Yuyutsu
,
“If you manage to convince Runner that he is not accountable to a creator and as a result he starts robbing, raping and killing people, that harm will be upon your head.”

Or would you bear guilt for putting the ideas into his head?

Those negative actions are not within the normal operating range of the average person. Are you suggesting that runner is operating outside the normal range and is a psychopath controlled only by his fear of a god?

Should anyone who is attempting to make positive change in society only work to the lowest common denominator just in case the scenario you have outlined happens?

I see no evidence for such an assertion by the way, I just see ‘a very naughty boy’.

David

Dear George,

I went back to the article. The author wrote: “We do want our fellow citizens to respect our deeply held conviction that the absence of an afterlife lends a greater, not a lesser, moral importance to our actions on earth.”

I see no reason that you should respect that belief. It is counter to what you believe. I repeat:

The verb, respect, in my dictionary has two meanings, to esteem or have regard for.

I see no reason for you to esteem my views in the matter of the afterlife and the degree to the moral importance it leads to our actions on earth. I also see no reason for you to regard my views to inform yours in the matter of the afterlife and the degree to the moral importance it leads to our actions on earth. I think the author made an unreasonable request.

Your posts are generally well reasoned and indicate that you are a caring and thoughtful individual. I respect you. However, I also believe that one of the hallmarks of civilisation is the ability to get along in friendship and peace with others some of whose ideas we do not respect.

I also set a high value on honesty although I will on occasion lie if I am asked by another person if they or their clothing look good. In discussing ideas I try to maintain a rigourous honesty unless it will cost me a punch in the nose. I do not expect you to respect all of my ideas, and I will not respect all of your ideas.

I will be civil and treat all of your statements with attention and courtesy, but there will be some that I do not respect.

David F,
How do you define civilisation?I'll presume you are referring to "Western" civilisation because as we see before us every day all of the other civilisations on the planet have radically different strutures.
Liberalism and European enlightenment belief systems are the bedrock of 21st century "Western" society and they're anything but tolerant of diverse opinions. "Tolerance" ie a supposedly unanimous, unspoken pact to respect the rights of others while still asserting one's own right to critique the convictions of those others isn't truly respectful of diversity or liberty. Criticism of another's convictions, even when framed in abstract or general terms still undermines their liberty as surely as a direct confrontation might, this logic after all is the underlying rationale underlying so called "hate speech" laws, is it not?

Someone that has never lied has probably never told the truth either.

Dear David,

<<Or would you bear guilt for putting the ideas into his head?>>

Why be guilty if those ideas help him and make him happy?

<<Are you suggesting that runner is operating outside the normal range and is a psychopath controlled only by his fear of a god?>>

I don't know Runner personally, but such things happened before, so statistically if you pull the support off a large enough number of people, one of them is likely to snap. More likely however, on the "normal" range, he will become depressed and may commit suicide, start taking drugs, gamble, neglect his job or mistreat his wife and children.

<<Should anyone who is attempting to make positive change in society only work to the lowest common denominator just in case the scenario you have outlined happens?>>

Establishing a single belief-system is not a positive change in society. It's not a question of "high" or "low", but of suitability: different people require different belief-systems.

Your particular religious path is atheism and it seems to work for you (it mostly suits intellectual type of people and is not an easy one), but surely you can name others who were unsuited to this path and the kind of discipline it requires, who have abused atheism and taken to crime (not necessarily major crimes, perhaps just tax avoidance and such), selfishness, greed, or are simply unhappy and unfulfilled as a result.

Hi David
'As an example: In Uganda at the moment there is a push to bring in the death penalty for homosexual acts. Millions of people throughout the world have objected to that view by petition. The views of those attempting to initiate such a foul act should not be respected.'

Of course we should object to views that invite harm or impinge on the rights of others no matter their origins, but I expect the vast majority of Christians and those of other religions would also object to the killing of homosexuals in Uganda.

When religion is used as the excuse to kill we should speak out however killing is not condoned by Christians. Religion, culture, level of education, economic wellbeing - all these factors intermingled point to the basis for some of these poorer decisions.