Quote:
Andrew66 wrote
I think you spelled ethics incorrectly.
My challenge to your statement is...
For the most part (for most ethics) a Christian can also be a Humanist (i.e. there is no reason a Christian can also base his/her actions by empathy and social conscience) - but the "Christian" type Humanist is even more inclined to do so consistently because of the carrot and stick as you mentioned.
The converse is not true - assuming the Humanist is an Atheist (probably what you were implying), Humanist on a bad day can choose to be an asshole, without sequale.
|
On the contrary, any human (Humanist or otherwise) who does not suffer from some form of profound mental or social impairment is also an innate consequentialist therefore sequelae abound for anyone with even basic empathy and a social conscience.
I'm sure christers have their bad days and fuck me can they be real assholes too. The main difference I see here is that they might ask their imaginary friend for forgiveness +/- the person that was wronged whereas a non-religious human being with empathy and a social conscience is likely to seek forgiveness only in the real world from the person who was wronged.
Your response seems like a slimy way of trying really hard to say that "oh yes, we're just like you, only better," but it also makes it seem as though you have a less than adequate knowledge of human beings, their psychology and how we act socially. Functional human / societal ethics existed long before your religion and are part of what got us all here as a species yet religions seem all too happy to gloss over this and claim some sort of supremacy.
Your view seems to be one that has somehow forgotten these aspects of our humanity and tried to bolt an extra bit on that you think is more important.