That is quite a provocative statement. I post it for a couple reasons. First I want to see if anyone is reading this silly little blog. Second I think it is a good statement that will stir debate.
So what do you think? Is that statement true? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Human value comes from content of character. Not a religious belief. Myself, being agnostic in the fact that I won't denounce anyone's faith or beliefs, find the use of God and faith to be a lame answer for every question. The same for the absence of god being an athiests only answer. Both sides almost come close to brainwashing and detract from the substance of human character and nature.
Question to Jared: Do infants or the mentally handicapped have value since one could argue that they are rather lacking in "character?"
Human value comes from content of character.
If that is true then only people that you have met and have judged the content of their character can be given value. The content of one's character is very subjective. So who gets to determine what "content of character" gives a person value? The point that the statement is alluding to is that without an objective source (ie God) then humans have no intrinsic value.
Myself, being agnostic in the fact that I won't denounce anyone's faith or beliefs, find the use of God and faith to be a lame answer for every question.
I am not sure how this pertains to the statement. On one hand you say you "won't denounce anyone's faith or beliefs" and then on the other you say that the use of God and faith to answer questions is lame. Also agnostic simply means that you don't believe that we can know whether or not there is a god. Of course there are more complicated definitions and nuances that can be added but that is the core of what agnosticism is.
The same for the absence of god being an athiests only answer.
I can't be sure but I don't think the only answer atheists give is that there is no god. There are quite a few out there that have some very sophisticated arguments for all kinds of different things that don't involve the statement "because there is no god".
Both sides almost come close to brainwashing and detract from the substance of human character and nature.
Could you elaborate on how either side does this without citing various non mainstream cults? How does the Jewish or Christian belief in the sanctity of human life detract from the substance of human character and nature?
Exit question:
It seems to me that Jared thinks that having religious beliefs is a character flaw. Would that mean that people of faith have less value based off of his previous statement about content of character?
Post a Comment