Well wouldn’t you say that there are things that could be “good for our tribe” but morally wrong? With “good for our tribe” I mean that the tribe is more likely to flourish and less likely to go extinct…….
Yes. It depends on how one frames "our tribe." If our tribe is the tree of life, then nothing done in furtherance of that tribe, life, can be called immoral. Likewise, if the tribe is the family of man, although certain offenses against the beasts in furtherance of human interests might be deemed immoral, such as eating animals, or how they're raised and slaughtered. If the tribe is one's country, one can commit moral offenses against neighboring countries as Russia has done recently.
But let's not get too far astray here. If I recall correctly, your thesis was that morality could not arise naturalistically from amoral matter. I don't want to get lost in the bushes discussing what we each consider moral or immoral.
But we do have evidence that:
1 Jesus was alive at some point in time (X)
2 Jesus died at some Point in time(Y)
3 Jesus was alive at some Point time (Z)
4 Y predates Z
With evidence I mean that we have multiple independent sources corroborating each if the 4 points , this type of evidence is enough to grant any fact form ancient history, if you want to make an arbitrary exception with the resurrection go ahead, but why should I?
We've had this discussion at length in the past, when I told you that the evidence believers (including you) offer for biblical resurrection is not sufficient to justify belief. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. All believers have are words, just like with the flood story. I reject that you or anybody else have established that Jesus was dead at some point Y and alive at some point Z several days later. Why are we returning to that? Isn't this discussion about the possibility of the naturalistic evolution of a moral faculty in man from premoral life forms?
In the end children have to be part of our lives, we were one and our experiences can teach others, I see why some choose not to, it is a great responsibility and challenge, it requires one to give of much time.
Children have to be part of our lives? And the reason includes that we used to be children? You seem to believe that devoting resources toward childrearing is a virtue even if one has none. He should get some and raise them, right? If that's not your view, why are defining those who choose other paths as selfish? Doesn't that imply a duty being shirked?
I admire those who have no children for their contribution to population control. I see no virtue in families having children and raising them to satisfy familial expectations if that's not what they want to be doing. If you somehow wound up with children whether you planned and wanted it or not - perhaps stepchildren - then it is virtuous to rise to that challenge and meet the responsibility as a good parent does. But if one prefers a childless home and won't marry the mother because of her children, some would call that selfish - probably you - that judgment implies a duty to help raise those children.
It's unfortunate that you see this life choice as selfish. There are other ways to give to society than generating more children, better ways in my estimation if others are going to be generating the next generation of citizens.
1. The Baha’i Faith Condemns homosexuality as immoral 2. The Baha’i Faith condemns all forms of discrimination, mistreatment and prejudice against homosexuals and Baha’is are encouraged to protect homosexuals from hurt and harm.
People only read about the first point then condemn us but the first point is only a belief, point 2 is how we actually act on that belief which is that we are to be kind and loving. Please don’t just read point one and accuse us of homophobia,
OK. I read both points. The first one is homophobic, the second not. If you believe number 1, then you've become homophobic at your religion's direction. It's really that simple. I'm an atheist, and as such, am very familiar with the idea held by many theists that atheists are morally defective or intellectually dishonest. They rarely use such language, instead indicating that they just want us to find our ways into theism to save our souls. They would deny that these opinions about atheists needing to be rescued by them are bigotry or destructive, but they'd be wrong, and their objections would fall on deaf ears. As has already been pointed out in this thread, it's not their call. Others make that judgments based on the beliefs that are either embraced or not repudiated.
I recall a professional acquaintance with whom I had dinner one night with our wives about twenty years ago. They were conservative Christians, and we were not. I asked him if he thought that Iwas going to hell, and he did everything in his power to avoid answering. What am I to conclude? They didn't overtly hate atheists, since they were socializing with us and never pushed religion on us or tried to get to come to Jesus, but they both obviously believed that we would be sent for eternal punishment by a perfectly just and loving god for being atheists.
That's not OK with me, and I condemn the religion that taught them that. And if I were gay and had that same dinner with a Baha'i - perhaps you - and asked analogous questions, and you sputtered like they did refusing to repudiate the doctrine while reassuring me that you felt no malice, it would put a wall between us. I would know that you would much prefer it if I were straight. How do you think a gay person ought to understand that?
I want to say the same thing as I have said twice already: the alert Baha'i will stop arguing with others about whether he is homophobic based in an absence of overt malice in his heart, because it's not a debate. The Baha'i have no say in how others judge their scripture, for example, or them for condoning it. And those Baha'i are not the target. I find you all basically well-meaning. It's the religion that puts you all in so unnatural a position, and though you seem committed to not behaving unjustly to gays, which is to your credit, I can't help but believe that all of you who fail to explicitly repudiate the doctrine, which is all of you so far, don't also harbor the idea that there is something wrong with homosexuals. Antitheists would like to see the religions of the world that teach this toxic doctrine to be minimized and teach them to fewer people. They prefer that you had never read them and believed that they come from a good god, nor any of the other eight million people reading that stuff.
