not saying that most Christians or even many Christians would ever do such a thing.  What I’m saying, is that being Christian, reading your bible, following God, clearly does not make you moral and is clearly not necessary as a “code of conduct” for us to follow.  So, Christians, explain please exactly why I’m wrong here or stop banging on about how atheists are amoral.  Please.

Hat tip to Atheist Revolution.

Comments

[Jeffrey Ellis]

Your premise -- "that being Christian, reading your bible, following God, clearly does not make you moral and is clearly not necessary as a “code of conduct” for us to follow" -- is one that I agree with. And I'm a Christian. There are certainly many, many atheists and agnostics whom I know who have a very well developed personal code of moral conduct.

But this has nothing to do with the example you cite, of some wacko offing a bunch of people in a ski area. He was not following any Christian code of conduct whatsoever, so his actions do not call the Bible or any Christian code of conduct into question.

[[email protected]]

I would agree Jeffrey and I am atheist. The problem here is instanity. He may have been fixated on christianity but it could have been just as easily about Capt Crunch or the superbowl. Either way we cant identify this man with what he says without further information.

[yakaru]

I think you have both missed the point.

Skeptico wrote: "Christians, explain please exactly why I’m wrong here or stop banging on about how atheists are amoral."

That means that those Christians who do not bang on about atheists being amoral have no need to argue here.

[TechSkeptic]

The implication when someone says something like "atheists are immoral because they don't beleive in God", is that being in whatever relgiion they are speaking from will make you moral.

This example, insanity or not, is all that is needed to show that idea is demonstrably wrong. Shall we talk about pedophile priests? Were they insane too? Holocaust deniers? Abortion Clinic Bombers? All insane? Are you just insane if you do something bad to someone? Why can't bad atheists be insane then, instead of lacking god?

Apologies to Mr. Ellis but religion buys you nothing good that you can't have without religion. Its a pretty good mechanism for developing a community, but you can get the same thing from any group or club.

[Jivlain]

But remember, Jeffrey Dahmer was an evilutionist!

[Skemono]

And so is Sylar! He kills because evolution tells him to!

[Pelger]

I'm beginning to think it's useless or pointless to try to argue with religious people, they can't see when something don't make sense, and I'm amazed at the degree of total lack of logic awareness some people have.
I thought there were some things so obious that nobody would ever miss them, but, religious people can't see them.

I've been arguing with somebody that said, "it's the word of god" about the bible. bah, the usual, we've all heard that thousands of times.
I said "can't you see the circular reasoning?. you think god exists because the bible says so and the bible is true because it's the word of god, can't you notice the problem there?", and the reply I got was
"thank god for rational people like you, without you, we wouldn't be able to show the importance of faith and the power of the word of god".
huh?.
I said "ok, what 'word'?:
'don't kill' or
'kill your son so I'll be pleased' and 'destroy a whole city and kill everything that moves so I'll be pleased'?.
besides, of what god?, zeus,thor,ra,the cuco of the forest, the yuyu-juju of the lake?.
you see, as richard dawkings says, you are an atheist too, I just go one step further".

gee,let's see what kind of non-reply that doesn't adress my points I'll get next...

my point here is "sometims it's a lost case", as much as we point out the unfair stuff, the irrational stuff, the totally broken morals, they'll never get it.
it's like they are missing some sense or the ability to "see a color" or something like that.
who knows, maybe religion is the side effect of a problem in the "hardware" (lack of some neuro-transmitter?, an area of the brain with the electro-chemistry unbalanced? plain brain damage?)
and not just a "software problem" (stupidity).

anyway, keep up the good work on your blog, and greetings to all the regular posters here, (I read since a long time ago but I don't participate that much)

[TechSkeptic]

pelger,

you are right. Some people won't change their mind. And often, because they will not let evidence change their mind, they assume that evidence or reasoning won't change yours either.

I am often of mixed feelings about arguing with people like that. The thing is, the only mind you can change are the ones "on the fence", the people who truly know that they don't know something and are asking you, or looking around for evidence on their own. Thats how I got here in the first place. I was looking for stuff about The Secret when my sister started getting interested in it.

So its good, that this stuff is here and out there, and linkable and only sites and blogs like these, that back up their statements with evidence are useful.

Sounds like you are having an e-mail dialog with someone. I have a friend who I do this with also. He is diametrically opposed to me in virtually every way. Relgious, conservative, global warming denier, etc. In my conversations with him, I have learned a lot and have changed my mind on a couple of things: Nukes in general, and the real (lack of) dangers of DDT. When I asked him what he has changed his mind on....he could not come up with anything.

Perhaps I am a bad debater (while I certainly am not the best, I truly doubt this was the reason). When I ask for evidence for a claim, I usually do not get a followup email.

But I like the conversation because I learn, and I learn what 'they' are thinking. I have learned that families pass the utter fear of anything socialist from parent to child, as if the paradigm is evil not the people who have implemented it in the past. I have learned that Fox news isn't evil, its simply feeding on an untapped market of conspiracy theorists and die hard religionists.

I like to blog. I thought I would quit because it started to seem useless for the reasons that you posted above.

However, if you or anyone searches for "atheist charities" you'll find me right at the top of the list, debunking the idea that there are no atheist charities immediately.

I write other posts hoping to make it available for people searching for answers. As for the people who will ignore my posts? Well thats the same thing as would happen if they weren't their anyway.

Anyway, your best hope is to plant seeds of doubt. Plant the tools to help them recognize logical fallacies, get caught in some of your own.

Finally, if you don't think its fun, if you don't get enjoyment out of these conversations. Don't do it. I often think I would be happier if I could unlearn many things I now know about human beings.

[Pelger]

hey thanks for the reply!.
the fact is I tend to get annoyed and irritated very easily, so debating these kind of things is fun and "feels like the right thing to do", sometimes it gets to a point where it's frustrating :(

ps: nowadays I'm arguing in a forum with a guy that keeps saying that both The Beatles and Guns and Roses were BOYBANDS LIKE NSYNC AND BACKSTREET BOYS!!!. aaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh. and he's serious, really, he's not making fun of me.......... the guy actually believes that....
ok, he also believes the real paul mccartney was replaced because he died either in an accident or in a ritual to please the "imaginary friend" of alistair crowley...
(aka the devil), without any evidence of course. and when I ask for evidence, the guy and others that believe the nonsense, pretend that it's my duty to prove that paul mccartney is alive. huh...... I tryed to explain them the "burden of proof" concept, but I failed miserably. I offered an absurd example,
"it's the same as me saying that I have a pet hiposaurus that likes to sing 'helter skelter', it would be my duty to offer the evidence and not a zoologist and biologist task to prove that hiposaurus don't exist, let alone sing Beatles songs", but it's pointless.

anyway, I'm kinda going out of topic, sorry for the rant.
Before I go... in some way I agree that you have to give the chance to people in the fance, so, somebody has to make the information avaiable so those people that can evaluate things and think for themselves and are not blinded by dogmas, can get informed.
but most of the time, the "indoctrination" and social,comunity and family pressures are too strong.
too bad.

[TechSkeptic]

I have found going through thisexercise with people who do not understand burden of proof helps. Yeah, its similar to your hiposaurus. But it is important to add at the end, that they need to imagine what happens if you have the power to legislate, imprision or kill and you make choices about these things based on what the dragon says or what you think the dragon says.

[Chris]

Another example like this just happened in my hometown where a religous fanatic rammed his blazer into an abortion clinic. On one hand the driver was was preaching the sanctity of life, but on the other he's more than willing cause bodily harm to a doctor and his patients. I just don't get how someone can be so blinded by faith that they're willing to throw away reason.

[anon]

"But it is important to add at the end, that they need to imagine what happens if you have the power to legislate, imprision or kill and you make choices about these things based on what the dragon says or what you think the dragon says."

Many people think the "world view" referred to here would not be any kind of impediment for politicians to attain a rational understanding of any issue and act in a manner both effective and efficient as possible.

For example, see "The Shy Minister" recently posted at JREF.

Le Grand Fromage Pour Technologie et Science du Canada may very well be a Creationist Doctor of Chiropracty/Acupuncture.

Or evangelical like the PM - the science cheese has only declared to be Christian, and so could be anywhere on the woo-a-tron.

Even without the religious aspect, this guy would fall in line with adding more pseudoscience to the ever shrinking purse for research and healthcare - wasting money and resources in both the public or private sectors.

How their decisions aren't coloured by woo to some degree is beyond me.

Adding religion can only increase the chances of this.

How does a Creationist remove the filter of Creationism when considering environmental issues?

Even among non religious people, logic and reason are eschewed, denigrated even in favour of fervour for their favourite brand of woo (or political party). In the next breath, logic is used by this same believer to skewer some other form of woo they consider too fictional for faith.

Many consider changing one's mind to indicate a windblown wishy-washy flip-floppiness of thought, a personal weakness if not somewhat feminine.

Thankfully there are those like yourself

I find dealing with the "corrosive idiocy" loses the fun factor rather quickly.

I once posted several links to sites like this one that easily debunked the original topic and even where the goalposts had been moved in response to questions I was asked by woosapiens. These sites all link to all kinds of like minded places, of course.

A woosapien responded that reliance on logic and reason equals loneliness