NationStates Jolt Archive

Not that I need to. You put them there yourself, my friend.Nope. I'll explain below

In defending your bashing of Christians. And, just because I know you'll try and respond by pretending you weren't referencing Christianity with that remark, here's an ally of yours who also it:Please don't call UB an ally of mine. I find his views equally dogmatic and disgusting as yours.

You assume that I tar all of Christianity with one brush. This is not the case. I tell you that, you claim otherwise. If you're unwilling to look past your ignorance and realize what I'm saying, then I can't help you.

Here's where I got the idea anyway, albeit I greatly dislike the person that came up with it:
BECK: Back with Benjamin Netanyahu. In the last break, you said that Islam is the most primitive religion.

NETANYAHU: I didn`t say that.

BECK: You didn`t say that?

NETANYAHU: No. I said that militant Islam is a primitive religion.

BECK: How much of...

NETANYAHU: Most Muslims are not part of this crazy creed. Source (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0611/17/gb.01.html)
Beck was able to understand what Netanyahu was saying about Islam, are you able to understand what I said about Christianity?

If only this were true. When Christians get bashed around here, the criticisms aren't against "fake Christians" or "Christians who follow their beliefs badly." It's always against Christians generally or Christianity as a religion. Always. In fact, from what I've seen the only Christians who get any positive attention in a medium like this one are those who ignore some of the fundamentals of Christianity in order to appear more politically correct. Christianity has no room in it for abortion or homosexual behavior and yet people who adhere to these creeds are hit the hardest, while those who ignore them are rewarded.That's a lie you've created for yourself. How often have you seen Kat or HotRodia get bashed for being Christian? I've seen it, but it happens fairly rarely. But perhaps these are the "Christians who ignore the fundamentals of Christianity"...
I'm not denying that there are people equal to the bad Christians I dislike that adhere to Athiesm or Agnosticism. I've just seen that there are more of the latter.

And you must have a very skewed view of your religion if you view opposition to homosexuality and abortion as the fundamental creeds of Christianity, if you're willing to ignore some of the specific verses on treating other people with respect.

Abrahamic religions generally promote self-control, morality and responsibility. That's why people hit them. You are wrong. They promote "Our God is the only one", and that is why they make enemies.

At birth each individual is an atheist.
I counter with.....at birth, each individual is a child of God. :)

I counter with.....at birth, each individual is a child of God. :)

They believe in a being they know nothing about?

Nah, but children start off not knowing. A true agnostic wouldn't even be convinced that we will never be able to know for sure, just that we haven't received the necessary proof in the past.
That's not what the word agnostic means at all.
Besides, for a religious debate, not knowing is still the middle ground between beleiving there is/are no God(s) and beleiving in a specific deity.

No it isn't.

That's not what the word agnostic means at all. Agnostic, not knowing.
No it isn't.Yes it is. There's no evidence proving or disproving deities. It's logical for a position that acknowledges both possibilities to be the default position.

They believe in a being they know nothing about?
That is not what I said.

Atheism is the default. At birth each individual is an atheist. Then upbringing indoctrinates the individual.
And atheism is the default position. If you don't know about any god or gods then you can't believe in them, and thus are an atheist. Simple.
The default position is innocence, which is neither Atheist nor Agnostic.

Let us suppose I believe that Steve down the road exists. Let us suppose that I disbelieve in faeries. I do not know what the concept of deity is. I am therefore, by default, open to the possibility that the concept might apply to Steve, it might apply to faeries, it might apply to neither or it might apply to both.

Now, logically, if you were to say that God was Steve, then I would under your definition be a Theist. If you were to say that Gods are Faeries, I would be an Atheist. It must therefore be the case that prior to this agreement of definition, I must be capable of being either of the two, which denies the "explicit" of either case as default.

It is not the case, however, that because I lack a definition of God that I can therefore be said not to believe in God (the criterion necessary for "implicit" atheism). In the case where Steve is God, I do, actually, believe in the thing that is called God. I just don't call it that; I call it Steve. Thus, you cannot be said to call me an Atheist prior to my awareness of what God is, because although I won't call it as such (since I don't know what it is), I may nonetheless believe in something that fits your definition of deity.

All this internal bickering is tearing us apart. Where is someone who can unite us in disapproval?

If all beliefs must be constantly challenged... Why did you not bring up the challenging of the beliefs of a Capitalist, which indirectly massacre many people in the poorer countries on a daily basis? Or someone who believes in our particular flavor of democracy, which most in the world seem to reject? Or our brand of "freedom", which is shunned in parts of the world? Or the belief that money > all? Or the nearly religious belief in science, how it will be able to conquer all?
Incidentally, I would highly approve of the constant challenging of all of the above. Indeed, Science, Capitalism, unchecked Libertarianism and Democracy receive quite a lot of philosophical criticism, and hopefully this will continue.

You can't attempt to strictly and unilaterally define umbrella terms, then demand compliance with them and question those who don't comply.

Everyone's doing it, I'm just jumping on the bandwagon!

I don't care about astrology but what part of my not caring about it rules out my being able to denounce it as crank pseudoscience at it's worst?



If Christianity and the texts that inform it, can't be used as a guide for morality than how on earth can you claim it to be divine?

I think I spoke a bit off what I meant. I didn't mean that there's NO moral code in Christianity, since there obviously is. It's not anymore on the basic level of "murdering = bad", however. :p No, it goes beyond the basics of the 10 commandments. It's what Jesus Christ taught about compassion, empathy, forgiveness and so forth. Not "If your neighbor has a wife you find hawt, don't envy him for it", but "If your neighbor's lost his wife, show compassion and be nice towards him instead of feeling all high and mighty and being an ass."

On a very base level you could say what Christianity's moral code is about is... "Don't be a dick. Be nice. That way everyone'll be happier!" - it kind of contains the 10 commandments and so much more in it if you think about it hard enough.

Damn pounding headache...

You're denying that the old testament, namely the 10 commandments, are still considered the 2nd most important part of your religious tenets. Whether you have chosen to accept them or not, (invoking a secular reality based moral standard) is beside the point that there are those who do accept the Christian tenets fully.

That depends on what you consider the Christian tenets. If you consider the Old Covenant to be part of them, that's your choice. But there are other interpretations of it, and one of them is the one I am describing. The one where the Old Covenant is the Old Covenant, and the New Covenant is the New Covenant. And we aren't Jews, so the Old Covenant is not for us.

You can recognize that fundamentalist are batshit crazy, but all the while you'll seem reluctant to fully reject and acknowledge the irrationality of religion and faith altogether.

Yes. I won't acknowledge the irrationality of religion and faith. On the other hand, have you accepted the irrationality of life and the very existence of this Universe? Since wouldn't you believe that it's only based on some whimsical freak chance?

From the fundamentalists perspective it is the moderate that has sold out to reason and evidence. The fundamentalist in this way retains the illusion of purity and truth, since he refuses to apply the previously mentioned secular moral filter over biblical literalism.

People are people are people. And people can make choices, be they irrational or rational to you. People make different choices for different reasons. I guess that's just something you and I have to live with. The fundamentalist retains his insanity while everyone else moves on. Sounds OK to me.

The fact that we can observe divergent strands of biblical literalism underlines the moral inconsistency of the bible.

If you consider the Old Testament as a part of the Bible rather than as more a description of the Old Covenant, then yes. The Bible as a whole describes a God that is either bi-polar or has a multiple personality disorder. God is completely different in the Old and the New Testaments.

Again, as a guide on morality and ethics it's really awful, but this hasn't stopped religion from trying to base their behaviour on it. This is how we end up with AIDS as a lesser evil to the use of the condom, etc.

That's Catholics for you. And yes, the Old Testament is a really bad base to build anything on if it's not a some sort of tribe in a hostile area. God is so much nicer towards people in the New Testament, doesn't kill everyone (except a couple of people) because he doesn't like them and all that. And it actually seems that there is hope for us after all, and we aren't all doomed to suffering and pain for all eternity.

You say this crazyness has nothing to do with them being Christian but I think it's patently obvious it has everything to do with them trying to establish their morals on Iron age Christian and Jewish literature, penned by barely literate men.

I say it has nothing to do with Christianity because they could be basically of any other religion and still be the same. I bet they could be just as crazy with a religion that has a much more pacifistic history, too, like... Buddhism. :p Just think about it. Buddhist extremists on the loose!

Darwin was not a Christian, and make it clear that he wanted to be referred to as an Agnostic.

In his late years when he lost his belief in God, sure. Not in the early years.

The problem with the apparently non-ending and repetitive secular arguments against religion can be summarized in the following video.

The arguments against religion are always repeating because people who believe in God/gods/flying hippos/fanged cookies don't ultimately care about what the completely secular folks have to say about their religion. It's their thing, and it's very difficult to explain why you follow it other than the fact that the world makes so much more sense thanks to it. It's not hurting anyone and it's giving an idea as to what might be. Why can't the issue just be left alone?

Why do people smoke? Why do people kill each other? Why do we believe in the power of currency? Why did the Big Bang happen? Why why why? If you keep continuously asking questions to which we don't have the answers, you'll just die out of old age without knowing anything.

A one on one interview between Richard Dawkins and Alistair McGrath.

I'm watching it right now. Interesting, although my head is aching and my ears are full of something (snot I bet, I have the flu) that's making hearing difficult and I'm not a native English speaker... But I'm watching it with great interest nonetheless.

As for the quote... How do you explain something that cannot be explained without seeing what's in the toolbox (ie. God), when you don't have access to the said toolbox? It's relatively easy for an Atheist to have good questions about things, when s/he knows that a believer cannot answer it thoroughly without actually dying and seeing whether it was true or not. But I wouldn't be willing to die for the sake of an argument, especially knowing that I wouldn't be able to return AND that suicide is a bad thing!

All this internal bickering is tearing us apart. Where is someone who can unite us in disapproval?
Superman?Nay! Disapprovalman to the rescue!

The default position is innocence, which is neither Atheist nor Agnostic.
Innocence is not a form of belief.

Let us suppose I believe that Steve down the road exists. Let us suppose that I disbelieve in faeries. I do not know what the concept of deity is. I am therefore, by default, open to the possibility that the concept might apply to Steve, it might apply to faeries, it might apply to neither or it might apply to both.
How can you be open to a possibility that you aren't aware of?

Now, logically, if you were to say that God was Steve, then I would under your definition be a Theist. If you were to say that Gods are Faeries, I would be an Atheist. It must therefore be the case that prior to this agreement of definition, I must be capable of being either of the two, which denies the "explicit" of either case as default.
But you know what Steve and faeries are. You don't know what God is. Thus you don't believe in him/her/it, and thus are an atheist.

It is not the case, however, that because I lack a definition of God that I can therefore be said not to believe in God (the criterion necessary for "implicit" atheism). In the case where Steve is God, I do, actually, believe in the thing that is called God. I just don't call it that; I call it Steve. Thus, you cannot be said to call me an Atheist prior to my awareness of what God is, because although I won't call it as such (since I don't know what it is), I may nonetheless believe in something that fits your definition of deity.
What you call it doesn't change that you know what it is, and that you believe in it. Children do not know what god is. Unless you think that they believe in something they are totally ignorant of.
Click Stand;13237662']All this internal bickering is tearing us apart. Where is someone who can unite us in disapproval?

Superman?

Agnostic, not knowing.
Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning "without", and gnosticism or gnosis, meaning "knowledge") is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality—is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience.
Yes it is. There's no evidence proving or disproving deities. It's logical for a position that acknowledges both possibilities to be the default position.
Acknowledges a possibility that you are totally ignorant of? So newborn children acknowledge both Newtonian physics and quantum physics?
That is not what I said.
So what do you mean by 'children of god'?
Nay! Disapprovalman to the rescue!

Superman would kick his ass.

Lack of space - are you really expecting me to list all beliefs in a single message --

*in Dr. Rabbit's voice*

Yes! Exactly!

Excellent Olivia, but do you floss your ASSH every day?

(What I meant was that you could've chosen beliefs which aren't pretty much dead and buried today with the exception of Christianity, but you didn't.)

I do not have a problem with people believing what they want and I have never said I do. The only place I discuss people's religion with them is if they raise it - i.e in debates here or if they come knocking on my door uninvited selling their beliefs.

Same, really. I don't generally care about talking about things of faith (because I know they are inherently pointless discussions) and don't go on Crusades to force everyone to believe in God... But sometimes people just go off being so ridiculous in my opinion that I hafta get ++ing in threads for that extra post count! I think, and have thought for quite a while, that debates about faith are about as fruitful as an apple tree trying to grow in rocky soil. Very rocky soil.

And these "debates"? They only make me STRONGER!

If people expect to be able to take part in a thread such 'should creationism be taught in schools' and make arguments based on their beliefs then cry foul saying their precious beliefs are being 'bashed' I would say they need to retire from debate because they are clearly unable to cope with it.

Yeah, I know. I have no trouble with Creationism being taught in schools... IF it's taught in the appropriate class, such as the class which is about your religion, and if it happens to be Christianity, well, THERE YOU GO! But Science class? COME ON. ... I'm talking about the PEE ES TRIPLE.

That's kinda like putting it in the Maths class, for crying out loud. Out of place much?

Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning "without", and gnosticism or gnosis, meaning "knowledge") is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality—is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience. Yeah, sounds pretty defaulty to me...

Superman would kick his ass.Yeah, well Disapprovalman would disapprove of that. :p

No, God is a mythical figure, not a myth. it's a subtle distinction.
...Zeus and Hera being mythical figures.

To you, perhaps God is mythical, to many others, God is very real. This was my point, you can't just "proclaim" something 'mythical' because you claim you don't believe in it. It might make you feel better to do that, it might release some frustrations you have, but it is not being intellectually honest or respectful of the beliefs of others. Again, this is what I mean by "religious bigotry".

Not at all. Several lifeforms have vestigal organs, including humans. It's not impossible, therefore, that we have 'vestigal instincts'.

We are talking about morals, not "vestigal organs" or instinct. Humans are the only animals that exhibit morality. Interestingly, they are also the only animals who worship or have spirituality. Hmmm... according to Darwin, there must be some reason this trait has evolved with man.


And thus you are jealous of Christians and their relationship with God, because you have denoucned it.

I don't understand why you continue to say this, when I have repeatedly told you I haven't "denounced" anything. Also, I never said that every person who denounces God is jealous. These are things you wish I said, and I understand you want desperately to find something to bash me with, because you can't refute my points. I don't blame ya!

"I do believe we ALL worship some God, in some form. It is part of being a human being."
Your belief ignores reality.

No it doesn't, it accepts the reality that we are all creatures who practice morality and ethics, as well as worship and spirituality, and have done so as long as we have recorded history of mankind. It is YOUR belief that ignores this reality and attempts to make lame excuses for it.

No True Scotsman fallacy.

Oh it's very easy to just say everything is a fallacy of some kind. I guess you felt compelled to throw "Scotsman" in there to dress up the insult.

I don't deny God, I believe that he doesn't exist. Him and all the other gods and goddesses.

What kind of semantics trip are you on? "Deny God" and "deny God's existence" are the same thing, aren't they? You can claim you don't believe in God all you like, it's what Atheists do! I don't expect you to do anything different! It's not like I posted that thinking... wow, the Atheists will read this and suddenly start believing in God! You will probably deny you are a religious bigot too, it doesn't make it so!

Wrong. I have morals and no religion.

I have no religion and I am moral too! Wow, we are just alike, only I don't make claims that God doesn't exist. Morality is rooted in (not necessarily personally based upon) a religious or spiritual origin.

We have set our own criteria. In order to enforce these criteria, certain people claimed that they were dictated by a supreme being. Moses, for example.

Have you shown Moses to be wrong? If not, you can't say that he is. Again, the only distinction between you and I is, I am not a religious bigot, I keep an open mind and respect the opinions and views of others.

I find it disturbing that you only refrain from harming other people because you'll be punished if you do.

I find it disturbing that you can find no imperative reason to refrain from harming someone, since your morality is based solely on your personal conscience.

And some people who are capable of simple thought realise that speed limits exist for a reason.

...Aside from the reason that it exists now, safety.

Uhm, you failed to get the point... why am I not surprised? If there were no policemen to levy any consequence for speeding, would anyone obey any speed limit at any time? That was the argument, and you conveniently twisted it into a semantics game to try and refute the point. Sorry, but no cigar! If we did not have law enforcement, there would be little use or purpose in having laws... if there is no consequence for your actions, there is no reason to obey any societal mandate.

In your opinion.

Well, yes... that's what we do here, give our opinions... except for empirical geniuses like yourself, who are impervious to bigotry and right about everything. //sarcasm off

Children do not know what god is.
You mean "children do not know who God is"? :D

Until children learn about God, they certainly cannot be classed as atheists, because if they don't know anything about God, how is it possible for them to believe that there is no God?

So what do you mean by 'children of god'?
Fairly simple statement based on my beliefs?

Although sometimes I am inclined to believe that some children are the spawn of Satan. :eek:

You mean "children do not know who God is"? :D

Until children learn about God, they certainly cannot be classed as atheists, because if they don't know anything about God, how is it possible for them to believe that there is no God?

Well they do not believe in a God so that would make them an atheist.

To you, perhaps God is mythical, to many others, God is very real. This was my point, you can't just "proclaim" something 'mythical' because you claim you don't believe in it.
No, I proclaim it to be mythical because it features in myths. Which is, ya know, what the word means.
It might make you feel better to do that, it might release some frustrations you have, but it is not being intellectually honest or respectful of the beliefs of others. Again, this is what I mean by "religious bigotry".
It doesn't alter my feeling at all really. God isn't terribly important to me.



We are talking about morals, not "vestigal organs" or instinct. Humans are the only animals that exhibit morality. Interestingly, they are also the only animals who worship or have spirituality.
Correlation != Causation
Hmmm... according to Darwin, there must be some reason this trait has evolved with man.
Utterly wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.




I don't understand why you continue to say this, when I have repeatedly told you I haven't "denounced" anything. Also, I never said that every person who denounces God is jealous.
You said in your OP that people who are non-religious are jealous of the relaitions ship religious people have, because they've denounced that relationship.
These are things you wish I said, and I understand you want desperately to find something to bash me with, because you can't refute my points. I don't blame ya!
And you seem to be desperately shoving words into my mouth because......actually I have no idea why, but I'd appreciate it if you'd cop on.



No it doesn't, it accepts the reality that we are all creatures who practice morality and ethics, as well as worship and spirituality, and have done so as long as we have recorded history of mankind.
I am not spiritual and do not worship anything. Are you suggesting that I'm not actually a human being? Because that would be immeasurably silly.
It is YOUR belief that ignores this reality and attempts to make lame excuses for it.
Which one? My belief that there is no god? How does that ignore reality?



Oh it's very easy to just say everything is a fallacy of some kind.
Only when those you argue with resort to them.
I guess you felt compelled to throw "Scotsman" in there to dress up the insult.
No, I felt like putting it in there because you used a No True Scotsman fallacy. Again you try to speak for me. Stop it.


What kind of semantics trip are you on? "Deny God" and "deny God's existence" are the same thing, aren't they?
I don't deny the existence, I believe that god/gods/God do not exist. I'm also agnostic, so I don't believe that we can know either way for a fact. If I were to deny the existence of God then I would be basically saying that I know for a fact that God doesn't exist, which I don't.
You can claim you don't believe in God all you like, it's what Atheists do!
Because that's what atheists are!
I don't expect you to do anything different! It's not like I posted that thinking... wow, the Atheists will read this and suddenly start believing in God! You will probably deny you are a religious bigot too, it doesn't make it so!
I suggest you stop using thinly veiled insults. Flaming is rather frowned upon, and you should be able to get your point across without insulting people.



I have no religion and I am moral too! Wow, we are just alike, only I don't make claims that God doesn't exist. Morality is rooted in (not necessarily personally based upon) a religious or spiritual origin.
You were saying something about a semantics trip?


Have you shown Moses to be wrong? If not, you can't say that he is.
Well I'm not sure he exists, he's just well known for being involved in making the rules of a religion.
Again, the only distinction between you and I is, I am not a religious bigot, I keep an open mind and respect the opinions and views of others.
Respect is to be earned, not given. I'm not going to respect an idea just because it's related to a god or gods. And I'll remind you again to stop flaming.



I find it disturbing that you can find no imperative reason to refrain from harming someone, since your morality is based solely on your personal conscious.
My conscience is reason enough. If it's not for you, then you can twist your beliefs and make loopholes for yourself if it suited you, convincing yourself that your god would let you get away with it. Not that I'm suggesting you will, but you could.


Uhm, you failed to get the point... why am I not surprised? If there were no policemen to levy any consequence for speeding, would anyone obey any speed limit at any time?
Because speed limits aren't arbitrary numbers. They're the upper limit for safe driving speed.
That was the argument, and you conveniently twisted it into a semantics game to try and refute the point.
It seems that you missed my point. Some of us have reasons behind our morals other than a threat from someone/thing.
Sorry, but no cigar! If we did not have law enforcement, there would be little use or purpose in having laws... if there is no consequence for your actions, there is no reason to obey any societal mandate.
So you have no regard for the feelings of your fellow humans? You would have no problems with causing someone terrible suffering if your 'god' allowed it?



Well, yes... that's what we do here, give our opinions... except for empirical geniuses like yourself, who are impervious to bigotry and right about everything. //sarcasm off

Seriously. Flaming will only get you banned.

Well they do not believe in a God so that would make them an atheist.
Illogical reasoning my friend. If they haven't been taught who God is, how is it possible for them to consciously believe that He doesn't exist?

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e142/leftyflecken/100.gif
'tis about high time that I comment on this figure.

Being the majority does not mean you can't be oppressed. Note that I am not saying that Christians are or are not oppressed, it's just that being the majority does not automatically imply being the oppressors; and neither does being the majority a necessity for oppression of other groups.

That figure sums up the misconception quite nicely.

Illogical reasoning my friend. If they haven't been taught who God is, how is it possible for them to consciously believe that He doesn't exist?

No perfectly logical. You do not need to know about something in order not to have a belief about it.

No perfectly logical. You do not need to know about something in order not to have a belief about it.
Absolutely false, and totally illogical reasoning.

Absolutely false, and totally illogical reasoning.

I think newborns are atheist.

Up until this point, did you believe that Wraphorximal The Involute was basically uknowable? Were you unsure about whether he existed or not?

No, of course you didn't, because you've never heard of him before; I just made him up.

In a setting like this, you'll not succeed. Here's why:

Not all religions are targeted for this bigotry. Pay special attention to the ones that are and you'll see a pattern begin to emerge. (Christianity is the one we see most often hit because in the West, it's the largest religion.)

Very true. The biggest target tends to get hit more often.

And that pattern is that any religion that promotes self-sacrifice, personal responsibility, a well-defined moral code and honor will be attacked.

Look at the way culture is changing. It's moving away from these things. Read a few posts on this board. What values are espoused here? Self-Sacrifice? Never. No matter the issue, people want to know what's in it for them. Personal Responsibility? That's a hoot. All people waht to know is how to dhield themselves from the consequences of their actions. Moral code? Not in the modern world's left wing. Morality is derided as some sort of control. Honor? No. Act honorably and you will be mocked.

There's some truth to this. Certainly, the cultural trends of individualism, minimalism (in the US), and hedonism are pretty strong in the West at this time. And they're largely opposed to Christian values.

You're painting with an awfully broad brush, though.

Christianity values all of these things and is thus seen as a threat by those who want to do whatever they want to without remorse or guilt. They want what they want and no other consideration matters to them. Not only that, but they demand that you pat them on the back for it.

For some, this true. For many others, it's not. There are plenty of non-religious folks who have their own moral codes that are no piece of cake to follow.

If only this were true. When Christians get bashed around here, the criticisms aren't against "fake Christians" or "Christians who follow their beliefs badly." It's always against Christians generally or Christianity as a religion. Always. In fact, from what I've seen the only Christians who get any positive attention in a medium like this one are those who ignore some of the fundamentals of Christianity in order to appear more politically correct. Christianity has no room in it for abortion or homosexual behavior and yet people who adhere to these creeds are hit the hardest, while those who ignore them are rewarded.

If you think that abortion and homosexual behavior are fundamental issues of Christianity, I suggest you re-read the Gospels. Repeatedly and prayerfully.

We're not trying to control them or push our beliefs onto them, but that's the claim they use to gain sympathy and demonize us for daring to hold firm to our beliefs. We refuse to coddle them and so, to them, we are evil.

Some of us aren't. Others are. There is a rather vocal minority of Christians who seem quite content to push their beliefs on others. Sadly, because of their increased public presence compared to others who prefer to evangelize by living out Christ's love, that tends to be the image of Christianity that people see.

No, I proclaim it to be mythical because it features in myths. Which is, ya know, what the word means.

I know what the word means, it doesn't apply to God. He is anything BUT "mythical" to about 95% of the world population. Of the other 5%, I venture to say, he is still not a "mythical" figure, because they most certainly believe in His existence, they just renounce it every chance they get.

It doesn't alter my feeling at all really. God isn't terribly important to me.

As I said, I didn't post this to alter your feeling, I had no such illusion that would happen. I am also very aware that God is not important to you, although you certainly spend a great deal of time and effort on something of little importance. Odd.

Correlation != Causation

Fact=Fact!

Utterly wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

No it isn't wrong, go read Origin of the Species, you will find it is factually accurate. Darwin contends that Natural Selection is a process by which various species discard elements and traits they do not need. If "God" were something not needed in humans, it would have evolved out of us long ago. So, we must conclude, if Darwin is correct, that mankind needs God for some reason. It is possible, therefore, that God certainly does exist, or that Darwin got it completely wrong.

You said in your OP that people who are non-religious are jealous of the relaitions ship religious people have, because they've denounced that relationship.

I'm sorry, you are misquoting me, I never said this. It is my opinion that many Atheists do indeed believe in God, despite their protests to the contrary. I offered an analysis of why I think this is the case. I am certainly subject to be wrong about that.

And you seem to be desperately shoving words into my mouth because......actually I have no idea why, but I'd appreciate it if you'd cop on.

I've not shoved anything in your mouth.

I am not spiritual and do not worship anything. Are you suggesting that I'm not actually a human being? Because that would be immeasurably silly.

Yes, you worship Atheism and Atheist belief. This is plainly obvious.

Which one? My belief that there is no god? How does that ignore reality?

It ignores the reality that you could be mistaken.

Only when those you argue with resort to them.

Haha... I only disagree with you when you are wrong! Nice!

No, I felt like putting it in there because you used a No True Scotsman fallacy. Again you try to speak for me. Stop it.

It would be inherently impossible for me to speak for you. There was no fallacy in my comment, "No Scotsman" or otherwise. You had a different opinion, and that is fine, but you can't just proclaim something a fallacy because you can't refute it with facts.

I don't deny the existence, I believe that god/gods/God do not exist. I'm also agnostic, so I don't believe that we can know either way for a fact. If I were to deny the existence of God then I would be basically saying that I know for a fact that God doesn't exist, which I don't.

Hmmm.... I don't deny the existence, I just believe they don't exist. Seems to me, we are playing a semantics game again. I will however give you credit, you seem to have progressed a bit, you now acknowledge that you are uncertain about God's existence. Baby steps.... tiny baby steps!

Because that's what atheists are!

Atheists are the opposite of Theists, they don't believe in religious teachings, which makes my spiritual view very similar to an Atheistic view. I do, however, believe that some greater entity than self exists, and frankly don't see how anyone could conclude otherwise, given the preponderance of evidence.

I suggest you stop using thinly veiled insults. Flaming is rather frowned upon, and you should be able to get your point across without insulting people.

And I suggest you go look up the word "bigot" and see if it doesn't appropriately describe your viewpoint toward people of religious belief. It is not "flaming" to speak the truth, unless I am missing some profound liberal ruling here that hasn't been made clear. I am sorry you don't like the term, but if the shoe fits.... well, you know.

You were saying something about a semantics trip?

No semantics trip on my part, I clearly stated that morality is originally rooted in religious belief, you misconstrued this statement into something I didn't say. I corrected you, that's all.

Well I'm not sure he exists, he's just well known for being involved in making the rules of a religion.

Then you are not sure he is mythological. Rules of religion were written by men who claim to have been inspired by God. On this issue of religion, it seems we agree, and after your admission that God may indeed exist, we seem to be on the same page about Religious bigotry as well.

Respect is to be earned, not given. I'm not going to respect an idea just because it's related to a god or gods. And I'll remind you again to stop flaming.

I've never said that respect should be given, I agree it is earned. I think people who espouse a religious view have earned respect, for the most part, but seldom do you see them get any here. That was the point of the thread. Again, I am sorry you take exception with the term "religious bigot" and you seem to be demonstrating that you are not such a bigot, but many of your counterparts are bigoted in their views toward religious people. Once again, I will point out, my personal viewpoint is not one in defense of religion or religious views, but rather, against bigotry and hate.

My conscience is reason enough. If it's not for you, then you can twist your beliefs and make loopholes for yourself if it suited you, convincing yourself that your god would let you get away with it. Not that I'm suggesting you will, but you could.

This is the poignant point about morality you can't seem to grasp. Without some measure of accountability or consequence, morality becomes a quaint notion and something you pay lip service to. It has no real reason or justification, and those who claim to have morality based solely on their conscience, can most often justify immorality whenever the need arises. Rendering morality completely irrelevant and pointless.

Because speed limits aren't arbitrary numbers. They're the upper limit for safe driving speed.

You are still missing the point. Okay, forget about "speed limit" for a moment, perhaps that was a poor example. We have a law that you must pay income tax... if there were no IRS, and no one to hold you accountable, how many people would actually pay the amount of tax owed? Do you not see my point? Morals are Rules... Rules without accountability or enforcement are pointless.

It seems that you missed my point. Some of us have reasons behind our morals other than a threat from someone/thing.

You keep saying "threat" and "fear" but I have never once used these words. Someone mentioned the concept of 'karma' earlier, and suggested it was secular in nature, which is fine... maybe you exhibit good moral behavior because you seek to have good karma? There is clearly reason to behave morally without belief in religion, as I have stated, I am non-religious but very spiritual. I believe it is important to behave morally to insure good spiritual energy, that is not a "religious" view. However, if you profess to be an Atheist who doesn't believe in any power greater than self, your morality is based solely on your own personal conscience... which means, if you can justify it to yourself, it is "moral" and okay, regardless.

So you have no regard for the feelings of your fellow humans? You would have no problems with causing someone terrible suffering if your 'god' allowed it?

Again, what is the reason for having compassion for others? If there is no benefit to me either way, why should I care? As I said, my spiritual belief mandates that I behave in a moral way, and I do so. Most religious people have a code of ethics based on their personal religious beliefs, which also mandate they behave in a moral way. We have accountability to something greater than self, but people who don't profess to believe in anything greater than self, simply have no accountability, what difference does it make to them if fellow humans suffer, or if they regard this as a moral obligation?

Seriously. Flaming will only get you banned.

You certainly have some thin skin to be on a message board. In this thread, I have been called "arrogant and stupid" and told to "shut the fuck up" and "no one cares what you think", as well as being almost constantly misquoted and misconstrued... am I complaining? No, because this is a sensitive topic and people are passionate about their beliefs. I have not flamed you in any way, I have pointed out truths and revealed things you need to see, and you don't want to look. I am sorry about that, but sometimes it is what we have to do to make a point.

Read the anti-religion threads on this board, are they not "Religiously Bigoted" in every possible way? Are Atheists not completely bigoted (for the most part) regarding the opinions and ideas of the religious? ....Myths... Sky Gods... Imaginary Friend.... Wackos.... Fallacy.... etc. These are words used by people with a totally bigoted viewpoint. I can't help that! It is just the truth of the matter, and if the mods want to ban me for it... oh fucking well! I've been banned before, it's nothing new to me.

Innocence is not a form of belief.
It is not a form of belief, but it is a state of belief. Namely, the state of contented ignorance - you have no understanding of the question at hand and thus have no position.

How can you be open to a possibility that you aren't aware of?
That is default behaviour. We must assume that we are not closed to possibilities we are not aware of; otherwise, we would be incapable of learning.

What you call it doesn't change that you know what it is...
The point here is that we (being the innocent) don't know what it is. We have no knowledge at all about what the name stands for, and thus it is entirely feasible to us that it could stand for anything. It is an unknown; a Variable. Since there are some things we believe in and some things we do not, since we know that there are some things that we believe in that are known by other names, and since we do not know whether something you're talking about is something that we believe in or not until it is described for us in terms we understand, we are forced acknowledge that the possibility exists that we believe in something that we do not yet know.

Or, to put it another way,

I believe Steve exists
If X = Steve then I believe X exists
There is a possibility that X = Steve
Therefore, there is a possibility that I believe X exists

Until we define X such that it can only be something we do not believe exists then we cannot discard the possibility that X is definable as something that we do believe exists, and it is thus incorrect to say that we do not believe X exists simply because we lack an explicit assertion that X does exist.

I know what the word means, it doesn't apply to God. He is anything BUT "mythical" to about 95% of the world population. Of the other 5%, I venture to say, he is still not a "mythical" figure, because they most certainly believe in His existence, they just renounce it every chance they get.

then later...



I'm sorry, you are misquoting me, I never said this. It is my opinion that many Atheists do indeed believe in God, despite their protests to the contrary. I offered an analysis of why I think this is the case. I am certainly subject to be wrong about that.


Also, if I were to ask you what the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is, and how it might parallel the rhetoric that it was a reponse to, what would you say?

As to why people who don't believe in a supernatural (i.e., by definition, a being above or beyond the laws of nature, whether existant or not) spend time addressing the issue, we share a planet with billions who believe in some supernatural power version or other, and even if one group were correct in their beliefs, that still leaves enormous numbers whose belief is erroneous.

The effect of deeply religious people (including some that you might consider to be of the "wrong" religion, even though none may dare call your religion incorrect without allegation of bigotry) is seen widely in the world today. That's why non-believers pay attention.

I think newborns are atheist.
Because you think they are, does not make them so. Poor argument.

Up until this point, did you believe that Wraphorximal The Involute was basically uknowable? Were you unsure about whether he existed or not?

No, of course you didn't, because you've never heard of him before; I just made him up.
Because I have never heard of "Wraphorximal The Involute", it doesn't make me a believer or a non believer. However, since you "made him up", then therefore he does exist.....at least in your mind.

Your argument fails.

No it isn't wrong, go read Origin of the Species, you will find it is factually accurate. Darwin contends that Natural Selection is a process by which various species discard elements and traits they do not need. If "God" were something not needed in humans, it would have evolved out of us long ago. So, we must conclude, if Darwin is correct, that mankind needs God for some reason. It is possible, therefore, that God certainly does exist, or that Darwin got it completely wrong.

You know, it's ok for Darwin to be wrong. We can live with the fact if darwin was wrong. As long as the framework was correct, that's fine. Humanity has had a little time since Darwin to examine the principles of evolutionary biology and do a little bit of fine tuning. If he missed a few of the details, that's alright.

Darwin having some errors does not defeat the overall theory. We've advanced a little bit since origin of the species. Newton was wrong too, but me saying newton was wrong does not suddenly viod the entire theory of gravity and send me flying out into space.

However, in this instance, Darwin wasn't wrong, you are. The idea that "if it exists it must serve a purpose" is very wrong, and certainly not Darwin. It is, if anything, some gross misinterpretation of Darwin. If it were true, one begins to question why my appendix is currently existing.

It ignores the reality that you could be mistaken.

Works both ways.


This is the poignant point about morality you can't seem to grasp. Without some measure of accountability or consequence, morality becomes a quaint notion and something you pay lip service to. It has no real reason or justification, and those who claim to have morality based solely on their conscience, can most often justify immorality whenever the need arises. Rendering morality completely irrelevant and pointless.

And you don't think "spirituality" is equally prone to rationalization, that someone who wants to talk themselves into something can't use religion or spirituality just as effectively to do it?

At least one who holds themselves accountable to their own conscience is taking personal responsibility, the best first step. If you really believe that conscientious morality has no reason or justification, without an external entity to enforce responsibility, then you are little more than a predator, wary of the cosmic game warden, who holds you at bay.



You are still missing the point. Okay, forget about "speed limit" for a moment, perhaps that was a poor example. We have a law that you must pay income tax... if there were no IRS, and no one to hold you accountable, how many people would actually pay the amount of tax owed? Do you not see my point? Morals are Rules... Rules without accountability or enforcement are pointless.

Rules are there for those without sufficient conscience to be fair on their own. Consider that maybe we aren't all like you. There was a time when it was legal to beat one's wife, and places where a wife could not bring rape charges against her husband. Was every woman in those times beaten and raped? Or did a few husbands decide that maybe they could come up with some self-originating reasons not to hurt someone...



However, if you profess to be an Atheist who doesn't believe in any power greater than self, your morality is based solely on your own personal conscience... which means, if you can justify it to yourself, it is "moral" and okay, regardless.

And people never use spirituality or religion to justify things that they want to do? At least in an act of conscience, one decides for oneself.



Again, what is the reason for having compassion for others? If there is no benefit to me either way, why should I care? As I said, my spiritual belief mandates that I behave in a moral way, and I do so. Most religious people have a code of ethics based on their personal religious beliefs, which also mandate they behave in a moral way. We have accountability to something greater than self, but people who don't profess to believe in anything greater than self, simply have no accountability, what difference does it make to them if fellow humans suffer, or if they regard this as a moral obligation?


We have accountability to ourselves, and in practice, to one another. For some of us, that is enough to care.

Its scary that its not enough for you, that you need something "greater" to hold you accountable.

then later...



Also, if I were to ask you what the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is, and how it might parallel the rhetoric that it was a reponse to, what would you say?

As to why people who don't believe in a supernatural (i.e., by definition, a being above or beyond the laws of nature, whether existant or not) spend time addressing the issue, we share a planet with billions who believe in some supernatural power version or other, and even if one group were correct in their beliefs, that still leaves enormous numbers whose belief is erroneous.

The effect of deeply religious people (including some that you might consider to be of the "wrong" religion, even though none may dare call your religion incorrect without allegation of bigotry) is seen widely in the world today. That's why non-believers pay attention.

Don't know or care what a "No True Scotsman" fallacy is, and there has been nothing rhetorical in my commentary.

I will again argue that belief in God is not belief in the supernatural. God is a natural part of human existence, and has been since the origin of mankind. We all worship something, you happen to worship Atheism. It is your right, and I don't begrudge you that. I am not on here calling you names and saying you believe in the "myth of Atheism" or ridiculing your belief constantly. I have no animosity or issue with Atheists who can respect the views different from their own, but most of them tend to keep their mouth shut about religion or religious belief. The bigots are the ones who tend to migrate to message boards and post non-stop rants against Christians or religious teachings in general, in a lame attempt to justify their own faith. Others will profess to believe in Atheism, but they actually believe in God and just hate Him, for whatever reason, maybe they feel cheated or slighted by God for something in their life? Who knows? Bigotry is often associated with ignorance and is born out of hatred for something not understood. That is not a flame, by the way, it is a legitimate psychological assessment of human behavior.

Bigotry is often associated with ignorance and is born out of hatred for something not understood.

Others will profess to believe in Atheism, but they actually believe in God and just hate Him, for whatever reason, maybe they feel cheated or slighted by God for something in their life? Who knows?

Ah irony.

Don't know or care what a "No True Scotsman" fallacy is, and there has been nothing rhetorical in my commentary.

This quote defines you thoroughly and with surgical precision.

You stated emphatically that you were not using a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Now you admit you don't know what one is. Your mentality is revealed nicely.

Your response similarly ignores that your own words demonstrate that you are contradicting yourself.



I will again argue that belief in God is not belief in the supernatural. God is a natural part of human existence, and has been since the origin of mankind.

Again, please examine the word. If your version of God can, in premise, create a universe, decide what the laws of nature will be, break or change them at will, see the future, raise the dead, etc, then by definition, a priori, your version of God is supernatural, whether it exists or not.

If God created nature, he/she/it is above and beyond nature, and is supernatural. The term need not be perjorative, but it should at least be understood.


We all worship something, you happen to worship Atheism. It is your right, and I don't begrudge you that. I am not on here calling you names and saying you believe in the "myth of Atheism" or ridiculing your belief constantly. I have no animosity or issue with Atheists who can respect the views different from their own, but most of them tend to keep their mouth shut about religion or religious belief. The bigots are the ones who tend to migrate to message boards and post non-stop rants against Christians or religious teachings in general, in a lame attempt to justify their own faith. Others will profess to believe in Atheism, but they actually believe in God and just hate Him, for whatever reason, maybe they feel cheated or slighted by God for something in their life? Who knows? Bigotry is often associated with ignorance and is born out of hatred for something not understood. That is not a flame, by the way, it is a legitimate psychological assessment of human behavior.

How starkly you fail to practice what you preach. You roundly decry all those bigots who deny your right to believe whatever you want, but you refuse their right not to believe.

You insist that we all believe in God but refute him for your assumptions of our psychological flaws, but isn't that your own form of prejudice? What if maybe we actually just DON'T believe, regardless of your statement that we "most certainly" do?

If I can recognize your right to believe in a God, can you not recognize my right to not believe in any particular God? You claim to accept my right not to believe, but then you say I "most certainly" do believe but spurn god for some wrong? How would you know?

You are so aggrieved that anyone would dare call a God mythological, and yet you broadly paint non-believers as ignorant and hateful.

I would find your crusade against "bigotry" a bit more authentic if you led by any degree of example.

Ah irony.

A superb illustration, and you did it using Dixieanna's own words. Nicely done.

Some of us aren't. Others are. There is a rather vocal minority of Christians who seem quite content to push their beliefs on others. Sadly, because of their increased public presence compared to others who prefer to evangelize by living out Christ's love, that tends to be the image of Christianity that people see.

Careful, Rod. Go around doing that "living out Christ's love" thing, and you might actually give credible demonstration of the teachings you espouse, which might in turn lead to genuine harmony between differing beliefs.

Better to call us all hateful ignorant bigots who really DO believe in God from birth and just won't admit it. That'll evoke peace sooner. Yeah.

Works both ways.

yep, it does.

And you don't think "spirituality" is equally prone to rationalization, that someone who wants to talk themselves into something can't use religion or spirituality just as effectively to do it?

Oh religion certainly is, that is why I don't practice religion. I have, however, read the Bible, and find it is full of profound moral wisdom and a generally good moral guide in life. My problem with religion is, man often finds interpretation that just isn't there or isn't intended, through either a literal perception or a misunderstanding of the actual text.

At least one who holds themselves accountable to their own conscience is taking personal responsibility, the best first step. If you really believe that conscientious morality has no reason or justification, without an external entity to enforce responsibility, then you are little more than a predator, wary of the cosmic game warden, who holds you at bay.

At least I am a predator with something to be wary of, as opposed to a predator with nothing to hold him accountable.

Rules are there for those without sufficient conscience to be fair on their own. Consider that maybe we aren't all like you. There was a time when it was legal to beat one's wife, and places where a wife could not bring rape charges against her husband. Was every woman in those times beaten and raped? Or did a few husbands decide that maybe they could come up with some self-originating reasons not to hurt someone...

I don't know, in my lifetime, it has always been illegal to batter someone. My argument is simple, it is about Religious Bigotry. If I were to take the position that "it is a fallacy and myth that women are equal to men" would you not see me as a sexist bigot? Now, would it matter if I produced the physiological evidence that males are different than females, therefore, something different can't also be equal? What if I stated that "it is fallacy and myth than blacks are equal to whites" would you view this as a racially bigoted view? Would it matter if I produced the physiological evidence to support the differences between people of African and European descent?

And people never use spirituality or religion to justify things that they want to do? At least in an act of conscience, one decides for oneself.

Right, and human nature dictates, you will most often do whatever is best for yourself, when there is no ramification or consequence to your actions. Thus, morality is merely a term you use to describe your own state of conscious belief, and nothing more.

We have accountability to ourselves, and in practice, to one another. For some of us, that is enough to care.

Why? That is what I am asking. What happens if you decide not to be accountable to yourself? If you have no Higher Authority to answer to, doesn't it pretty much mean you can establish your own criteria for morality, and change it on a whim? What is the fundamental purpose of being a moral person? To feel good about yourself? Some people feel good about themselves for being able to dupe others and take advantage of the situation... could they not claim "morality" if that is what they established as criteria for it?

Its scary that its not enough for you, that you need something "greater" to hold you accountable.

Well, you people keep pretending you are scared by me because I believe humans require some level of accountability to something, otherwise, they have no reason to behave in any particular way. I've given you examples, yet you twist them into semantical arguments that don't pertain to the point. You have yet to tell me what your motivation would be to behave morally, if you didn't have anyone or anything to hold you accountable for immoral behaviors. It is certainly much easier to behave immorally than to behave morally, is it not? So, why would human instinct follow any other path, except what is best for him or her? Without any consequence, what would compel you to do this? That is what I have been asking you, and no one seems to have the answer. You just continue to try and twist the argument around and pretend you are scared that I have to be held accountable to do what is moral. Answer the damn question, if you can!

Zeon Principality: Even though I'm on a different wavelength, I'm enjoying your posts very much and I'm glad your watching the video. Hang in there with that flu.

As for the quote... How do you explain something that cannot be explained without seeing what's in the toolbox (ie. God), when you don't have access to the said toolbox? It's relatively easy for an Atheist to have good questions about things, when s/he knows that a believer cannot answer it thoroughly without actually dying and seeing whether it was true or not. But I wouldn't be willing to die for the sake of an argument, especially knowing that I wouldn't be able to return AND that suicide is a bad thing!

That's really the thing isn't it? It's a basic moral standard of intellectual honesty that our convictions should be proportional to our evidence. Claiming to know things about the Universe that we manifestly don't know is a monstrous falsehood. Religion calls it dogma or faith and considers it a virtue to aspire to.

At least I am a predator with something to be wary of, as opposed to a predator with nothing to hold him accountable.

Some of us are not predators at all, and don't need the omniscient watcher to scare us with "accountability


I don't know, in my lifetime, it has always been illegal to batter someone. My argument is simple, it is about Religious Bigotry.

Your supporting premise to the argument was that the only thing keeping people in check is consequence applied externally. The battering example illustrates clearly how, even in some contexts when horrible things have been legal some people refrained anyway. Now, with your supporting reasoning routed, you fall back to your general argument, ignoring that YOU raised the issue of higher authorities and their supposedly absolute necessity for anyone to ever be moral. Laws are necessary because many, perhaps even most, fail the ideal. But at least try to understand that true conscientious behaviour, like anything worth aspiring to, is hard and rare. But it can be done.


If I were to take the position that "it is a fallacy and myth that women are equal to men" would you not see me as a sexist bigot? Now, would it matter if I produced the physiological evidence that males are different than females, therefore, something different can't also be equal? What if I stated that "it is fallacy and myth than blacks are equal to whites" would you view this as a racially bigoted view? Would it matter if I produced the physiological evidence to support the differences between people of African and European descent?

Again, those times when your fallacies have been revealed (often by the simple quoting of your own words, a twisting that originates with you and requires no editing or elaboration on my part), it was your argument itself that was revealed to be fallacious, not the potential existence of Shiva or Body Thetans or anything else.

If I say "I am American because I have Brown eyes", that is a fallacy. I may actually be American, but the reasoning is fallacious.



Right, and human nature dictates, you will most often do whatever is best for yourself, when there is no ramification or consequence to your actions. Thus, morality is merely a term you use to describe your own state of conscious belief, and nothing more.

And your spirituality is not just your state of belief?


Why? That is what I am asking. What happens if you decide not to be accountable to yourself? If you have no Higher Authority to answer to, doesn't it pretty much mean you can establish your own criteria for morality, and change it on a whim?

Why? Because that's what you would do? I have seen people without spirituality engage in the most diligent, rigorous examination of their own behaviour in a moral sense. Sometimes we fail, just as some people might buy into a "spirituality" that doesn't fit the right God or other. Neither method is perfect, but the self-responsibility method has self-evident value over "A powerful being will punish me if I do this".


What is the fundamental purpose of being a moral person? To feel good about yourself? Some people feel good about themselves for being able to dupe others and take advantage of the situation... could they not claim "morality" if that is what they established as criteria for it?

And spirituality, as a human excercise, is equally vulnerable to the corruption you describe. Again, just because YOU would treat self-applied morality so capriciously doesn't mean everyone else would.



Well, you people keep pretending you are scared by me because I believe humans require some level of accountability to something, otherwise, they have no reason to behave in any particular way. I've given you examples, yet you twist them into semantical arguments that don't pertain to the point.

My responses have addressed YOUR statements, and you cannot so easily evade responsibility for your own words by tossing it off as "semantic". I quoted YOU to illustrate your contradictions, your inconsistencies, your habit of saying, in effect, "I am not doing XYZ...I don't know what it is, but I'm NOT doing it!!!"

If your own words don't pertain to the point, that's your own fault.


You have yet to tell me what your motivation would be to behave morally, if you didn't have anyone or anything to hold you accountable for immoral behaviors. It is certainly much easier to behave immorally than to behave morally, is it not? So, why would human instinct follow any other path, except what is best for him or her? Without any consequence, what would compel you to do this? That is what I have been asking you, and no one seems to have the answer. You just continue to try and twist the argument around and pretend you are scared that I have to be held accountable to do what is moral. Answer the damn question, if you can!

I have answered it, and I will answer it again:

My motivation to behave morally is my awareness of other humans, beings no "higher" or "lower" then myself, but who have enough worth that I treat them with care. If you can't see that this worth doesn't have to come from anything "higher" and doesn't have to be enforced, that is why you are frightening.

Your double standards are showing, again, Dixieanna. Read your own post as you accuse others of being evasive, and yet I can count many responses, some consisting only of juxtaposing your own contradictions, that have made valid critique of your position. You have consistently ignored them.

I have answered your question. Address your own fallacies and contradictions, if you can.

I don't see a response yet, and I know people have lives, so I'm going to hit the sack.

Since accountability seems to be necessary for some people to do the right thing, I'll play that role in a few ways.

If somebody says "Your argument parallels the XYZ fallacy", and you don't know what it is, either look it up and refute/admit, or just be honest and say "I don't know what that is, please explain".

But DON'T claim you aren't doing it if you have no idea what it describes. Because the angel of hammurab might be there to hold you accountable...

Yeah, sounds pretty defaulty to me...
You must be misreading it then. How can you believe that it is impossible to know for sure that X exists if you don't know what X is?
You mean "children do not know who God is"? :D
No......

Until children learn about God, they certainly cannot be classed as atheists, because if they don't know anything about God, how is it possible for them to believe that there is no God?

Illogical reasoning my friend. If they haven't been taught who God is, how is it possible for them to consciously believe that He doesn't exist?
Because atheism has more than one meaning. People who believe that there are no gods are atheists. People who do not believe in any gods are atheists.
I know what the word means, it doesn't apply to God. He is anything BUT "mythical" to about 95% of the world population. Of the other 5%, I venture to say, he is still not a "mythical" figure, because they most certainly believe in His existence, they just renounce it every chance they get.
Just because you have negative associations with the word mythical doesn't mean that it doesn't apply to your god.



As I said, I didn't post this to alter your feeling, I had no such illusion that would happen. I am also very aware that God is not important to you, although you certainly spend a great deal of time and effort on something of little importance. Odd.
You think that this takes effort on my part? Certainly not any appreciable amount.



Fact=Fact!
Congratulations on stating the obvious. However, you still have correlation and no causation. You know what that means, yes?



No it isn't wrong, go read Origin of the Species,
I prefer that the science books I read aren't out of date.
you will find it is factually accurate. Darwin contends that Natural Selection is a process by which various species discard elements and traits they do not need.
Wrong. Perhaps you should re-read Origen of the Species. Natural selection is the process by which favourable traits are propogated throughout the species and unfavourable traits are not. If a trait has no appreciable affect on the organism's ability to breed, then it will be passed on.
If "God" were something not needed in humans, it would have evolved out of us long ago.
Only if it hampered our ability to pass on our genes.
So, we must conclude, if Darwin is correct, that mankind needs God for some reason.
We must do no such thing.
It is possible, therefore, that God certainly does exist, or that Darwin got it completely wrong.
Both are possible.


I'm sorry, you are misquoting me, I never said this. It is my opinion that many Atheists do indeed believe in God, despite their protests to the contrary. I offered an analysis of why I think this is the case. I am certainly subject to be wrong about that.
In your own words:
Non-religious people have a compelling reason to despise and hate those who practice religious beliefs, they are jealous of their relationship with whatever God they worship, and since they have renounced God, this relationship is not possible for them. Since they can't have that, they don't want anyone else to have it either. Thus, they lash out at anything religious, in complete ignorance of their own bigotry.



I've not shoved anything in your mouth.
You were making claims that I wished that you had said something, and gave reasons for why I wished that. However I wished no such thing. This is generally called, putting words in someone else's mouth. I'm sure you can see how I went from putting to shoving.


Yes, you worship Atheism and Atheist belief. This is plainly obvious.
No, I do not. I hold those beliefs. I don't worship them.



It ignores the reality that you could be mistaken.
What is 'it' reffering to here?


Haha... I only disagree with you when you are wrong! Nice!
No, I'll only point out that you're using a fallacy when I tihnk you're using a fallacy.



It would be inherently impossible for me to speak for you.
Strange, you've already done it. You're told me that I worship atheism and agnosticism and that I wish you had said that you're jealous of religious people. Neither of these things are true, yet you said them anyway. Hmmm, what does your god think about you intentionally misrepresenting people? There was no fallacy in my comment, "No Scotsman" or otherwise. You had a different opinion, and that is fine, but you can't just proclaim something a fallacy because you can't refute it with facts.
You said that, and I quote:
It is contrary to any true religious ethic to make war against your fellow man.
This is a No True Scotsman fallacy. I could explain what that means if you don't understand it. Or you could look it up for yourself.


Hmmm.... I don't deny the existence, I just believe they don't exist. Seems to me, we are playing a semantics game again. I will however give you credit, you seem to have progressed a bit, you now acknowledge that you are uncertain about God's existence. Baby steps.... tiny baby steps!
This isn't progress. I have long acknowledged that there may be a or gods. That doesn't change that I don't believe there is.



Atheists are the opposite of Theists, they don't believe in religious teachings,
Strange, because buddhism is an atheist religion. It has no god or supreme beings.
which makes my spiritual view very similar to an Atheistic view. I do, however, believe that some greater entity than self exists, and frankly don't see how anyone could conclude otherwise, given the preponderance of evidence.
What evidence is there of a suprememe being? Because I'm certainly not aware of any.



And I suggest you go look up the word "bigot" and see if it doesn't appropriately describe your viewpoint toward people of religious belief.
big·ot /ˈbɪgət/ [big-uht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Nope, doens't fit me.
It is not "flaming" to speak the truth,
No, it's flaming to insult another player, regardless of whether it's true. Though I most likely over-reacted. More an ad hominem that flaming. Ooops, I forgot, you don't like it when I point out that you're using flawed logic.
unless I am missing some profound liberal ruling here that hasn't been made clear.
Ah, ye olde 'evil liberal mods' conspiracy. Why don't you ask HotRodia if he's a liberal.
I am sorry you don't like the term, but if the shoe fits.... well, you know.
Except it doesn't. I'm quite tolerant of other's beliefs and opinions. This doesn't preclude me from thinking that they're wrong.



No semantics trip on my part, I clearly stated that morality is originally rooted in religious belief, you misconstrued this statement into something I didn't say. I corrected you, that's all.
You seemed to be saying that your morality is based on religion, but not religious. That doesn't seem to make sense.



Then you are not sure he is mythological.
Well he features in Christian mythology. That kind of makes him mythological. Rules of religion were written by men who claim to have been inspired by God. On this issue of religion, it seems we agree, and after your admission that God may indeed exist, we seem to be on the same page about Religious bigotry as well.
Not really, you seem to think that I am a bigot. I continue to hold that I am not.


I've never said that respect should be given, I agree it is earned. I think people who espouse a religious view have earned respect,
Why? Simply having a religious belief is worthy of respect?
for the most part, but seldom do you see them get any here. That was the point of the thread. Again, I am sorry you take exception with the term "religious bigot" and you seem to be demonstrating that you are not such a bigot, but many of your counterparts are bigoted in their views toward religious people.
Being disrespectful is not the same as being a bigot. For example, you are going out of your way to call me a bigot, for no reason I can fathom other than I'm occassionally disagree with religious ideas. This is quite disrespectful, but certainly not bigoted.
Once again, I will point out, my personal viewpoint is not one in defense of religion or religious views, but rather, against bigotry and hate.
Then why do you keep accusing be of being a bigot when I'm not doing anything bigotted or holding any biggoted beliefs?



This is the poignant point about morality you can't seem to grasp. Without some measure of accountability or consequence, morality becomes a quaint notion and something you pay lip service to.
Speak for yourself. I'm perfectly capable of refaring from harming my fellow human beings without the treat of punishment, divine or otherwise.
It has no real reason or justification, and those who claim to have morality based solely on their conscience, can most often justify immorality whenever the need arises. Rendering morality completely irrelevant and pointless.
Humans are fallible, regardless of thier morality.



You are still missing the point. Okay, forget about "speed limit" for a moment, perhaps that was a poor example. We have a law that you must pay income tax... if there were no IRS, and no one to hold you accountable, how many people would actually pay the amount of tax owed? Do you not see my point? Morals are Rules... Rules without accountability or enforcement are pointless.
In your opinion. If I can see the reason behind the rule, then I will follow it, punishment or not. And I like to think that I'm not alone in this.



You keep saying "threat" and "fear" but I have never once used these words.
You're using the word accountability instead, in a cheap attempt to make it sound more palletable.
Someone mentioned the concept of 'karma' earlier, and suggested it was secular in nature, which is fine...
That was me.
maybe you exhibit good moral behavior because you seek to have good karma? There is clearly reason to behave morally without belief in religion, as I have stated, I am non-religious but very spiritual. I believe it is important to behave morally to insure good spiritual energy, that is not a "religious" view. However, if you profess to be an Atheist who doesn't believe in any power greater than self, your morality is based solely on your own personal conscience... which means, if you can justify it to yourself, it is "moral" and okay, regardless.
Just like if you decide that your god would really be ok with you punishing an evil doer on his behalf, you could justify torture to yourself. Except I have to accept sole responsibility for my actions. I have no god I can claim to be acting on behalf of. From my point of view there are no sinners who have an eternity in hell in store from them.



Again, what is the reason for having compassion for others? If there is no benefit to me either way, why should I care?
Human empathy.
As I said, my spiritual belief mandates that I behave in a moral way, and I do so. Most religious people have a code of ethics based on their personal religious beliefs, which also mandate they behave in a moral way. We have accountability to something greater than self, but people who don't profess to believe in anything greater than self, simply have no accountability, what difference does it make to them if fellow humans suffer, or if they regard this as a moral obligation?
Because they don't need someone putting a gun to their head, so to speak, to keep them from harming others. Their morals are enough.



You certainly have some thin skin to be on a message board. In this thread, I have been called "arrogant and stupid" and told to "shut the fuck up" and "no one cares what you think", as well as being almost constantly misquoted and misconstrued... am I complaining? No, because this is a sensitive topic and people are passionate about their beliefs. I have not flamed you in any way,
As I said above, to call it flaming was an overreaction on my part. Though I stand by it being an ad hominem.
I have pointed out truths and revealed things you need to see, and you don't want to look. I am sorry about that, but sometimes it is what we have to do to make a point.
Who are you to tell me what I want and what I don't want? What kind of magical insight do you believe you have into my opinions that eludes me?

Read the anti-religion threads on this board,
Link to one.
are they not "Religiously Bigoted" in every possible way?
No.
Are Atheists not completely bigoted (for the most part) regarding the opinions and ideas of the religious?
No.
....Myths... Sky Gods... Imaginary Friend.... Wackos.... Fallacy.... etc. These are words used by people with a totally bigoted viewpoint.
Nope. You just want it to be. Reeks of a persecution complex.
I can't help that! It is just the truth of the matter, and if the mods want to ban me for it... oh fucking well! I've been banned before, it's nothing new to me.
Oh yes. Reeks of persecution complex. 'Oh poor little me, struggling vainly against all the evil bigots and the liberal mods'. Get off your cross. You only see bigotry here because you want see it.
It is not a form of belief, but it is a state of belief. Namely, the state of contented ignorance - you have no understanding of the question at hand and thus have no position.
This makes sense.


That is default behaviour. We must assume that we are not closed to possibilities we are not aware of; otherwise, we would be incapable of learning.
As does this.


The point here is that we (being the innocent) don't know what it is. We have no knowledge at all about what the name stands for, and thus it is entirely feasible to us that it could stand for anything. It is an unknown; a Variable. Since there are some things we believe in and some things we do not, since we know that there are some things that we believe in that are known by other names,
Do newborn children know this?
and since we do not know whether something you're talking about is something that we believe in or not until it is described for us in terms we understand, we are forced acknowledge that the possibility exists that we believe in something that we do not yet know.

Or, to put it another way,

I believe Steve exists
If X = Steve then I believe X exists
There is a possibility that X = Steve
Therefore, there is a possibility that I believe X exists

Until we define X such that it can only be something we do not believe exists then we cannot discard the possibility that X is definable as something that we do believe exists, and it is thus incorrect to say that we do not believe X exists simply because we lack an explicit assertion that X does exist.
Yeah, this is awfully complex reasoning to be carried out my someone a few minutes old.
Ah irony.
Delicious.

I don't see a response yet, and I know people have lives, so I'm going to hit the sack.

Since accountability seems to be necessary for some people to do the right thing, I'll play that role in a few ways.

If somebody says "Your argument parallels the XYZ fallacy", and you don't know what it is, either look it up and refute/admit, or just be honest and say "I don't know what that is, please explain".

But DON'T claim you aren't doing it if you have no idea what it describes. Because the angel of hammurab might be there to hold you accountable...Are you missing an i ?

Yeah, this is awfully complex reasoning to be carried out my someone a few minutes old.
Fortunately, it's all built into hardware, so they don't need to worry about it.

EDIT: Besides, the kid will only ever need to actually do this evaluation when pressed. It's not like it matters to them whether or not they have a degree of belief in something or not.

I counter with.....at birth, each individual is a child of God.That's a claim, not a fact.

Agnostic, not knowing.
Yes it is. There's no evidence proving or disproving deities. It's logical for a position that acknowledges both possibilities to be the default position.

Not if you have never come in contact with the concept of deities.

Until children learn about God, they certainly cannot be classed as atheists, because if they don't know anything about God, how is it possible for them to believe that there is no God?Atheism means to not believe that god(s) exist.
Lack of belief and belief of lack are lumped together here.

If one lacks belief, e.g. because as a child never was indoctrinated, then the one is an atheist. Until children learn about God, they certainly can be classed as atheists.

Atheism means to not believe that god(s) exist.
Lack of belief and belief of lack are lumped together here.

If one lacks belief, e.g. because as a child never was indoctrinated, then the one is an atheist. Until children learn about God, they certainly can be classed as atheists.

That's one thing I don't like about that definition of atheism.

My children, for example, have no beliefs at all concerning god. They are atheists.

You believe that here is no Judeo-Christian god. That is a faith-based belief about a supernatural entity, and therefore qualifies as a religious belief. Yet this could also fit into the definition of atheism you have put forth.

So how is it that you, with your religious belief, get lumped in with my kids, who have no religious beliefs at all?

That's one thing I don't like about that definition of atheism.

My children, for example, have no beliefs at all concerning god. They are atheists.

You believe that here is no Judeo-Christian god. That is a faith-based belief about a supernatural entity, and therefore qualifies as a religious belief. Yet this could also fit into the definition of atheism you have put forth.

So how is it that you, with your religious belief, get lumped in with my kids, who have no religious beliefs at all?

It's sort of two halves of a larger grouping. I believe one could be more precise and describe your children as Implicit Atheists and describe UB as an Explicit Atheist (provided he does, in fact, believe that god(s) do not exist).
Of course most people either don't know those terms, or don't care to make the distinction.

It's sort of two halves of a larger grouping. I believe one could be more precise and describe your children as Implicit Atheists and describe UB as an Explicit Atheist (provided he does, in fact, believe that god(s) do not exist).
Of course most people either don't know those terms, or don't care to make the distinction.

Am I missing something or is there no real difference between explicit atheism, and the theist belief that "my god exists but your's doesn't" ?

Because atheism has more than one meaning. People who believe that there are no gods are atheists. People who do not believe in any gods are atheists.
You can slap whatever label you want on the children but it does not make it true. All children are born with a spiritual connection to God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innatism) their creator.

You can slap whatever label you want on the children but it does not make it true. All children are born with a spiritual connection to God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innatism) their creator.

There might be a wikipedia article about it but it does not make it true.

Am I missing something or is there no real difference between explicit atheism, and the theist belief that "my god exists but your's doesn't" ?

There's a poster on NS somewhere who has a very accurate quote in his sig along the lines of:

"We are both atheists, I merely believe in one less god than you. When you reject all other gods, you will understand why I reject yours."

So I suppose yes, there isn't, though we're likely looking at it from opposite directions.

There's a poster on NS somewhere who has a very accurate quote in his sig along the lines of:

"We are both atheists, I merely believe in one less god than you. When you reject all other gods, you will understand why I reject yours."

So I suppose yes, there isn't, though we're likely looking at it from opposite directions.

Well, why can't the Gods in all the various mythologies around the world exist? I certainly believe they could. Saying that one god and one god only exists is as mad as saying no god(s) exist. ;)

There's a poster on NS somewhere who has a very accurate quote in his sig along the lines of:

"We are both atheists, I merely believe in one less god than you. When you reject all other gods, you will understand why I reject yours."

So I suppose yes, there isn't, though we're likely looking at it from opposite directions.

Haha. Of course. One of those moments when you realise how obvious it is as soon as someone else says it.

Thinking about it for another second, I get the impression that the sig quote you mention asks a question: what is it that inspires the belief that these gods do not exist? In both cases, it would be faith.

In this way, we see that the explicit atheist has more faith than a mystic theist. Odd and interesting.

You can slap whatever label you want on the children but it does not make it true. All children are born with a spiritual connection to God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innatism) their creator.

Assuming that school of thought to be true.

Still, I'd assert that, children aside, the default position is agnostic, rather than atheist. And I'll attempt to explain this using a non-supernatural example.

Imagine, as a thought experiment, you and I are walking along the street, and we witness a car accident in which a young toddler is killed. I assert that, had the toddler grown up, he or she would have become a doctor. What is the default position? That yes, he or she would have become a doctor, no he or she would not have, or that because the outcome is untestable, one cannot know?

How else did the Universe get here, unless it always existed?

Probably already been said, but...

I don't know, however my lack of knowledge on the origin of the Universe does not automatically mean that it was created by god

Haha. Of course. One of those moments when you realise how obvious it is as soon as someone else says it.

Thinking about it for another second, I get the impression that the sig quote you mention asks a question: what is it that inspires the belief that these gods do not exist? In both cases, it would be faith.

In this way, we see that the explicit atheist has more faith than a mystic theist. Odd and interesting.

You might be interested to know that you got it completely wrong.

You might be interested to know that you got it completely wrong.

I'd be more interested if you explained what you were talking about.

Whether someone can or cannot be forced into christianity isn't really important, what is important is that various christian groups go door to door trying to force people into christianity.

And things like the pledge of allegiance (..one nation, under god,...), your money (in god we trust), trying to get science classes to teach creation myths, the 10 commandments outside courthouses e.d. do force people into accepting Christianity. Now, as a religious person, this might not seem as a bad thing to you, but, to an atheist this is indeed, very annoying.

Non of that actually forces you to believe. You don't have to listen to missionaries and join the churches, you don't have to say the pledge and you certainly don't have to read the ten commandments. You can make up your own mind, you have your agency no one forces you to do anything.

There is a philosophy: "I create it all" you are the one who creates the silly circumstances in your head, and how you deal with them. And atheists shouldn't preach about Christian's lack of acceptance towards gays and others when they can't accept the aspect of Christianity as apart of the culture its self. America was founded on the basis of religious and thought freedom.

Describe a law which allws that?From the Wiki:

Controversy
The Salvation Army in the U.S. has come under scrutiny for legal discrimination in hiring and for placing behavioral requirements on employees. The Army's employment policy is explained by them thus:

"It is the policy of The Salvation Army that it will provide equal opportunity for employment on the bases enumerated in the federal, state and local laws applicable to it, except where a prohibition on discrimination is inconsistent with the religious principles of The Salvation Army. Such equal opportunity for employment will apply to recruitment and hiring, training, promotion, salaries and other compensation, transfers and layoffs or termination.

As a religious organization, a branch of the Christian church, The Salvation Army reserves the right to make such employment decisions, adopt employment policies (including employee benefits) which are calculated to promote the religious and moral principles for which it is established and maintained, consistent with its rights to the free exercise of its religion guaranteed to it by the Constitution of the United States.

Without limiting the foregoing, by accepting employment with The Salvation Army, an individual acknowledges that The Salvation Army is a church, agrees to do nothing to undermine its religious mission, and acknowledges that conduct must not conflict with or undermine the religious programs of The Salvation Army, or its religious and moral purposes."

The Army's position is that because it is a church, Section VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly guarantees its rights to be particular in its hiring. In addition, as a church, the Salvation Army is not required to file a Form 990 like other disaster relief organizations, a position sometimes criticized by charity watchdogs [8], although they do publish an annual report on its website.

[edit] State of New York
In a recent case, the New York Federal Court ruled that the organization could use religious criteria in its hiring. The State of New York proposed legislation that would require businesses to offer health benefits to same-sex partners of employees. The Salvation Army opposes this policy and has threatened to close its soup kitchens and shelters across New York. [6]

That is not what I said.

Actually, yes it is

How's jumping on a grenade to save others or in front of a bullet that would've killed your loved one (or something) a survival tactic? Or giving money to a beggar? Or helping someone who's confused out? And the list goes on.

Jumping on a grenade is a survival tactic, just because the individual doesn't survive, by doing so he's helping ensure the survival of the group, which by working together has a greater chance at surviving then a lone individual who acts only for him/her self.

To you, perhaps God is mythical, to many others, God is very real. This was my point, you can't just "proclaim" something 'mythical' because you claim you don't believe in it. It might make you feel better to do that, it might release some frustrations you have, but it is not being intellectually honest or respectful of the beliefs of others. Again, this is what I mean by "religious bigotry".

Real or not Jehovah is a mythical being

Mythical
pertaining to, of the nature of, or involving a myth
Myth
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

Am I missing something or is there no real difference between explicit atheism, and the theist belief that "my god exists but your's doesn't" ?

You're not missing anything

You can slap whatever label you want on the children but it does not make it true. All children are born with a spiritual connection to God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innatism) their creator.

prove it

I'd be more interested if you explained what you were talking about.

My pleasure : the point of that quote is not that the atheist has faith in the absence of god, its that the theist has absence of belief in other gods than his, whether he has knowledge of them or not, illustrating to theists how atheists feel about their god.

That's one thing I don't like about that definition of atheism.

My children, for example, have no beliefs at all concerning god. They are atheists.

You believe that here is no Judeo-Christian god. That is a faith-based belief about a supernatural entity, and therefore qualifies as a religious belief. Yet this could also fit into the definition of atheism you have put forth.

So how is it that you, with your religious belief, get lumped in with my kids, who have no religious beliefs at all?
Because words in English often have more than one meaning. Your children and UB are different kinds of atheists, and for different reasons.
You can slap whatever label you want on the children but it does not make it true. All children are born with a spiritual connection to God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innatism) their creator.

You can link to whatever wikipedia article you like, but it does not make it true.

You can link to whatever wikipedia article you like, but it does not make it true.

But, but, Wikipedia is always 100% accurate and correct

How's jumping on a grenade to save others or in front of a bullet that would've killed your loved one (or something) a survival tactic? Or giving money to a beggar? Or helping someone who's confused out? And the list goes on.

These things may not contribute to the survival of the particular individual, but they do contribute to the survival of the group, or are behaviors incidental to those that contribute to the survival of the group.

Societies that create a sense among their members that they should offer help to those who need it save a lot of their resources, or put them to better use, because members aren't so paranoid about possible harm, they get to be more productive.

Inuit and Bedouin societies have the most extreme versions of this trait, where complete hospitality must be given to total strangers. It benefits you nothing to give your food and bed to a stranger. It benefits you everything to be part of a society that demands you do if you are going to be the stranger tomorrow.

Such societies also consider the hospitality of the family when it comes time to find husbands for their daughters... Survival trait.

Genuine altruism. Mercy for a helpless creature. Sexual inhibition with no clear biological motivation.

Altruism and mercy for the helpless is a byproduct of our protective instincts which lead us to take such great care of our kids (in no other species are offspring cared for well into adulthood). That's a survival trait because lineages that make sure that their progeny thrive have the greatest likelihood of survival.

Sexual inhibition is inborn among all mammals, just to varying degrees. It's a vestige of a biology that forces males to compete for the attention of females without alienating them demonstrating themselves to be strong defenders and considerate providers. Survival tactic for the species.

You can slap whatever label you want on the children but it does not make it true. All children are born with a spiritual connection to God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innatism) their creator.

CanuckHeaven, I notice you frequently point out "Claiming it does not make it so" or "Saying it does not make it true".

Yet it is quickly evident from your own posts that you often hold your own statements to be axiomatic, that you are just as prone to declarative assumptions.

If I were to go back and hold your assertions to the same standard that you use to dismiss others, much of your own position is invalidated on the precisely the same grounds you use to refute others.

In other words, if you consider it a valid retort to say "That isn't true just because you say it is", perhaps you should practice what you preach and realize that your own insistances are no more tennable. Again, how many of your own claims do not survive your own statement of "Claiming it does not make it so?"

Please bear in mind, it is not your beliefs that I address here, it is the character of your discourse. If there is some Godthing or another, it deserves a credible advocate.

Actually, yes it is
Actually, no it is not. :)

CanuckHeaven, I notice you frequently point out "Claiming it does not make it so" or "Saying it does not make it true".

Yet it is quickly evident from your own posts that you often hold your own statements to be axiomatic, that you are just as prone to declarative assumptions.

If I were to go back and hold your assertions to the same standard that you use to dismiss others, much of your own position is invalidated on the precisely the same grounds you use to refute others.

In other words, if you consider it a valid retort to say "That isn't true just because you say it is", perhaps you should practice what you preach and realize that your own insistances are no more tennable. Again, how many of your own claims do not survive your own statement of "Claiming it does not make it so?"

Please bear in mind, it is not your beliefs that I address here, it is the character of your discourse. If there is some Godthing or another, it deserves a credible advocate.
And it is always the same thing with any discussion regarding religion or God, or athiesm, etc., that one side will try to refute the arguments of the other side using whatever logic or facts that are available. The arguments are always circular in nature.

Theist: God exists
Athiest: no He doesn't

Theist: prove that He doesn't exist
Atheist: prove that He does exist

Theist: the Bible etc. says so
Atheist: the Bible is bunk

Theist: prove the Bible etc. is bunk
Atheist: there was a big bang, primordial ooze, evolution, scientists say etc.

I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is our Saviour and unless anyone can prove to me unequivocally that is not true, then all atheists arguments and opinions are just that......arguments and opinions.

If people don't want to believe in Him, that is their choice. If people want to believe in another god, than that too is their choice.

God gave us all free will and I am using mine to hold to my beliefs, and I feel comfortable with my choice.

And it is always the same thing with any discussion regarding religion or God, or athiesm, etc., that one side will try to refute the arguments of the other side using whatever logic or facts that are available. The arguments are always circular in nature.

Speak for yourself, but if you say the arguments are always circular, then isn't your own argument as flawed and therefore dismissable as those who you write off as "Saying so doesn't make it true"?

In other words, can you play by your own rules and hold your own position to theh same standard? And if you can't, are you not admitting that your position has no greater veracity?


Theist: God exists
Athiest: no He doesn't

Theist: prove that He doesn't exist
Atheist: prove that He does exist

Theist: the Bible etc. says so
Atheist: the Bible is bunk

Theist: prove the Bible etc. is bunk
Atheist: there was a big bang, primordial ooze, evolution, scientists say etc.

I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is our Saviour and unless anyone can prove to me unequivocally that is not true, then all atheists arguments and opinions are just that......arguments and opinions.

Now practice what you preach and hold your own beliefs to the same logic.


If people don't want to believe in Him, that is their choice. If people want to believe in another god, than that too is their choice.

God gave us all free will and I am using mine to hold to my beliefs, and I feel comfortable with my choice.

Even though you freely admit that your own choice is no more enduring of your own critique then any other choice.

You can feel comfortable holding one choice of which it can be said "Believing it doesn't make it true", yet you use that same response to dimiss the opinions of others.

I stress again, if there are some kind of higher beings running around, I doubt that they want to be associated with that kind of hypocrisy.

Arguments are not always circular, Canuckheaven, but if you can ignore any argument by others as "You can't prove it", then your own argument should be equally ignored by your own reasoning, yet you do not.

Not all religious people fail to play by their own rules, but you seem quite comfortable with it.

Altruism and mercy for the helpless is a byproduct of our protective instincts which lead us to take such great care of our kids (in no other species are offspring cared for well into adulthood).

... Yeah. And that explains that some parents DON'T take such great care of their children... How? In the animal world you don't see the same kind of massive difference between parental quality as in the human world. How do you explain that if our "protective instincts" are so awesomely great, that there are lots and lots of people who don't take care of their children? And what about people who CHOOSE not to have children? How do you explain them if it's all about instincts? You'd think that having children would be one of the strongest of them, so pretty much what you're saying is that we shouldn't be capable of not wanting to have children.

But we are. Odd, if all our actions are dictated by instincts.

That's a survival trait because lineages that make sure that their progeny thrive have the greatest likelihood of survival.

Dying for someone who's not even related to you helps your lineage to survive... How? You're simplifying things beyond belief. Humans aren't just slaves of their instincts. You explain that people are altruistic simply because society sez so and you might need the kind of hospitality yourself. How about people who are altruistic in societies where it's actually shunned? And people in societies where you don't actually go off being the bother of others? How come people can be nice to each other without the society telling them to do so, nor it being in any way beneficial to their existence (or the existence of their possible children)?

How about people who are nice to others even though their own childhood, if we were so bound by our nature, was horrible? Or people who had good childhoods, but are bad people? I find your simplifying of free will to a simple matter of "survival instinct" rather strange. If all we do is dictated by the same instincts as everyone else, why are people acting so differently from one another?

Which instinct possessed people to invent the Internet? The "I need to talk to retards all across the world" instinct?

Sexual inhibition is inborn among all mammals, just to varying degrees. It's a vestige of a biology that forces males to compete for the attention of females without alienating them demonstrating themselves to be strong defenders and considerate providers.

Yeah, kind of like how male lions beat up other male lions on their turf, take over the place and eat up the children of their lost competitors. Very considerate of them and very not-alienating. Like those things actually matter in the animal world. "Sexual inhibition" caused by the force of a stronger male who could (and did) whoop your ass is different from choosing not to force everyone of the opposite sex that you meet to have sex with you. And before you bring up the fact that we have laws against it which stops everyone from doing it, I can't remember reading anywhere that the human world was one big rape fest before that happened.

Other male mammals, however, if they see a female (in heat) without male companionship... Lol surprise sex! In case of predators continued with "O u have kids? *chomp* NOT ANYMORE."

And it is always the same thing with any discussion regarding religion or God, or athiesm, etc., that one side will try to refute the arguments of the other side using whatever logic or facts that are available. The arguments are always circular in nature.

Theist: God exists
Athiest: no He doesn't

Theist: prove that He doesn't exist
Atheist: prove that He does exist

Theist: the Bible etc. says so
Atheist: the Bible is bunk

Theist: prove the Bible etc. is bunk
Atheist: there was a big bang, primordial ooze, evolution, scientists say etc.

I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is our Saviour and unless anyone can prove to me unequivocally that is not true, then all atheists arguments and opinions are just that......arguments and opinions.

If people don't want to believe in Him, that is their choice. If people want to believe in another god, than that too is their choice.

God gave us all free will and I am using mine to hold to my beliefs, and I feel comfortable with my choice.

Well, I am personally not afraid of being an atheist bigot. I am using my free will card right now to say you are an idiot. If you can't understand why... then you're just more of an idiot. You believe that Christ is you're saviour just because its impossible to prove that he isn't ? :p No seriously youre gonna need better apologetics than that. That card has alread been played and beaten many times. Try again.

With love, from the drunk atheist.

Well, I am personally not afraid of being an atheist bigot. I am using my free will card right now to say you are an idiot. If you can't understand why... then you're just more of an idiot. You believe that Christ is you're saviour just because its impossible to prove that he isn't ? :p No seriously youre gonna need better apologetics than that. That card has alread been played and beaten many times. Try again.

With love, from the drunk atheist.


Plenty, calling him an idiot doesn't help. He roundly and repeatedly contradicts himself and gives opinions that are unsound even by his own standard of logic, but real idiocy is different.

Calling him an idiot just adds to the belief that Christians are being bullied on this board.

Canuckhaven's duplicity can be clearly revealed in his own posts, but it may be the result of cognitive dissonance or an intense need to believe, not necessarily intellectual deficiency.

We've tried several times to illustrate how his own position doesn't withstand the statements he uses to decry others. Let's see if he can eventually address that before we assume he's an idiot.

I stress again, if there are some kind of higher beings running around, I doubt that they want to be associated with that kind of hypocrisy.
I focus on this single part of your reply for a very good reason:

You say "if there are some kind of higher beings running around", in other words you don't know, or don't believe if they exist, yet you also say that "I doubt that they want to be associated with that kind of hypocrisy".

You want to deny their existence and at the same time want to suggest what they might be thinking. Wow, that is some powerful reasoning skills there my friend.

So unless you have some earth shattering news that my beliefs are wrong and that yours are right, then you are just wasting your time.

snip

Be quiet, and let me feed you to some lions.

I focus on this single part of your reply for a very good reason:

You focus on this part because you've repeatedly proven unprepared and unable to deal with the rest of what's been said.



You say "if there are some kind of higher beings running around", in other words you don't know, or don't believe if they exist, yet you also say that "I doubt that they want to be associated with that kind of hypocrisy".

You want to deny their existence and at the same time want to suggest what they might be thinking. Wow, that is some powerful reasoning skills there my friend.

So unless you have some earth shattering news that my beliefs are wrong and that yours are right, then you are just wasting your time.


You should learn the meaning of the word "if". Exploring the opposing premise and its percumbent implications is actually a very reasonable way to examine its reasonability.

Now, can you respond to the rest of what has been said?

Now, I'll be out of the country for a few days, so please take that time to consider that by your own last sentence, you are also wasting your time since you can't prove your position either.

Plenty, calling him an idiot doesn't help. He roundly and repeatedly contradicts himself and gives opinions that are unsound even by his own standard of logic, but real idiocy is different.

Calling him an idiot just adds to the belief that Christians are being bullied on this board.

Canuckhaven's duplicity can be clearly revealed in his own posts, but it may be the result of cognitive dissonance or an intense need to believe, not necessarily intellectual deficiency.

We've tried several times to illustrate how his own position doesn't withstand the statements he uses to decry others. Let's see if he can eventually address that before we assume he's an idiot.
Nice flame bait, but I do admit that you do it in such a polite manner. :D

Now, can you respond to the rest of what has been said?
Why bother? I have absolutely nothing to prove to you.

Now, I'll be out of the country for a few days, so please take that time to consider that by your own last sentence, you are also wasting your time since you can't prove your position either.
Do hurry back, I will miss the warmth of your flames. :p

BTW, I have lots of time to waste.

A lot of religious hate comes from stuff like this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/21/world/main3529940.shtml

If you don't want to read that, a girl was trying to get a picture back from her ex-boyfriend, they were in a car alone together. She was gang raped (boyfriend did not participate) but she got 200 lashes and jail time for being in the same car as a unrelated male.

It's such a joke that archaic things like this still happen, this is a perfect example of why Religion is given a bad rap, this kind of inhumane actions happen every day.

Here is a teenaged girl being stoned to death because she loved someone of the "wrong" religion:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=452288

Well, I am personally not afraid of being an atheist bigot. I am using my free will card right now to say you are an idiot. If you can't understand why... then you're just more of an idiot. You believe that Christ is you're saviour just because its impossible to prove that he isn't ? :p No seriously youre gonna need better apologetics than that. That card has alread been played and beaten many times. Try again.

With love, from the drunk atheist.
Perhaps you should try posting when you are sober? :D

Indeed it does. I have nothing against regular Atheists who go about their business like most people, but I have a lot against the types who spout "Christians this" and "Christians that", while it's obvious that there are insane amounts of different Christian groups, which was caused by the Reformation, which happened hundreds of years ago. If some guy from some militaristic Gogglethopian Baptist Church says something crazy, it doesn't mean that even a millionth of all Christians of all different Christian denominations agree with it.

As for all this hayte spouting... Let's go with the "all Christians are one cohesive group" idea for a second here. If you find as many Christians spouting hate as Atheists, you still have a percentually infinitesmal amount of Christians going at it versus a percentually MUCH higher number of Atheists. What this could indicate if one was a spiteful person is that Atheists are more likely to spout hateful words about people of religion than Christians are about Atheists (and other religions)! :p And even if you could find, numerically, a lot more Christians than Atheists going at it, you'd need a significantly higher number of them than Atheists to get to the same percentage.

It's easy to just say that a certain group does something more than another when the other group is MASSIVE compared to the other - while in truth, by percentages, the numbers are completely different.

And now you're doing it yourself by the way. You are implying that Atheism is a religion...

Just kidding. I know you meant the stereotyping part, but not with the "religious" part in it.

I think whats crucial to remember is that in the US, the christians outnumber everyone else by an incredibly huge margin.
So, what youre experiencing, is a very small number of atheists, and an even smaller number who are vocal, when verbally attacked like in this thread.

Anyone, when provoked, will become angry when called a "bigot" or told they "hate" someone or something they actually could care less about.

Its the insinuation, as you point out, that a ridiculous sterotype exists, where it clearly does not.

What amazes me, are the christians who feel they are being persecuted by some random athiest conspiracy, especially in America, where such an idea is so absurd, as to be a total joke.
Its impossible to oppress the majority.

Generally, us atheists are perfectly content when left alone.
However, as the christians are so massively outnumbering us, therefore the small percentage of christians who DO attempt to force thier faiths on us, STILL outnumber the entirety of the population of atheist americans.

When your faith teaches you that those who dont believe are either going to hell, or even evil people, how would you expect us to react when directly challenged, like the very topic of this thread.

Really, it just so happens that this forum has an usually high number of atheists who regularly post.
This is why douchebags posters, (not you), who cant go fifteen minutes without spouting off thier personal beliefs to a largely uncaring audience, particularly suck on this forum.

I remember reading this interview from that Pat Robertson in which at one stage he advocates (or seemed to) a more pure majoritarian democracy when questioned about Christianity and atheism, but when questioned about illegal immigrants said that strong liberties were needed in case foreign immigrants outnumber whites.

Anyone, when provoked, will become angry when called a "bigot" or told they "hate" someone or something they actually could care less about.

Problem is that a negative reaction to the baiting of someone will only cause an escalation of the negativity, and the majority can just zerg rush you with sheer numbers. Atheists should know by now that there's no point in "debating" with Christians about their faith, because there's nothing to debate. Nothing changes due to these debates, since you can't shake a person's firm belief. If you can shake someone's belief in God with these debates... It proves nothing, because that person probably had doubts about his faith to begin with.

What amazes me, are the christians who feel they are being persecuted by some random athiest conspiracy, especially in America, where such an idea is so absurd, as to be a total joke.

What about the JEWISH conspiracy that threatens the entire WORLD?!+1 Kidding aside, people like being martyrs. And it doesn't matter what your beliefs or lack of them are. You'l always find someone who'll like playing out the part of the martyr.

NO exceptions.

Its impossible to oppress the majority.

This however isn't true. Just look at Saddam's Iraq. Or the USSR. Or China. Majorities are easy to oppress, as long as you're ruthless enough to massacre dissenters.

Generally, us atheists are perfectly content when left alone.
However, as the christians are so massively outnumbering us, therefore the small percentage of christians who DO attempt to force thier faiths on us, STILL outnumber the entirety of the population of atheist americans.

That's just something you'll have to live with, regrettably. Kind of like how a person who doesn't drink alcohol will have to live with people who try to make him drink it in many a Western country. At least where I live, it's not the Christians of the main Protestant denomination who try to force their faith on anyone, it's the Jehovah's witnesses... And funnily enough, the Atheists ("How can you believe in God?! STOP NOW!"). Which is why my view on the issue is kind of different.

When your faith teaches you that those who dont believe are either going to hell, or even evil people, how would you expect us to react when directly challenged, like the very topic of this thread.

Well, I would expect you to try to refute the claim instead of going off confirming the views of the fundamentalist Christian (that you are baaad baaad peepol wit evul intenshuns, and since you're screaming at them out of frustration, you look like you've been possessed by the Devil!). :p I don't know where people get the idea that people who don't believe go to Hell, though. I thought it's more of a Medieval idea to keep people in line. Are they interpreting unbelieving as having the mark of the Beast? I wouldn't know. But I can't remember a part in the Bible that says, "If you don't believe in God, the only place for you is HELL!" myself... Maybe it's in the Letters? I confess, I haven't read them a whole lot (in fact, the parts I've read the most are the actual Testaments, and I haven't even done that in a while). :| I haven't really read the Old Testament either and don't really accept it as anything but a description of the Jewish chapter. I'm Christian and it's the New Covenant that should affect me, not the Old one. I'm not Jewish, after all. If someone thinks that's "cherry picking", that's their right.

No, I have no dislike towards Jews, but I find it funny that some Christians would value their part of the book as high as OUR part of the book. Does that make sense? Not to me! In fact, I've been lead to believe that the Old Testament is there only because of the historical fact that the first Christians were Jewish, because Christianity was built on Judaism. That doesn't mean, however, that we're bound by the rules of the Jews, just as they aren't bound by ours.

Really, it just so happens that this forum has an usually high number of atheists who regularly post.
This is why douchebags posters, (not you), who cant go fifteen minutes without spouting off thier personal beliefs to a largely uncaring audience, particularly suck on this forum.

I get that. And due to the way these threads go I get it even better. But bashing them back doesn't work - they'll only get more ammunition for the next round, which could be somewhere else. And they could show these threads to like-minded people, which will only confirm their views on Atheists being bad folk even further.

It's a vicious cycle, yes, but if you don't end it, who will?

What about the JEWISH conspiracy that threatens the entire WORLD?!You mean the bible?

You mean the bible?

Nno!

Your face.

IT BURRRNS.

Nno!

Your face.

IT BURRRNS.Are you smoking something?

Are you smoking something?

No, but I'm an avid watcher of Youtube Poops if that helps. They can be truly awesome.

Problem is that a negative reaction to the baiting of someone will only cause an escalation of the negativity, and the majority can just zerg rush you with sheer numbers. Atheists should know by now that there's no point in "debating" with Christians about their faith, because there's nothing to debate.

I for one, never argue about the existance of God on these forums.
As you say, there is no debate possible on that subject. One can only speak of the lack of evidence, and use that to either advantage.
Its truly pointless. Not everyone here has learned that.

I only tend to butt in when someone uses faith as fact, or solid justification for something generally wrong. Unlike many here, I actually study biblical history,but not to a ruthless extent. It enables me to understand what Im arguing against.



This however isn't true. Just look at Saddam's Iraq. Or the USSR. Or China. Majorities are easy to oppress, as long as you're ruthless enough to massacre dissenters.

Youre correct, allow me to rephrase.
"Its impossible to oppress the christian majority in America, becuase all the truly powerful people in this country, are christians."



That's just something you'll have to live with, regrettably. Kind of like how a person who doesn't drink alcohol will have to live with people who try to make him drink it in many a Western country. At least where I live, it's not the Christians of the main Protestant denomination who try to force their faith on anyone, it's the Jehovah's witnesses... And funnily enough, the Atheists ("How can you believe in God?! STOP NOW!"). Which is why my view on the issue is kind of different.

See, thats the thing.
You dont often see many threads on this forum with titles like "God is teh suxxor" or some such crap. Its a theist, attacking the "ebbil liberal god-haters". Like ol' Dixie, here.
The thread is started, and the other side comments back.

For example (true story), I deliver pizzas for a living. Last night, i get to the door of the home, and a very nice lady answers the door.
She pays for her pizzas, and gives me some change for a tip.
She also attempts to give a religious tract.
I take a brief look at it, smile, and just as quickly, hand it back to her.
She says, "Oh, you dont want it?"
"No but thanks", I say."But, you have a good night."
We go our separate ways, no harm no foul.

People like Dixieanna here, would probably have you believe that I stabbed her in the neck with my keys for daring to oppress me with the Foul Christ.
Obviously, thats just not true.

She wasnt trying to be a bitch, she was hoping maybe I would stumble upon a wonderful thing, and be "saved".
In her mind, she was trying to be nice.
Not many people would give her an ass chewing for it, christian or atheist.




Well, I would expect you to try to refute the claim instead of going off confirming the views of the fundamentalist Christian (that you are baaad baaad peepol wit evul intenshuns, and since you're screaming at them out of frustration, you look like you've been possessed by the Devil!).

Some "spiritual" (give ya one guess who)types are very good at provoking people to get desired responses. Its very hard to resist anyone who verbally attacks your belief system. Thats why so many people get banned, or even deleted in these debates. Works on both sides of the arguement.




I don't know where people get the idea that people who don't believe go to Hell, though. I thought it's more of a Medieval idea to keep people in line. Are they interpreting unbelieving as having the mark of the Beast? I wouldn't know. But I can't remember a part in the Bible that says, "If you don't believe in God, the only place for you is HELL!" myself... Maybe it's in the Letters? I confess, I haven't read them a whole lot (in fact, the parts I've read the most are the actual Testaments, and I haven't even done that in a while). :| I haven't really read the Old Testament either and don't really accept it as anything but a description of the Jewish chapter.

Interestingly enough, to the Jewish line of thinking, Hell is simply "an abscence from God". Maybe it means if you arent good enough in life, you dont get to hang with the man, himself. (shrug)
Its not until the NT that the "hellfire and brimstone" aspect gets in there.
However, Im not aware of where it says "if you dont join, youre going to hell", either. Only in Matthew, where Jesus says "...no man shall enter Heaven, except through me." He isnt specific at "where" you end up otherwise.
Hmmm..now Im gonna have to look that up.
Heh, thanks. :p




I'm Christian and it's the New Covenant that should affect me, not the Old one. I'm not Jewish, after all. If someone thinks that's "cherry picking", that's their right.

No, I have no dislike towards Jews, but I find it funny that some Christians would value their part of the book as high as OUR part of the book. Does that make sense? Not to me! In fact, I've been lead to believe that the Old Testament is there only because of the historical fact that the first Christians were Jewish, because Christianity was built on Judaism. That doesn't mean, however, that we're bound by the rules of the Jews, just as they aren't bound by ours.

I seem to recall something about Jesus mentioning the validity of the "ot"(not that he reffered to it as that, obviously),particularly the Ten Commandments, but that the message he spoke now, took precedence over many "rules" like Leviticus.



I get that. And due to the way these threads go I get it even better. But bashing them back doesn't work - they'll only get more ammunition for the next round, which could be somewhere else. And they could show these threads to like-minded people, which will only confirm their views on Atheists being bad folk even further.

It's a vicious cycle, yes, but if you don't end it, who will?

Thats a good point, but it too, works both ways.

<< In arguing with this Atheist, I asked a series of questions which seemed to baffle him, but there was a valid point to be made. I asked if he was okay with the idea of making pedophilia legal? Why not reduce the legal age of consent to... oh, say... 10 or 12 years old? Of course, he was appalled at the idea, as most of us would be, but the thing is... aren't we imposing our "morality" on others? Why do we have public indecency laws? Isn't this imposing our own moral standards on others? Why can't we all run around naked in the streets and masturbate openly in public? Masturbation isn't hurting anyone, neither is being naked, so what is the problem? Aren't we simply imposing a "moral value" on the rest of society? >>

Paedophilia is accepted in the bible. Mary was thought to be about 14 when she became pregnant.

I reject the idea that the things I do in life are dictated by believing in a higher power. I had a conversation at the dentist the other day and we were talking about where we sent our old spectacles for re use in the third world, where she could donate clothes and food etc. She then jumped to the conclusion that I was Christian, I told her i'm not and she said something along the lines of my actions being Christian.

I found this really insulting. Was she implying that there can be no charities run by hindus? muslims? atheists? (insert your own choice)

She just could not get it into her head that someone would do something as simple as donate to charity if they were not Christian.

Am I biased against Christians? Possibly.

A Christian is the only person who has ever told me I will burn in hell. Christians seem to think they are the only ones who are allowed to help others, but only because god tells them to not because think it is the right thing to do.

As for enforcing your morality on others, her in the UK Church of England bishops sit in the house of lords and dictate our laws. That's why for years shops could not open on a Sunday and still can't do so at easter and Christmas. why should Christians dictate what days can chop on?

I prefer an Agnostic. "I don't know". Shows (most of the time) they thought about it from both sides and decided they just do not know for certain. Rather logical that. With the ability and/or humility to admit they don't 'know it all'.

Altruism and mercy for the helpless is a byproduct of our protective instincts which lead us to take such great care of our kids (in no other species are offspring cared for well into adulthood). That's a survival trait because lineages that make sure that their progeny thrive have the greatest likelihood of survival.

Sexual inhibition is inborn among all mammals, just to varying degrees. It's a vestige of a biology that forces males to compete for the attention of females without alienating them demonstrating themselves to be strong defenders and considerate providers. Survival tactic for the species.

You're telling this to the wrong person. My initial challenge was directed towards the person that said birds shows morality and justice, presumably as some kind of religious justification.

... Yeah. And that explains that some parents DON'T take such great care of their children... How? In the animal world you don't see the same kind of massive difference between parental quality as in the human world. How do you explain that if our "protective instincts" are so awesomely great, that there are lots and lots of people who don't take care of their children? And what about people who CHOOSE not to have children? How do you explain them if it's all about instincts? You'd think that having children would be one of the strongest of them, so pretty much what you're saying is that we shouldn't be capable of not wanting to have children.

But we are. Odd, if all our actions are dictated by instincts.

In any species you're going to have varying levels of various impulses. We all have an urge to be by ourselves and an urge to be with others of our own kind. In gazelle the urge to be around others is stronger. The urge to wander off by ones self has the advantage of a greater share of the food and the disadvantage of getting eaten by leopards.

Humans have an urge to look out for themselves and an urge to look out for the helpless. It's why we think that baby animals are cute and cats think baby animals are delicious. But yes, we can think they're delicious too, but they tend not to whet the appetite when they're still walking.

You can't argue against the existence of a compelling tendency by saying that it isn't universal. Most people like sex to feel good. Lots of people like a gentle spanking. Some people like to be beaten until they bleed. And the occasional freak even likes to be killed an eaten. That doesn't mean that by far the most common human trait is for people who enjoy pleasure to find others who enjoy it similarly and to engage in sex.




Dying for someone who's not even related to you helps your lineage to survive... How? You're simplifying things beyond belief.

No. You're simplifying things beyond belief. It doesn't help the individual, it helps the society. Societies that help more of their members succeed have more successful members.


Humans aren't just slaves of their instincts. You explain that people are altruistic simply because society sez so and you might need the kind of hospitality yourself. How about people who are altruistic in societies where it's actually shunned? And people in societies where you don't actually go off being the bother of others? How come people can be nice to each other without the society telling them to do so, nor it being in any way beneficial to their existence (or the existence of their possible children)?

Again, there are variances within a species. You don't even seem to understand the idea of simplicity. People being nice to each other is beneficial to the existence of society, and so society comes up with rules that govern cordial behavior. What society in the world shuns helping people? And how successful is that society?


How about people who are nice to others even though their own childhood, if we were so bound by our nature, was horrible? Or people who had good childhoods, but are bad people? I find your simplifying of free will to a simple matter of "survival instinct" rather strange. If all we do is dictated by the same instincts as everyone else, why are people acting so differently from one another?

What the hell does this have to do with anything that is being discussed? I asked for examples of behavior that was altruistic but not a survival tactic. This has nothing to do with that.


Which instinct possessed people to invent the Internet? The "I need to talk to retards all across the world" instinct?

Curiosity, novelty, privacy, and society.


Yeah, kind of like how male lions beat up other male lions on their turf, take over the place and eat up the children of their lost competitors. Very considerate of them and very not-alienating. Like those things actually matter in the animal world. "Sexual inhibition" caused by the force of a stronger male who could (and did) whoop your ass is different from choosing not to force everyone of the opposite sex that you meet to have sex with you. And before you bring up the fact that we have laws against it which stops everyone from doing it, I can't remember reading anywhere that the human world was one big rape fest before that happened.

Again, these instincts differ between species. Female lions loose more cubs than they raise, and they get over it. If their resident male gets chased away, they get over that too, clearly the new one is better. But if the challenger looses all the females laugh at him as he runs away. But even at that, male lions rarely fight to the death. And when the females don't want to mate, the males have to do without. There are rules, however instinctual, that govern their behavior.


Other male mammals, however, if they see a female (in heat) without male companionship... Lol surprise sex! In case of predators continued with "O u have kids? *chomp* NOT ANYMORE."

Again, you're oversimplifying. The rules that govern sexual etiquette is different between species.

In cheetahs a gang of males will pursue a female over many miles for several days. In human society that would be gang rape. With cheetahs if you confine them one might think that the males will simply pounce on and rape the female. Turns out that without the long chase, neither male nor female is in the mood.

With lions and horses the female will strut and waggle her but in the male's nose, and when the male makes a move, she will run away and he will let her go. Then she'll come back and do it again until she's ready, and she'll still move to run, but won't try very hard.

Mammals have this thing where females are aroused by being pursued and males are aroused by being teased. But the line that separates unwelcome aggressive violence from a healthy display of sexual assertiveness varies wildly from species to species.

And all of these variances are much more pronounced in humans because there's far less evolutionary pressure. You could be so obese that you can barely roll out of bed and become vertical. You've still got a reasonable chance of having kids. Hell, humans are the only species of mammal that can have kids after they're dead or have lost their genitals (http://www.bounty.com/Frozen-sperm-success-for-cancer-fighter.news/17556270). In a species where a guy who looks for people who want to be killed an eaten can (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2572991.stm) afford to be picky you can't point to the minority and say that they invalidate a tendency.

I remember reading this interview from that Pat Robertson in which at one stage he advocates (or seemed to) a more pure majoritarian democracy when questioned about Christianity and atheism, but when questioned about illegal immigrants said that strong liberties were needed in case foreign immigrants outnumber whites.

Yeah, and when Hurricanes hit southern states full of his supporters he says that God doesn't use storms to punish people and you can't pray them away by being a good Christian. When hurricanes are about to hit southern states full of his followers he says you can pray them away by being a good Christian, and good Christians send money to his show.

He said "I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but we could send our special forces down there and take him out." Then turned around and said "I didn't say we should assassinate him, I said we could 'take him out.'".

The guy is a liar and a self-contradicting hypocrite.

I am astonished at how much rampant religious bigotry is expressed here daily, on a routine basis. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, Christians have been bashed for centuries, it is fairly common practice. Because of the nature of Christianity, the teachings of Christ to "turn the other cheek", it leaves the door wide open for anyone to take a pot shot whenever they feel compelled to do so, and no Christian is going to ever retaliate.

Still, the practice of bashing Christians, and religion in general, is at an all-time high in my lifetime. I am sure there have been greater religious persecutions, but you would think we had evolved beyond such bigotry and hatred. Reading through the various attacks, it is clear, there is a lot of deep-seated contempt and revile for those who practice religion.

Often, I am mistaken for a "religious nut" or 'told off' by some angry agnostic who assumes I am a Christian. I am a spiritualist, there is a difference. I believe in a higher power than self, I don't comprehend how you can make it through life thinking otherwise, it defies logic and renders life pointless. Nevertheless, I have tolerance for those who choose not to believe in anything greater than themselves. My standpoint comes from my convictions and principles, to stand up against bigotry and hate. Whatever you believe, you shouldn't be hated for it, nor should you be persecuted or ridiculed.

What is interesting to me, is how the religious bigots don't see themselves being bigoted at all. Of course, this is typical with any kind of bigotry, not too many people will readily admit they are bigoted. But when you get to the root of what bigotry is, those who constantly belittle and berate Christian beliefs, are bigots. There is no other way to define it, except religious bigotry.

I am sometimes treated to the complaint that Christians want to "shove their morals down my throat!" Yet, what we often see, is just the opposite. Anti-Christians want to shove their immorality down the throats of the religious. At age 48, I have never seen any proposal or initiative to require people to worship Christ, read the Bible, go to Church, or pray. It's never happened to my knowledge. However, we are constantly bombarded with measures and initiatives to abolish prayer in public, remove religious icons, destroy the religiously-based moral fabric of society, and deny religious freedoms. Christianity in particular, is a religion of acceptance, meaning, you must (is required) accept Christ as your personal savior. It can't be forced on you, and no one can make you do this, regardless of whatever law could be passed, this is something you have to accept in your heart, and there is really no other way to become a Christian.

QFT. Anti-religious bigots really DO need to quit being so bigoted themselves and trying to shove their immorality down everybody else's throats!

I once had an interesting debate with an Atheist about Morality. He argued that morals were not rooted in any religious or spiritual belief, that people could be moral and not be religious or spiritual at all. I was skeptical, because I think that morality is rooted in a belief of some higher power which will ultimately hold you accountable for betraying morality. Otherwise, there is really no intrinsic reason to behave morally. Just as 'responsibility' can only be maintained if there is someone to hold you responsible.

Exactly. The source of all moral standards is from a belief in some form of Higher Power. Atheists may argue and say that it's "community standards" or that it depends on what is "socially acceptable", but even those came about because the "communities" and "societies" believed in a Higher Power of some kind "legislating" (for lack of a better word) morality.

The trouble with religious bigots is, they want to draw lines based on their own comfort zones, but they don't want any such line imposed on them. They clearly have limits and 'morals', but these are excused and rectified as appropriate, while other moral views are condemned and scorned. Again, go look up the word "bigot" and see what it says, you'll find that fits the definition to a tee.

To me, a bigot is a bigot is a bigot. They are all the same. It doesn't really matter if you are a racial bigot, a sexist bigot, or a religious bigot, you are still a bigot at the end of the day. To avoid bigotry, you must be willing to understand other viewpoints and respect the beliefs and values of others, and religious bigots can't seem to do this. We've established, they don't have to be afraid of Christians turning them into religious people, that simply can't happen. So what is the problem? I believe it is rooted in hate and greed. Non-religious people have a compelling reason to despise and hate those who practice religious beliefs, they are jealous of their relationship with whatever God they worship, and since they have renounced God, this relationship is not possible for them. Since they can't have that, they don't want anyone else to have it either. Thus, they lash out at anything religious, in complete ignorance of their own bigotry.

Now, before you bash me, let me say again, I am not a "religious" person, I don't belong to any church or denomination, and I actually reject organized religions because I think they all have flaws and misconceptions. I have my own personal beliefs, and I respect the beliefs of others. I am open-minded, and I don't mind standing up for the underdog, especially in the face of blatant bigotry and hate. The purpose of this thread is to open eyes to bigotry within the hearts of my fellow man, and reach understanding. If I can cause one anti-Christian bigot to think before he starts bashing someone for their religious beliefs, it will have been well worth the time it took to write this.

QFT.

You're telling this to the wrong person. My initial challenge was directed towards the person that said birds shows morality and justice, presumably as some kind of religious justification.

Actually I was shooting for an anti-religious justification.

QFT. Anti-religious bigots really DO need to quit being so bigoted themselves and trying to shove their immorality down everybody else's throats!

Exactly. The source of all moral standards is from a belief in some form of Higher Power. Atheists may argue and say that it's "community standards" or that it depends on what is "socially acceptable", but even those came about because the "communities" and "societies" believed in a Higher Power of some kind "legislating" (for lack of a better word) morality.

QFT.

I can't decide whether you're being scathingly sarcastic or horrifyingly serious.

Why bother? I have absolutely nothing to prove to you.


Do hurry back, I will miss the warmth of your flames. :p

BTW, I have lots of time to waste.

So instead of responding to any points made, this is what you come up with?

Canuck, on this very thread, anyone can go back and see where you've claimed another was making a flawed argument because "saying it doesn't make it true".

Yet on several occasions on this same thread, you've made statements that would be equally poor arguments for exactly the same reason. You hold others to a standard that you can't meet yourself.

Similarly, you claim my reasoning skills are poor for examining what the implications would be if the opposing premise were the case.

Yet in searching the forum, I've found that you support Pascal's Wager, which is predicated on exactly that reasoning.

And each time your hypocrisy is clearly revealed by your own words, you just evade it.

This thread is about whether there is religious bigotry, and part of what you are proving (although you don't realize you are proving it), is that in some cases (not all, but yours), allegations of religious bigotry (or flaming) are frequently little more than ham-handed evasions of any post that shows your double standard.

At least consider this, Canuckhaven. There are religious/spiritual people on this board that are not hypocrites. Jocabia, Hotrodia, and others, who can espouse and defend their beliefs with consistent, fair argument. They don't say "That is wrong because you provided no proof, now I present an argument with no proof and insist it is correct."

If they can be religious, and still practice what they preach, why can't you?

Because you think they are, does not make them so. Poor argument.

Oh for goodness' sake. You wanted me to tell you what you were thinking, instead? Or were you hoping for an absolute truth? Sorry about that. For some strange reason I chose to tell you what I thought about a subject -- this is a discussion, yes? That's how they normally work.

So, no not a poor argument; in fact not an argument at all, just an assertion. The *rest* of the post was the argument, but since you couldn't work that I'm guessing that a logical discussion with you is pointless. :headbang:

Oh for goodness' sake. You wanted me to tell you what you were thinking, instead? Or were you hoping for an absolute truth? Sorry about that. For some strange reason I chose to tell you what I thought about a subject -- this is a discussion, yes? That's how they normally work.

So, no not a poor argument; in fact not an argument at all, just an assertion. The *rest* of the post was the argument, but since you couldn't work that I'm guessing that a logical discussion with you is pointless. :headbang:

I share your frustration, HB.

Notice, that more than once in this very thread, Canuckhaven has made a statement with no more supporting evidence then yours, yet he doesn't realize that his "argument" is poor by his very own standard.

He flatly calls other "illogical", yet if you point out (with quoted evidence) the gaps in his logic, he calls it flamebaiting.

Seriously, I went back and looked at his posts, in this thread and others, and found that he either can't practice what he preaches, or he doesn't care.

That's why this idea of bullying against the religious loses some weight when people like Canuckhaven use it as an excuse to cry "poor argument!" at an unsupported statement, while making many unsupported statements themselves.

Oh for goodness' sake. You wanted me to tell you what you were thinking, instead? Or were you hoping for an absolute truth? Sorry about that. For some strange reason I chose to tell you what I thought about a subject -- this is a discussion, yes? That's how they normally work.
Perhaps instead of calling your thought an "argument", perhaps I should have just regarded it as your opinion and that your opinion was not meant to be material to the debate?

But no, you don't want to call it an argument? You want to turn that thought into an assertion?

So, no not a poor argument; in fact not an argument at all, just an assertion.
So you don't think that it is argumentative to make such an assertion?


The *rest* of the post was the argument, but since you couldn't work that I'm guessing that a logical discussion with you is pointless. :headbang:
The "rest of the post" was an analogy that failed to substantiate your "argument", er thought, or opinion or assertion, or whatever you want to call it.

And then you will just turn the rest of your debate on this matter into flamebait? Nice.

If they can be religious, and still practice what they preach, why can't you?
It could be argued (certainly in HR's case) that they get around that little problem by not being the sort of people who preach. Fundamentalism has no foothold on someone who takes a stance of acknowledged humility, and this, when combined with the motivation of purpose that one's own faith provides, results in good practice that flows naturally without need of justification.

Our insecurities can be a source of strength when we recognise and accept them for what they are. But confronting them can be difficult and painful, especially for those to whom unyielding certainty is a virtue. We can't expect them to let us smash their simple and elegant bubbles and abandon them to their own fate. Who are we, they could (justifiably) ask, to attack their way of life and leave them cold, alone and afraid in a world that seems so utterly chaotic?

In overcoming insecurity, what people need is support and patience from those around them. I think that if we really do want to help them, then giving them our time and compassion is the least we can do.

I share your frustration, HB.

Notice, that more than once in this very thread, Canuckhaven has made a statement with no more supporting evidence then yours, yet he doesn't realize that his "argument" is poor by his very own standard.

He flatly calls other "illogical", yet if you point out (with quoted evidence) the gaps in his logic, he calls it flamebaiting.

Seriously, I went back and looked at his posts, in this thread and others, and found that he either can't practice what he preaches, or he doesn't care.

That's why this idea of bullying against the religious loses some weight when people like Canuckhaven use it as an excuse to cry "poor argument!" at an unsupported statement, while making many unsupported statements themselves.
The problem here which you fail, or choose not to recognize is that most of my responses were to those claiming something that they cannot prove or is based solely upon their opinion.

I call your posts "flamebait" because they are just that. If you want to call me on something specific, then do so, and stop casting aspersions on my character.

You remind me a lot of another poster (Saint Curie) whose debate tactics are eerily similar to yours.

My pleasure : the point of that quote is not that the atheist has faith in the absence of god, its that the theist has absence of belief in other gods than his, whether he has knowledge of them or not, illustrating to theists how atheists feel about their god.

Obviously you missed the bit where I was comparing explicit atheists to theists on the one point the have in common: they both have faith that gods do not exist. I was pointing out how ironic it was.

Because words in English often have more than one meaning. Your children and UB are different kinds of atheists, and for different reasons.

I know. That is why I hate that definition of the word atheist.

The problem here which you fail, or choose not to recognize is that most of my responses were to those claiming something that they cannot prove or is based solely upon their opinion.


And you've repeatedly made claims with exactly the same limitations. Saying "All children are born with a connection to their creator" cannot be proven and is just your opinion. So why is it when they do it, it is "poor argument", and when you do it, its fine?


I call your posts "flamebait" because they are just that

Play by your own rules. You've said "Claiming it doesn't make it so", now you make a claim without accompanying support, other than "claiming it". So, isn't that "poor argument" by your own definition?

Why is it when I point out your contradictions, its "flaimbait", and yet on this same thread, you've called people illogical without any substantiation, and you don't hold yourself to the same standard?

Specific enough?


If you want to call me on something specific, then do so, and stop casting aspersions on my character.

Like the specific things I've repeatedly pointed out that you've repeatedly been unable to respond to? Like when you admitted your own argument is as circular as those you descirbe as illogical?

Here's a specific one you're still avoiding:

You claimed it was bad reasoning skills when I examined what the ramifications would be if the opposing argument was true, saying that kind of "if that were true" reasoning was flawed.

Yet you've supported Pascal's Wager, which is also predicated on looking at the implications if either position were correct.

Three specific (and previously presented) cases, confirmable by your own quotes, that you have failed to address, time and again.

Anyone who wants can go back through this thread and see everything I've said is true.

You've been called on it, as requested.

Obviously you missed the bit where I was comparing explicit atheists to theists on the one point the have in common: they both have faith that gods do not exist. I was pointing out how ironic it was.

Do they necessarily? What about a theist who believes that the divine is perceived differently by different people and that those people place their own personification on it? In other words, a theist who believes that the different gods are all different perceptions of one divine entity.

I prefer an Agnostic. "I don't know". Shows (most of the time) they thought about it from both sides and decided they just do not know for certain. Rather logical that. With the ability and/or humility to admit they don't 'know it all'.

Or they haven't thought about it enough to come to a real conclusion. It's like when people say...well, you can't know for 100% this is true. That statement is correct -- we can't know for 100% for anything. However, we can know to a certain extent and for all intents and purposes that's good enough (otherwise, we would have to alter our perception of reality). So yes, you can definitely make a definitive decision on the existence/non-existence of a god.

Our insecurities can be a source of strength when we recognise and accept them for what they are. But confronting them can be difficult and painful, especially for those to whom unyielding certainty is a virtue. We can't expect them to let us smash their simple and elegant bubbles and abandon them to their own fate. Who are we, they could (justifiably) ask, to attack their way of life and leave them cold, alone and afraid in a world that seems so utterly chaotic?


I know Canuckheaven needs his religion to cope, his life would be an abyss without it, he's said so.

What I'm pointing out is that when somebody gives an opinion, he cries "Poor argument, claiming it doesn't make it so.", then he turns around and gives an equally constrained statement, without acknowledging the same caveat applies to him.

He freely calls others illogical, but if you quote a couple of his posts where he contradicts himself, he calls it "flaming".

He avoids answering pointed, on-topic questions with evasions no more meaningful then "I don't have anything to prove", then accuses others of failing to address the issue.

He calls it bad reasoning to explore the consequences of an opposing premise, but he does so himself with Pascal's Wager when it suits him.

Its not the fragility of his bubble that is disingenuous; some people will believe whatever they need to in order to handle life, as you describe.

But they can still try to debate fairly.

Do they necessarily? What about a theist who believes that the divine is perceived differently by different people and that those people place their own personification on it? In other words, a theist who believes that the different gods are all different perceptions of one divine entity.

This seems more reasonable then a strictly and fervently dogmatic belief system, but wouldn't such a theist have to then believe that no particular human or religion has the "full picture" or the categorical understanding of a divine being, since any particular persons perception will constrain (or in the worst case, even pollute) the concept of the divine with their own imposed personification?

You could never really claim anything absolute or definitive about such a divinity. In the absence of the "Allah says you can't do that" or "Jesus says you must do this", much of the appeal that religion has to some people would be diminished.

Even so, I still think the kind of theist you describe would be a better neighbor then the devout, intense certain "true believer" folks.

It could be argued (certainly in HR's case) that they get around that little problem by not being the sort of people who preach. Fundamentalism has no foothold on someone who takes a stance of acknowledged humility, and this, when combined with the motivation of purpose that one's own faith provides, results in good practice that flows naturally without need of justification.

I tend to try to adhere to Saint Francis of Assisi's philosophy on preaching.

"Preach the Gospel at all times. If necessary, use words."

I tend to try to adhere to Saint Francis of Assisi's philosophy on preaching.

"Preach the Gospel at all times. If necessary, use words."

HotRodia, you appear to be following this thread.

I'm not asking you to take a side, but its been suggested that I've been flaming on this thread.

I've reviewed my posts and I don't believe I have. Do I have recourse of any kind when accused of flaming?

I tend to try to adhere to Saint Francis of Assisi's philosophy on preaching.

"Preach the Gospel at all times. If necessary, use words."

I like that.

This seems more reasonable then a strictly and fervently dogmatic belief system, but wouldn't such a theist have to then believe that no particular human or religion has the "full picture" or the categorical understanding of a divine being, since any particular persons perception will constrain (or in the worst case, even pollute) the concept of the divine with their own imposed personification?

Pretty much, that's exactly what such a theist would believe.

You could never really claim anything absolute or definitive about such a divinity. In the absence of the "Allah says you can't do that" or "Jesus says you must do this", much of the appeal that religion has to some people would be diminished.[quote]

I never understood the authoritarian appeal of organized religion. I don't feel the need to be able to tell someone else what to do based on my religion or to give them a definitive or absolute answer on what God does or does not say. While I do believe that human beings can and do receive guidance from God, I am just as flawed as the next person and will likely get just as much wrong about it as they will. Religious discussion is helpful in soul-searching and finding that guidance, but religious imposition is counter-productive, in my mind.

[quote]Even so, I still think the kind of theist you describe would be a better neighbor then the devout, intense certain "true believer" folks.

I agree. At the very least, I think an ability and willingness to question devout beliefs is an absolute necessity. If one is willing to admit that they might be wrong, they must also be willing to admit that someone else might be right. It allows for much more of a "live and let live" approach to religion - where discussion is welcome but the kind of abrasive language and derision you often see from those who are so very sure of themselves has no place.

*is tired so I hope that made sense*


I tend to try to adhere to Saint Francis of Assisi's philosophy on preaching.

"Preach the Gospel at all times. If necessary, use words."

Indeed.

HotRodia, you appear to be following this thread.

I'm not asking you to take a side, but its been suggested that I've been flaming on this thread.

I've reviewed my posts and I don't believe I have. Do I have recourse of any kind when accused of flaming?

I've reviewed your posts as well, and I didn't see flaming.

You were making points about CH's debate style, not slinging insults.

Understandably, because you're getting a bit more personal than the usual "my opinion is right!" - "no it's not, mine is!" debate, it hits a little closer to home.

The only way I can see CH's claims that you're flaming being something for a Mod to take action on are if he gets spammy with it or starts harassing you about it. So far, that hasn't happened.

Things that you can personally do about it are 1) not bother with trying to discuss the matter with him further or 2) simply point out that your behavior does not match the definition of flaming provided in the OSRS.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

Pretty much, that's exactly what such a theist would believe.

I never understood the authoritarian appeal of organized religion. I don't feel the need to be able to tell someone else what to do based on my religion or to give them a definitive or absolute answer on what God does or does not say. While I do believe that human beings can and do receive guidance from God, I am just as flawed as the next person and will likely get just as much wrong about it as they will. Religious discussion is helpful in soul-searching and finding that guidance, but religious imposition is counter-productive, in my mind.



I agree. At the very least, I think an ability and willingness to question devout beliefs is an absolute necessity. If one is willing to admit that they might be wrong, they must also be willing to admit that someone else might be right. It allows for much more of a "live and let live" approach to religion - where discussion is welcome but the kind of abrasive language and derision you often see from those who are so very sure of themselves has no place.

*is tired so I hope that made sense*.

Sensible across the board.

I don't buy into any particular Godversion myself, but the kind of theist you describe could be far more safely entrusted with public office, military management, or judicial potence than a "We must bring everyone to Jesus/Allah/L.Ron no matter what the method: Conversion is Perfection" sort.

I've reviewed your posts as well, and I didn't see flaming.

You were making points about CH's debate style, not slinging insults.

Understandably, because you're getting a bit more personal than the usual "my opinion is right!" - "no it's not, mine is!" debate, it hits a little closer to home.

The only way I can see CH's claims that you're flaming being something for a Mod to take action on are if he gets spammy with it or starts harassing you about it. So far, that hasn't happened.

Things that you can personally do about it are 1) not bother with trying to discuss the matter with him further or 2) simply point out that your behavior does not match the definition of flaming provided in the OSRS.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

That should hopefully suffice, then. Thank you for your observations.

I have made abiding efforts to focus our exchange on specific and verifiable instances. Perhaps he will respond to them.

No, it's not.

Yes, it is. Judging an entire group of people as a whole is bigotry.

Don't use words if you don't understand them.

Speak for yourself.

Fairly simple statement based on my beliefs?

Although sometimes I am inclined to believe that some children are the spawn of Satan. :eek:

By your argument they would be believers of Satan, they would also be believers of Vishnu, Zeus, and the Flying Spaghettin monster. Or do you have some religious bigotry and deny the existence of other Gods?

By your argument they would be believers of Satan, they would also be believers of Vishnu, Zeus, and the Flying Spaghettin monster. Or do you have some religious bigotry and deny the existence of other Gods?

"Thou shalt not worship any other Gods before me.."

God implies there are others.

I prefer an Agnostic. "I don't know". Shows (most of the time) they thought about it from both sides and decided they just do not know for certain. Rather logical that. With the ability and/or humility to admit they don't 'know it all'.
Argh! Agnostic does not mean that! Agnosticism is not some kind of happy midpoint on the Theist/Atheist line, it's a whole different line of it's own.
I know. That is why I hate that definition of the word atheist.
Sometimes it's a bit of a pity that atheism isn't a religion. If there was some kind of atheist pope then we could get a nice official definition of exactly what atheism is.
Yes, it is. Judging an entire group of people as a whole is bigotry.
No it's not.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry
big·ot·ry /ˈbɪgətri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[big-uh-tree] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.



Speak for yourself.

I only ever speak for myself and those who like what I say.

Here's what makes me sad:

The issue of religious bigotry is an important one. There are many significant points to be made, many interesting lines of conversation to be pursued, and many possible resolutions to be debated. But the OP manages to bury all of that.

Instead, all I see is yet another Western Christian (he's not fooling anybody) crying about how hard it is to be Christian because meanie-head agnostics and atheists say mean things on an internet forum. Then he turns around and flat-out states that atheists and non-religious individuals can't possibly be moral, which kind of leads you to wonder why the fuck he expects them to behave themselves when he has specifically stated that he believes them to be incapable of doing so.

What a waste. You're not oppressed, little Christian. You never have been. Sometimes people disagree with you. Sometimes people just plain don't like you. Sometimes they tell you so. Boo. Fucking. Hoo.

I'm an atheist non-hetero feminist. Do you really want to compare the size of our oppressions? Why bother? We both know mine's bigger. Yet I've managed to get the fuck over myself and actually talk about issues instead of crying about how people sometimes don't bow down and lick my belief system and tell me how great it tastes.

Thankfully, there are people on this forum (several of whom are "out" as non-religious) who have made this thread interesting and productive. Good on you, folks.

A lot of religious hate comes from stuff like this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/21/world/main3529940.shtml

If you don't want to read that, a girl was trying to get a picture back from her ex-boyfriend, they were in a car alone together. She was gang raped (boyfriend did not participate) but she got 200 lashes and jail time for being in the same car as a unrelated male.

It's such a joke that archaic things like this still happen, this is a perfect example of why Religion is given a bad rap, this kind of inhumane actions happen every day.

Here is a teenaged girl being stoned to death because she loved someone of the "wrong" religion:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=452288
While I certainly will not make excuses for the jackasses who perpetuate such systems, I feel compelled to point out that misogyny and abuse of women does not require religion. There are plenty of secular avenues to sexism. In my opinion, religion is just a handy excuse for people who have already decided that women are subhumans. I don't think we can blame religion for inventing sexism.

You can slap whatever label you want on the children but it does not make it true. All children are born with a spiritual connection to God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innatism) their creator.
I was born with a physical connection to my creator. But then they snipped the cord.

Save your baby's cord blood, folks! Hopefully you'll never need it, but it's a wonderful thing to have just in case!

Save your baby's cord blood, folks! Hopefully you'll never need it, but it's a wonderful thing to have just in case!

As an aside, why would one do such a thing?

Probably already been said, but...

I don't know, however my lack of knowledge on the origin of the Universe does not automatically mean that it was created by god
:D

And it is this humility which I believe to be the key.

The standard Creationist/Christianist argument works like this:

"Look at this! I don't understand it! You don't understand it! Therefore, GOD!"

There are two categories of people. Those who find this argument compelling, and those who don't.

It should be noted that there are religious individuals who fit into the second category, and those are the folks you can actually have a quality discussion with.

Here's what makes me sad:

The issue of religious bigotry is an important one. There are many significant points to be made, many interesting lines of conversation to be pursued, and many possible resolutions to be debated. But the OP manages to bury all of that.

Instead, all I see is yet another Western Christian (he's not fooling anybody) crying about how hard it is to be Christian because meanie-head agnostics and atheists say mean things on an internet forum. Then he turns around and flat-out states that atheists and non-religious individuals can't possibly be moral, which kind of leads you to wonder why the fuck he expects them to behave themselves when he has specifically stated that he believes them to be incapable of doing so.

What a waste. You're not oppressed, little Christian. You never have been. Sometimes people disagree with you. Sometimes people just plain don't like you. Sometimes they tell you so. Boo. Fucking. Hoo.

I'm an atheist non-hetero feminist. Do you really want to compare the size of our oppressions? Why bother? We both know mine's bigger. Yet I've managed to get the fuck over myself and actually talk about issues instead of crying about how people sometimes don't bow down and lick my belief system and tell me how great it tastes.

Thankfully, there are people on this forum (several of whom are "out" as non-religious) who have made this thread interesting and productive. Good on you, folks.

i'll second that, rather precisely.

and as to
"Raping and murdering people doesn't mean that you will be raped and murdered."

half right but 'retarded'. yes it isn't deterministicly linear. neither is the real universe we live in. but it does increase the odds. and probability IS the reality in which we do.

=^^=
.../\...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry
big·ot·ry /ˈbɪgətri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[big-uh-tree] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.


The key word here is 'intolerance'. So, for example, having a law that no atheist is allowed to hold public office (this law exists in at least parts of the US) is bigotry. However disagreeing with the idea that the Bible is the literal word of God is not bigotry.

The key word here is 'intolerance'. So, for example, having a law that no atheist is allowed to hold public office (this law exists in at least parts of the US) is bigotry. However disagreeing with the idea that the Bible is the literal word of God is not bigotry.

Indeed. Tolerating other people's ideas does not require you to keep any problems you have with them to yourself.

Indeed. Tolerating other people's ideas does not require you to keep any problems you have with them to yourself.
I think this concept is part of the problem.

I can't count the number of times I've encountered something like this:

"It is intolerant when gay citizens are denied equal legal rights."

"Oh yeah?! Well, it's JUST AS INTOLERANT when you gay people insist that we have to grant you equal legal rights, even though homosexuality is against our religion!"

I think this concept is part of the problem.

I can't count the number of times I've encountered something like this:

"It is intolerant when gay citizens are denied equal legal rights."

"Oh yeah?! Well, it's JUST AS INTOLERANT when you gay people insist that we have to grant you equal legal rights, even though homosexuality is against our religion!"

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/anti-christianBigotry.gif
Picture == 1000 words

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/anti-christianBigotry.gif
Picture == 1000 words

That never gets old. :) For some odd reason, it gets truer with time.

That never gets old. :) For some odd reason, it gets truer with time.

Actually, I suspect that it has been posted in this thread already. In fact, I may have gotten it in this thread. But it really does highlight the big flaw in Dixie's arguement. Freedom of religion isn't freedom from criticism or freedom from things that go against your religion.

As an aside, why would one do such a thing?

Two words. Stem Cells!

1. God is not a "myth" because you claim it.

That's true. God is a myth because that's the meaning of the terms in question. I do not, personally, have the power to change the definitions of "God" or "myth," so my personal claims are not what makes God a myth.

God may also be other things in addition to being a myth, of course, and my personal opinions of the terms don't change any of that, either.


2. Spirituality is not religion. I have never stated a word about "my religion" in these forums or elsewhere, because I don't do religion. I am a devout spiritualist.

Your mouth says "spiritualist," but your eyes say "Christianist."


3. No war has ever been waged by religion itself. Wars are waged by men, and they have often used religion to justify war, but the religion itself does not, and has never, supported acts of war against each other. It is contrary to any true religious ethic to make war against your fellow man.

The first sentence is true. The others are false.

Religion is made by people, just like war is. Religion is whatever people make it. If the people who make the religion say that the religion supports war, then it does. Religious ethics, like all other ethics, are made by people, and they are whatever those people make them.


4. I never said Atheists were "religious" only that they believe in the God they profess to not believe in.

Like how you believe in Zeus, Santa, and Cthulhu.


Denying God doesn't mean you don't believe in God. It's like a fat person denying they are fat and becoming offended by comments that they are fat. Their denial doesn't change the fact they are fat. They can act all outraged and point fingers at others, call people names, and insist they are not fat, but at the end of the day, they are still fat.

Kind of like how we've been informing you that you're Christian, even though you insist you aren't. You can act all outraged and insist you're not Christian, but at the end of the day you are still Christian.


5. Morality is rooted in religious or spiritual belief, there is no way to separate the two.

Watch this:

I have a very distinct and well-defined moral code, which does not in any way rely on religion or spirituality.

My next trick: WATER INTO WINE!


You can argue about "right and wrong" all you like, you can't explain who or what established this criteria.

Sure I can:

I did.

"Right" and "wrong" are subjective concepts. My own definitions of right and wrong have been generated from my personal experiences and the context in which I have lived my life, and have been influenced by my individual personality and choices.

PRESTO!


It is not the natural world, because the natural world would dictate that "right and wrong" is survival of the fittest, and whatever man can justify in his own mind as acceptable to him, and clearly, societies and man do not live by this ethic.

At least you're right about that much. The "natural world" doesn't magically create some kind of objective morality. Nature isn't concerned with morality one way or the other.

Maybe you should stop expecting some outside source to provide you with morality. You're not an infant, so why do you keep waiting to be spoon-fed everything?


Let me leave you with another example of what I am saying about morality, because this is the most important aspect of my point. Morality, the sense of "right and wrong", can only exist if there is some apparent benefit or consequence to man. Without this, there is simply no reason, rationale, or justification to behave morally... why would you? Do people drive the speed limit because it is "the right thing to do?" No... they do it because, if they don't, an authority can and will deliver consequences in the form of a ticket.

Wait...are you actually saying that the only reason you follow the rules is because somebody will punish you if you don't?

I drive safely because I prefer not to get into car accidents. I prefer not to be hurt or killed, and I prefer not to hurt or kill anybody else.

Do you only brake at a crosswalk because you don't want to get a ticket? I brake because I don't particularly want to hit the line of school children walking across the street. Do you want to hit them? If so, don't you think your God is doing a pretty shitty job of feeding you "morality"?


If there were no such thing as Police, there would be no purpose in establishing or obeying a speed limit.

Aside from, you know, protecting human health and safety. Little things like that.


Store owners do not leave their store unlocked at night, because there is no one present to deliver consequences for theft. If they left their stores unlocked, there would be no reason for thieves to "do the right thing" and not steal their stuff. Morality without some measure of accountability, is the same way, it defies the human condition in principle, and is absolutely pointless.
So you've spent a whole rant explaining how you would really like to steal and hit people with your car, and then you're going to try to insist that it's ATHEISTS who lack a moral compass?

My grandpa once said, "Human civilization had pretty much hit rock bottom when somebody had to write down 'Thou Shalt Not Kill.' If people need to see that graven in stone, you've already got yourself some mighty big problems."

If you actually need a God to tell you not to steal, maim, and kill, then you've got some mighty big problems.

Actually, I suspect that it has been posted in this thread already. In fact, I may have gotten it in this thread. But it really does highlight the big flaw in Dixie's arguement. Freedom of religion isn't freedom from criticism or freedom from things that go against your religion.

It was already posted in this thread. Hence my statement. :) But you're very right, it does highlight a big flaw.

Two words. Stem Cells!
Ah, this makes sense.



Mmmmmm, delicious stem cells.

:D

And it is this humility which I believe to be the key.

The standard Creationist/Christianist argument works like this:

"Look at this! I don't understand it! You don't understand it! Therefore, GOD!"

There are two categories of people. Those who find this argument compelling, and those who don't.

It should be noted that there are religious individuals who fit into the second category, and those are the folks you can actually have a quality discussion with.

Thank You :D

HotRodia, you appear to be following this thread.

I'm not asking you to take a side, but its been suggested that I've been flaming on this thread.

I've reviewed my posts and I don't believe I have. Do I have recourse of any kind when accused of flaming?
Ummm, I did not accuse you of flaming. I accused you of flamebaiting (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8784641&postcount=3):

Flamebait: Posts that are made with the aim of angering someone indirectly. Not outright flame, but still liable to bring angry replies. Flame baiting is a far more subtle and covert action; it is an underhanded tactic that is designed to provoke a response from another player. It's in the same context of trolling but with flamebaiting it's just the one person.
Several of your posts to me fall into that category.

I am surprised that you would make an emotional appeal to Hot Rodia seeking "recourse of any kind when accused of flaming". I have been here almost 4 years and have never sought recourse from Moderation for the less than explemplary actions of others. I do have the ability to turn the other cheek rather than resort to having the Mods soothe my wounds. :D

I do have the ability to 'turn the other cheek' rather than resort to having the Mods soothe my wounds. :D


How dare you! You offend my Sikh sensibilities with your endless quoting of the Christian bible, why do you smear my religion so, why behave in such a bigoted fashion?;)

I would say, more generally, that there are two sorts of belief systems: those that assume that everyone that does not share the exact same belief system is wrong; and those that don't.

Which I suppose is another definition of bigotry.

(For the record: individuals can fall into either of the above categories, regardless of religon or lack of it.)

I have been here almost 4 years and have never sought recourse from Moderation for the less than explemplary actions of others. I do have the ability to turn the other cheek rather than resort to having the Mods soothe my wounds. :D

Ignoring rule breaking for the sake of turning the other cheek is a good thing? How odd. :p

Ignoring rule breaking for the sake of turning the other cheek is a good thing? How odd. :p

It is if it allows him to take the moral high ground apparently

Ignoring rule breaking for the sake of turning the other cheek is a good thing? How odd. :p
I don't entirely ignore rule breaking. Sometimes I will remind the offender that they are breaking the rules and/or that their offences are just that.....offensive. Seeking redress of grievance via Moderation is not my style. :)

Scotch whisky for all! Even the EB1L M0ZL3Ms

Scotch whisky for all! Even the EB1L M0ZL3Ms

Sweet!

Ignoring rule breaking for the sake of turning the other cheek is a good thing? How odd. :p
Odd indeed. I guess this means that a True Christian(tm) will "turn the other cheek" if they see a crime being committed. Only godless heathens would actually report the crime or attempt to stop it!

Odd indeed. I guess this means that a True Christian(tm) will "turn the other cheek" if they see a crime being committed.
Breaking forum rules =/= commission of a crime in the real world.

Only godless heathens would actually report the crime or attempt to stop it!
Thank God for Godless heathens!! :rolleyes:

Sweet!
Actually, it is quite bitter!! :D

Breaking forum rules =/= commission of a crime in the real world.

Wait, slow down...lemme get a pen so I can take notes...


Thank God for Godless heathens!! :rolleyes:
Your rolleyes emote suggests that you are being sarcastic with that remark. I find that odd.

Shouldn't you, indeed, thank God for Godless heathens? Isn't it God's will that they exist in the first place? Do you believe that your judgment is superior to that of God? Do you feel qualified to pick and choose which of God's creations is good and which is bad?

Well laws are really just a set of rules.....
Most salad-bar Christians are quite practiced at picking and choosing which rules to follow.

Scotch whisky for all! Even the EB1L M0ZL3Ms
What are the muslims going to do with their share? Can I have it?
Breaking forum rules =/= commission of a crime in the real world.

Well laws are really just a set of rules.....

Scotch whisky for all! Even the EB1L M0ZL3Ms

But... uh... you know that alcohol consumption is forbidden in Islam...right?

But... uh... you know that alcohol consumption is forbidden in Islam...right?

They're not going to drink it, they're going to give it to me.

Wait, slow down...lemme get a pen so I can take notes...


Your rolleyes emote suggests that you are being sarcastic with that remark. I find that odd.

Shouldn't you, indeed, thank God for Godless heathens? Isn't it God's will that they exist in the first place? Do you believe that your judgment is superior to that of God? Do you feel qualified to pick and choose which of God's creations is good and which is bad?

Heathen. What a great word word, here meaning one who is without God. Rather than the normal, one who is without the Christian God.

So we can have a Godless heathen(my wife) or a God loving heathen(myself). Words, they are good innit.

But... uh... you know that alcohol consumption is forbidden in Islam...right?

Why, yes. Yes I do.

They can feel free to return to me what they don't need :)

Odd indeed. I guess this means that a True Christian(tm) will "turn the other cheek" if they see a crime being committed. Only godless heathens would actually report the crime or attempt to stop it!

Dangit, not sure how to phrase this. As an attempt:

Turn the other cheek refers to attacks on you, not on other people. I can personally say "I'm not going to defend myself here" (And often do), but if you try to beat up my little sister, I'll step in and stop you. Does that make sense?

Dangit, not sure how to phrase this. As an attempt:

Turn the other cheek refers to attacks on you, not on other people. I can personally say "I'm not going to defend myself here" (And often do), but if you try to beat up my little sister, I'll step in and stop you. Does that make sense?
Makes sense, but is still a pretty selfish attitude if you apply it universally (in my opinion).

Example: Somebody steals my car. I see them, I can identify them, and I could report the crime. But instead I decide to "turn the other cheek" and not report them. Thanks to me, a car thief is not arrested, and gets to go ahead and steal other people's cars.

I don't think it's a very strong argument to claim that one should "turn the other cheek" by allowing somebody to get away with rotten behavior. SOMETIMES it's a good idea to just let things slide, but not always.

tl;dr

Bottom line: Don't be jack off and think you can make fun of religious people because the internets offer anonymousness.
...

Why not? You CAN make fun of religious people. You don't even need internet anonymity to do it.

tl;dr

Bottom line: Don't be jack off and think you can make fun of religious people because the internets offer anonymousness.

Dangit, not sure how to phrase this. As an attempt:

Turn the other cheek refers to attacks on you, not on other people. I can personally say "I'm not going to defend myself here" (And often do), but if you try to beat up my little sister, I'll step in and stop you. Does that make sense?

Umm by doing that though do you not restrict your little sister in her wish to act as Christ taught?

Makes sense, but is still a pretty selfish attitude if you apply it universally (in my opinion).

Example: Somebody steals my car. I see them, I can identify them, and I could report the crime. But instead I decide to "turn the other cheek" and not report them. Thanks to me, a car thief is not arrested, and gets to go ahead and steal other people's cars.

I don't think it's a very strong argument to claim that one should "turn the other cheek" by allowing somebody to get away with rotten behavior. SOMETIMES it's a good idea to just let things slide, but not always.

Yeah, that isn't quite what I was trying to imply, but I can see where you got it from. It's not the sort of thing you can apply universally, so judgement calls are required, but I think it's okay overall.

If she tells me not to, I suppose I'd have to stop. But otherwise, I'm game to defend others. Does that also make sense?

That makes sense to me.

Yeah, that isn't quite what I was trying to imply, but I can see where you got it from. It's not the sort of thing you can apply universally, so judgement calls are required, but I think it's okay overall.
Yar, sounds like we are on the same page.

This is just my personal reading, but I always kind of thought that the "turn the other cheek" thing was more a "kill them with kindness" kind of message.

I know that Jesus said, "Do not resist an evil person," but I read this as being specifically about one's IMMEDIATE response. In other words, if somebody hits you, don't hit them back. But this doesn't mean you are giving up or allowing evil to triumph, it means that you use other means of combating evil.

I tend to put things in goal format. The way I see it, Jesus still wanted people to work against evil in the world. That was still the goal. He just didn't think that hitting people back was the best way to accomplish this goal.

That's why I think some people get it wrong with the "turn the other cheek" thing. They take it as a command to be passive and not do anything to combat evil, but I don't think that's what it was supposed to mean.

Of course, I'm a godless heathen, so you probably should reflexively reject my opinions on the Bible. :D

Umm by doing that though do you not restrict your little sister in her wish to act as Christ taught?

If she tells me not to, I suppose I'd have to stop. But otherwise, I'm game to defend others. Does that also make sense?

"Turn the other cheek" is an act of passive rebellion. See, if you were struck, and you turned the other cheek, in order to be struck again, they would have to use their off hand or use a (backhand or slap, forget which). In either one, that would signify that they treated you as an equal, which meant that you could hit back without fear of reprisal. So either you didn't get hit again, or you got to beat the shit out of the guy that hit you.

Yar, sounds like we are on the same page.

This is just my personal reading, but I always kind of thought that the "turn the other cheek" thing was more a "kill them with kindness" kind of message.

I know that Jesus said, "Do not resist an evil person," but I read this as being specifically about one's IMMEDIATE response. In other words, if somebody hits you, don't hit them back. But this doesn't mean you are giving up or allowing evil to triumph, it means that you use other means of combating evil.

I tend to put things in goal format. The way I see it, Jesus still wanted people to work against evil in the world. That was still the goal. He just didn't think that hitting people back was the best way to accomplish this goal.

That's why I think some people get it wrong with the "turn the other cheek" thing. They take it as a command to be passive and not do anything to combat evil, but I don't think that's what it was supposed to mean.

Of course, I'm a godless heathen, so you probably should reflexively reject my opinions on the Bible. :D

Well I would, if you weren't phrasing mine somewhat better than I can at the moment. What was the quote? "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" or something to that effect? Fighting back with fists is not the best way of doing things --- people get angry, people get hurt, everyone gets in trouble, etc. Much better to fight back passively, and to hence win the support of all others around you.

Edit: Before anyone takes that wrong, 'Well I would' was a joke.

Why, yes. Yes I do.

They can feel free to return to me what they don't need :)

Then why offer when you know it would be rejected? ;)

What are the muslims going to do with their share? Can I have it?

Only If you share with the rest of us non-muslims

Although to be fair since you asked first you get to keep most of it

Then why offer when you know it would be rejected? ;)

Well, he has a finite amount of whiskey, but feels the need to share, if its split equally between everyone, but some of them refuse that means that there's more for him. It all boils down to him being selfishly unselfish ;)

Yar, sounds like we are on the same page.

This is just my personal reading, but I always kind of thought that the "turn the other cheek" thing was more a "kill them with kindness" kind of message.

I know that Jesus said, "Do not resist an evil person," but I read this as being specifically about one's IMMEDIATE response. In other words, if somebody hits you, don't hit them back. But this doesn't mean you are giving up or allowing evil to triumph, it means that you use other means of combating evil.

I tend to put things in goal format. The way I see it, Jesus still wanted people to work against evil in the world. That was still the goal. He just didn't think that hitting people back was the best way to accomplish this goal.

That's why I think some people get it wrong with the "turn the other cheek" thing. They take it as a command to be passive and not do anything to combat evil, but I don't think that's what it was supposed to mean.

Of course, I'm a godless heathen, so you probably should reflexively reject my opinions on the Bible. :D

Actually, you're rather close to correct. The only thing you've left out was the fact that, in Jesus' society, turning the other cheek would have effectively kept the violent person from hitting you again. Touching another person with the left hand was completely forbidden in that society, and a person who was trying to degrade you by hitting you would do it by backhanding you, not by punching or simply slapping you. Either of the latter actions would have been an admission that you were equal with them.

A slave or a woman who hit back when backhanded would likely have faced extreme consequences. However, one who turned the other cheek would be defiant in a non-violent manner. They would not be sinking to the violent level of their attacker, but would still be, in a sense, protecting themselves.

Martin Luther King, Jr. drew on passages like the "turn the other cheek" passage in putting together various forms of passive resistance. The message was never "just sit there and take it," although some religious leaders used it in that way with battered women for years. The messages was, "Fight evil, but don't sink to their level or get yourself killed."

Well, he has a finite amount of whiskey, but feels the need to share, if its split equally between everyone, but some of them refuse that means that there's more for him. It all boils down to him being selfishly unselfish ;)

Or insensitive. :)

Wait, slow down...lemme get a pen so I can take notes...
Write away......

Your rolleyes emote suggests that you are being sarcastic with that remark. I find that odd.
Actually I was being sarcastic to your suggestion that "Only godless heathens would actually report the crime or attempt to stop it!".

Shouldn't you, indeed, thank God for Godless heathens?
Ummmm.....not really.

Isn't it God's will that they exist in the first place?
Nope, don't think so.

Do you believe that your judgment is superior to that of God?
Obviously not.

Do you feel qualified to pick and choose which of God's creations is good and which is bad?
Ultimately that is His job?

If a person commits a crime and is caught, then they will be punished to the extent of the laws of the land by judge and/or jury.

If a person commits a mortal sin, then that would be between him and his Creator?

However, the fact remains that everyone has good and bad qualities.

Makes sense, but is still a pretty selfish attitude if you apply it universally (in my opinion).

Example: Somebody steals my car. I see them, I can identify them, and I could report the crime. But instead I decide to "turn the other cheek" and not report them. Thanks to me, a car thief is not arrested, and gets to go ahead and steal other people's cars.

I don't think it's a very strong argument to claim that one should "turn the other cheek" by allowing somebody to get away with rotten behavior. SOMETIMES it's a good idea to just let things slide, but not always.
I think you are over amplifying here, and twisting the meaning of "turn the other cheek" to suit your own points of debate?

I think you are over amplifying here, and twisting the meaning of "turn the other cheek" to suit your own points of debate?

I think maybe you are stretching the meaning of "turn the other cheek" enough that you're confusing people. It really has nothing at all to do with whether or not you contact the mods about others' behavior. It might apply to flaming and the like, in the sense that you would not answer flames with flames. But, "I don't need to get the mods involved" isn't a product of turning the other cheek. It's a product of not feeling that need. It might be a matter of "do unto others.." if you would prefer that others deal with you personally rather than bringing in a third party if you have offended them.

I am astonished at how much rampant religious bigotry is expressed here daily, on a routine basis. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, Christians have been bashed for centuries, it is fairly common practice. Because of the nature of Christianity, the teachings of Christ to "turn the other cheek", it leaves the door wide open for anyone to take a pot shot whenever they feel compelled to do so, and no Christian is going to ever retaliate.



trying in vain to stifle laughter at this...

Religious bigotry?
Yeah, that's what they're now calling it when they get their way less than 75% of the time. Just like not allowing them to run everones life according to their rules is now "persecution" against Christians. :rolleyes:

To me, a bigot is a bigot is a bigot. They are all the same. It doesn't really matter if you are a racial bigot, a sexist bigot, or a religious bigot, you are still a bigot at the end of the day.

You forgot homophobic bigot. That's what this is about isn't it? Peoples reaction to your homophobic rants in the recent gay marriage thread?

Whether someone can or cannot be forced into christianity isn't really important, what is important is that various christian groups go door to door trying to force people into christianity.

And things like the pledge of allegiance (..one nation, under god,...), your money (in god we trust), trying to get science classes to teach creation myths, the 10 comandments outside courthouses e.d. do force people into accepting christianity. Now, as a religious person, this might not seem as a bad thing to you, but, to an atheist this is indeed, very annoying.

Or indeed to non-Judeo-Christian theists.

Well, that's up for debate. I think the notion of a hive-mind suits religion pretty well

HOW? Some specific religions (or more accurately sects thereof) but how in all the hells that man has made does that fit religion as a whole?

Religious bigotry?
Yeah, that's what they're now calling it when they get their way less than 75% of the time. Just like not allowing them to run everones life according to their rules is now "persecution" against Christians. :rolleyes:

Of course it is, because the way they see progress, it's as if they're expected to be in cahoots with sin and immorality, despite that the vast majority doesn't give a flying rat's ass. You know, live and let live. Something very under-practised by some Christians.

Bad consequences for who? Certainly not the murderer or rapist. I mean the victim is going to suffer. But I got mine, so why should I care?

You victim has friends and family. Their friends and family have or can obtain weapons. There are also the police. If you are so far gone that you can't understand rape and murder are wrong because they infringe on the rights of others there is secular punishment. There is no need for punishment from gods.

Fear of jail isn't morality.

Neither is fear of deity.

*snip*
There's plenty of religious bigotry everywhere, much of it directed toward Christians. However, as a Christian, I've always felt the greatest struggle isn't with Christian-bashers but the world itself. Why worry about that someone else thinks my beliefs are evil or stupid, when it's hard enough to resist temptation, follow God's law, and be a moral person in general. I think this holds true with all faiths, if we stopped trying to appear oppressed, we may actually become good people.

Neither is fear of deity.

Dude...Logic has no place here.

Neither is fear of deity.
Actually the power of the state is far more real than the power of God, people can see prison and see guns pointed at them.

Fear of jail isn't morality.

Neither is fear of deity.

What is morality then?

I think maybe you are stretching the meaning of "turn the other cheek" enough that you're confusing people. It really has nothing at all to do with whether or not you contact the mods about others' behavior.
Actually, it has everything to do with my ultimate reaction(s).

The fact that Bottle construed that to mean that crimes IRL would go unreported by Christians as a result of "turning the other cheek" is a huge pile of manure.

It might apply to flaming and the like, in the sense that you would not answer flames with flames.
Well I am not totally innocent. :D

But, "I don't need to get the mods involved" isn't a product of turning the other cheek. It's a product of not feeling that need.
Actually it is both turning the other cheek and not "feeling the need" to seek out the Mods to mollify my wounds.

It might be a matter of "do unto others.." if you would prefer that others deal with you personally rather than bringing in a third party if you have offended them.
Ideally, both parties would resolve their differences without having to resort to arbitration at the Mod level, but you and I both know that doesn't always happen. What often happens when issues are resolved at the Mod level, it is usually with the Mod extolling the players to "play nice".

Ummm, I did not accuse you of flaming. I accused you of flamebaiting (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8784641&postcount=3):

In post #333 of this very thread:

Do hurry back, I will miss the warmth of your flames."

As for flamebaiting, you raised the claim (and again here) that my behaviour violated the moderation terms of the forum, so I made diligent effort to determine if you were correct. You were not. Shall we now see if any of my actions match the term of flamebaiting?



So, since you often need reminding of your own words, you last asked that I call you on something specific. I have, but since you've run from it every other time, I'll remind you:

I. You've referred to others as illogical and accused them of "poor argument" when they present an unprovable position, yet you've done the same several times on this very thread. Why are others held to a standard of evidence you cannot achieve yourself? Why does your claim of "poor argument" not apply to the exact same behaviour on your part?

II. You accuse others of "failing to realize" various elements of your argument, yet you blatantly ignore cogent points made by others, even when backed with ample evidence of your own quotes. For instance, YOU asked me to call you on something specific, and when I did, you failed to respond.

III. You've stated that it is a lack of reasoning skills to illustrate the premise IF the opposing argument were to be true, yet you've done exactly the same thing with your support of Pascal's Wager.

IV. YOU raise the issue of me supposedly violating the moderation rules of the board, and when I take steps to politely demonstrate that I am not, you claim you don't need the mods, when YOU were the one who accused me of doing something the mods would take issue with.

A: You can't build that tree in your yard! Its against city ordinance!!!

B: I have consulted the city ordinance and had the tree examined by a well informed and objective official. He has confirmed it violates no ordinance.

A: Oh yeah? Well I dont' need to go to some official to soothe my wounds.

B: But you did reference the ordinance. The official is the one who addresses that. Why did you raise the ordinance if you can't handle it when I call your bluff?

Anyway, Canuckheaven, you've been called on specific things, as you requested.

Ummm ... play nice, guys?

As HotRodia said, Hammurab wasn't flaming. Nor, as far as I can see, is CanuckHeaven pursuing the accusation.

I appreciate that the question of mods/forum rules is being used as an illustration of an argument, but please, just give it a rest.

EIDT: That illustration, I mean, not the argument, which is interesting.

Ummm ... play nice, guys?

As HotRodia said, Hammurab wasn't flaming. Nor, as far as I can see, is CanuckHeaven pursuing the accusation.

I appreciate that the question of mods/forum rules is being used as an illustration of an argument, but please, just give it a rest.

EIDT: That illustration, I mean, not the argument, which is interesting.

By all means. I will edit my previous post to bold the points that are on the argument itself.

Actually, you're rather close to correct. The only thing you've left out was the fact that, in Jesus' society, turning the other cheek would have effectively kept the violent person from hitting you again. Touching another person with the left hand was completely forbidden in that society, and a person who was trying to degrade you by hitting you would do it by backhanding you, not by punching or simply slapping you. Either of the latter actions would have been an admission that you were equal with them.

A slave or a woman who hit back when backhanded would likely have faced extreme consequences. However, one who turned the other cheek would be defiant in a non-violent manner. They would not be sinking to the violent level of their attacker, but would still be, in a sense, protecting themselves.

Huh. That makes lots of sense, and fits very nicely with my existing theory. I have had a few Christians try to convince me that "turn the other cheek" basically meant "ignore bad stuff and never fight back," and that just didn't gel with so much of the other things Jesus said. Makes much more sense the way you explain it.


Martin Luther King, Jr. drew on passages like the "turn the other cheek" passage in putting together various forms of passive resistance. The message was never "just sit there and take it," although some religious leaders used it in that way with battered women for years. The messages was, "Fight evil, but don't sink to their level or get yourself killed."
Exactly! It can be really hard to wrap your head around the idea of actively opposing evil by being passive, but I've seen situations where that was the best possible course.

You forgot homophobic bigot. That's what this is about isn't it? Peoples reaction to your homophobic rants in the recent gay marriage thread?
Didn't know that.

Am totally unsurprised.

What is morality then?
A fellow named Kohlberg named several stages of moral development. I think it's actually a pretty sound model. Here's the gist of it:

The first level of morality is called the "pre-conventional" level. In the pre-conventional stage, you start out with the most fundamental kind of morality: simple obedience and punishment orientation (i.e. How can I avoid punishment?). You then grow to include self-interest (What's in it for me?).

In the second level of morality, "conventional," you develop conformity-based morality (being a Good Girl or Good Boy), and then move on to an authority-based moral system that is focused on maintaining social order.

The third level of moral development, the "post-conventional" level, involves the concept of a social contract, a sense of obligation that goes beyond one's desire to secure personal benefits through appropriate behavior. The final stage of moral development involves the presence of a principled conscience.

If you track across these stages, what you notice is that the more "morally developed" an individual becomes, the more conscious and internal their morality becomes.

The Heaven/Hell moral system is classic pre-conventional morality. Do good, get reward. Do bad, get punishment. In my personal opinion, it is a moral system that is only appropriate for very young children or the mentally disabled.

Atheism means to not believe that god(s) exist.
Lack of belief and belief of lack are lumped together here.

If one lacks belief, e.g. because as a child never was indoctrinated, then the one is an atheist. Until children learn about God, they certainly can be classed as atheists.
Further to our discussion and after re-reading some of the posts, I believe that Kamsaki-Myu sums this up far better than I could:

It is not a form of belief, but it is a state of belief. Namely, the state of contented ignorance - you have no understanding of the question at hand and thus have no position.

That is default behaviour. We must assume that we are not closed to possibilities we are not aware of; otherwise, we would be incapable of learning.

The point here is that we (being the innocent) don't know what it is. We have no knowledge at all about what the name stands for, and thus it is entirely feasible to us that it could stand for anything. It is an unknown; a Variable. Since there are some things we believe in and some things we do not, since we know that there are some things that we believe in that are known by other names, and since we do not know whether something you're talking about is something that we believe in or not until it is described for us in terms we understand, we are forced acknowledge that the possibility exists that we believe in something that we do not yet know.

Or, to put it another way,

I believe Steve exists
If X = Steve then I believe X exists
There is a possibility that X = Steve
Therefore, there is a possibility that I believe X exists

Until we define X such that it can only be something we do not believe exists then we cannot discard the possibility that X is definable as something that we do believe exists, and it is thus incorrect to say that we do not believe X exists simply because we lack an explicit assertion that X does exist.
:)

Exactly! It can be really hard to wrap your head around the idea of actively opposing evil by being passive, but I've seen situations where that was the best possible course.
Well, I totally agree with you there.

A fellow named Kohlberg named several stages of moral development. I think it's actually a pretty sound model. Here's the gist of it:

The first level of morality is called the "pre-conventional" level. In the pre-conventional stage, you start out with the most fundamental kind of morality: simple obedience and punishment orientation (i.e. How can I avoid punishment?). You then grow to include self-interest (What's in it for me?).

In the second level of morality, "conventional," you develop conformity-based morality (being a Good Girl or Good Boy), and then move on to an authority-based moral system that is focused on maintaining social order.

The third level of moral development, the "post-conventional" level, involves the concept of a social contract, a sense of obligation that goes beyond one's desire to secure personal benefits through appropriate behavior. The final stage of moral development involves the presence of a principled conscience.

If you track across these stages, what you notice is that the more "morally developed" an individual becomes, the more conscious and internal their morality becomes.

Hmm, that's interesting, and makes sense. But I still am unsure: why bother going past the first stage? What's the point in acting good if you don't get anything in return? From an evolutionary standpoint altruism may be better for the species, but it would be best for the individual to screw everyone (without getting screwed themselves).
I believe that the last stage of morality you described to be the best one, and I think most Christians would agree, even if they could only say why because "that's what God says." However, I still can't understand how a morality absolute enough to be worth considering can exist without an outside law-giver, whether it be God or the Government.

Hmm, that's interesting, and makes sense. But I still am unsure: why bother going past the first stage? What's the point in acting good if you don't get anything in return? From an evolutionary standpoint altruism may be better for the species, but it would be best for the individual to screw everyone (without getting screwed themselves).
I believe that the last stage of morality you described to be the best one, and I think most Christians would agree, even if they could only say why because "that's what God says." However, I still can't understand how a morality absolute enough to be worth considering can exist without an outside law-giver, whether it be God or the Government.

most people don't move past the first stage at all. My kids are still there, it's quite disturbing (although developmentally appropriate). The other day I was discussing the kitten cannon game with someone and my 4 year old said "is that a real cat?" and I said "no, it's a cartoon cat" and she said "good, I wouldn't do that to a real kitty" and I said "good for you!" and she said "because he might scratch me" and my 6 year old added "and you would probably get in trouble"......:eek: no mention of not doing it because you know it would kill the cat, when I brought up that point they both said "well, yeah, but also you would go to jail"

most people don't move past the first stage at all. My kids are still there, it's quite disturbing (although developmentally appropriate). The other day I was discussing the kitten cannon game with someone and my 4 year old said "is that a real cat?" and I said "no, it's a cartoon cat" and she said "good, I wouldn't do that to a real kitty" and I said "good for you!" and she said "because he might scratch me" and my 6 year old added "and you would probably get in trouble"......:eek: no mention of not doing it because you know it would kill the cat, when I brought up that point they both said "well, yeah, but also you would go to jail"
There is a great dialogue by Raymond Smullyan about this kind of thing here (http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html).

There is a great dialogue by Raymond Smullyan about this kind of thing here (http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html).

That dialogue was pretty cool.

But not the kind of thing to read in a hurry. I'll have to print it out. And maybe give it to my sons, who have been muddling my usual happy state of apatheism by quoting Richard Dawkins at me.

But not the kind of thing to read in a hurry. I'll have to print it out. And maybe give it to my sons, who have been muddling my usual happy state of apatheism by quoting Richard Dawkins at me.

Dawkins? Surely Nietzsche would be a better choice. Far more entertaining and insightful, in my not-really-all-that-humble opinion.

Hmm, that's interesting, and makes sense.

There was a lot of meat to your response, so I'm gonna take it bit by bit.


But I still am unsure: why bother going past the first stage? What's the point in acting good if you don't get anything in return?

See, now, there you go making religious believers seem scary to me.

Do you really only behave good because you'll get a reward?

I like being nice to people. More importantly, I generally do not like being mean to people. I'll be plenty mean if properly provoked, but my default attitude is to avoid hurting other people.

This is rooted in empathy. It's like how when I watch a movie of a guy getting hit with a shovel, I flinch and go "Wow, that sucks." (Well, I laugh, and THEN I flinch etc ;)). If I see a fellow human in pain, my impulse is to help them. It's got nothing to do with whether or not I foresee a personal reward. I give directions to people who are lost because it's nice, even though I've never in my life received any reward for doing so. I know I'd want somebody to lend me a hand if I were in trouble, so I act accordingly toward my fellow humans.


From an evolutionary standpoint altruism may be better for the species, but it would be best for the individual to screw everyone (without getting screwed themselves).

Actually, from an evolutionary standpoint we are social primates. We thrive in groups. This is kind tied to the second level of morality, using Kohlberg's model, because it's about recognizing that your own welfare does not exist in a vacuum. Even if you don't reap a personal reward immediately, your actions may benefit a larger group to which you belong, and this may end up improving your life down the line.


I believe that the last stage of morality you described to be the best one, and I think most Christians would agree, even if they could only say why because "that's what God says." However, I still can't understand how a morality absolute enough to be worth considering can exist without an outside law-giver, whether it be God or the Government.
Who needs absolute morality? I don't believe any such critter exists. Morality is 100% subjective, in my opinion.

My moral system is my own best effort. It's the product of my lifetime of trying to figure out what the fuck is going on. It's about problem solving, really, because I see a world and an environment that I need to navigate, and I'm trying to figure out the best way to accomplish that.

And "best" is a very personal, subjective concept.

For some people, the "best" way is the fastest way, regardless of what it takes to manage that. For others, the "best" is the scenic route. For others, "best" is the route that's the most fun as you go. And so on.

Since every individual is going to have a slightly different idea of what the "best" route is going to be, it's only natural that we also will have different ideas about which path we should take.

tl;dr

Bottom line: Don't be jack off and think you can make fun of religious people because the internets offer anonymousness.
No, I can make fun of religious people because of the joys of freedom of speech. They can make fun of me too. Then we can all get drunk and laugh collectively about how silly we all are. :)
Only If you share with the rest of us non-muslims

Although to be fair since you asked first you get to keep most of it

Yay!

See, now, there you go making religious believers seem scary to me.

Do you really only behave good because you'll get a reward?

I like being nice to people. More importantly, I generally do not like being mean to people. I'll be plenty mean if properly provoked, but my default attitude is to avoid hurting other people.

This is rooted in empathy. It's like how when I watch a movie of a guy getting hit with a shovel, I flinch and go "Wow, that sucks." (Well, I laugh, and THEN I flinch etc ;)). If I see a fellow human in pain, my impulse is to help them. It's got nothing to do with whether or not I foresee a personal reward. I give directions to people who are lost because it's nice, even though I've never in my life received any reward for doing so. I know I'd want somebody to lend me a hand if I were in trouble, so I act accordingly toward my fellow humans.
....

You are overstating your lack of reward and punishment system there. In your own words you described your own reward and punishment system. You rewarded yourself with 'liking' your actions and 'liking' means enjoying, and enjoying something you do is a form of reward for yourself. You also described what we could describe as 'punishment' of yourself, if you failed to do something you thought you should do you might punish yourself by feeling bad and/or guilty about it after the fact. Additionally, you mentioned a ‘future’ hypothetical scenario expectation from your past behavior actions, you hoped that future events would end in your favor if you behaved nicely now, you might receive nice behavior yourself if you should need it. And thus, by your own standards of acceptable and not-acceptable behaviors, you are no different than the religious person you disdained, because like them, you reward and punish and hope for good future outcomes yourself for acting out your choice of good behaviors now.

You are overstating your lack of reward and punishment system there. In your own words you described your own reward and punishment system. You rewarded yourself with 'liking' your actions and 'liking' means enjoying, and enjoying something you do is a form of reward for yourself.

You seem to have misunderstood the process of moral development. We don't somehow "lack" a reward and punishment system once we've developed beyond that moral framework. We obviously still experience reward/punishment feedback. It's just that our morality is not confined exclusively to that context.


You also described what we could describe as 'punishment' of yourself, if you failed to do something you thought you should do you might punish yourself by feeling bad and/or guilty about it after the fact.

Actually, I didn't describe that, you assumed it. But it doesn't particularly matter, since (as I said) these elements of feedback don't magically disappear when an individual matures.

Think of it this way:

For an individual who is at a very early stage of moral development, the reward and punishment ARE their morality. Seeking reward and avoiding punishment ARE morality for that individual.

For an individual who has matured to a later stage of morality, reward and punishment are feedback. They are sort of indicators, not the actual essence of morality. This is obviously very important when you want to talk about more complex issues and abstract questions of morality, in which there may be immediate rewards for doing something that is ultimately lousy (for example).


Additionally, you mentioned a ‘future’ hypothetical scenario expectation from your past behavior actions, you hoped that future events would end in your favor if you behaved nicely now, you might receive nice behavior yourself if you should need it.

Again, no I didn't. What I said was that I know I'd want help, so I give help. I'm not helping Joe Shmoe on the street because I believe doing so will increase my chances of receiving help in the future. Indeed, I have specifically thought about this, and I don't actually think me helping Joe Shmoe will have any statistically significant impact on my future odds of receiving help.

It's merely a case of empathy. I can't read other people's minds, so I use my own experience and feelings to try to help me guess at what other people might feel, think, or want. If I know that I would want to have some help in a particular situation, I guess that another person might want help in that situation. Unless there is a specific reason for me not to do so, I offer the help. My default is, "Let's be polite/nice/helpful." That's just how I roll.


And thus, by your own standards of acceptable and not-acceptable behaviors, you are no different than the religious person you disdained, because like them, you reward and punish and hope for good future outcomes yourself for acting out your choice of good behaviors now.
If past experience provides an accurate read, I suspect that I've just wasted my time responding to you. You've already made up your mind (as evidenced by several glaringly incorrect assumptions on your part so far) and you aren't really interested in gathering information that would help you determine whether or not you're right.

In view of this, I strongly suggest that you place me on your ignore list and avoid responding to my posts in the future.

You seem to have misunderstood the process of moral development. We don't somehow "lack" a reward and punishment system once we've developed beyond that moral framework. We obviously still experience reward/punishment feedback. It's just that our morality is not confined exclusively to that context.
If I've misunderstood the process of moral development, one that is not confined to the context of a reward and punishment context, then perhaps you can describe that morality you are claiming for yourself without the use of, or above and beyond the use of, a reward and punishment parameter. You stated that yours is superior because it's moved past it, if so, then show how it has. Claiming empathy as your evidence is not a sufficient argument because empathy is NOT exclusive of non-religious morality only, using it as a definition of yours does not separate your non-religious morality from religious morality. The only difference between your non-religious morality and religious inspired morality that I've seen in your posts is the concept of the 'origin' of said morality.


Actually, I didn't describe that, you assumed it. But it doesn't particularly matter, since (as I said) these elements of feedback don't magically disappear when an individual matures.

Of course I assumed it, I assumed it based on what you wrote, and even said as much when I said: You also described what we could describe as 'punishment' of yourself. And of course I admit punishment and reward doesn't magically disappear, that was, after all, the point of my dissension with your point. You objected to religious morality having rewards and punishments as the source of it’s influence and I pointed out that you too have rewards and punishments in your system (and thus so I said that yours is no different)... Now you admit that you to have it, but you submit that yours is still somehow superior because you've moved past that influence and on to something else, but you haven't described what this something else is which is exclusive to your non-religious system , outside of using the word empathy, which of course you know isn't exclusively restricted to your system so it doesn’t qualify as the reason your system might be superior.

Think of it this way:

For an individual who is at a very early stage of moral development, the reward and punishment ARE their morality. Seeking reward and avoiding punishment ARE morality for that individual.

For an individual who has matured to a later stage of morality, reward and punishment are feedback. They are sort of indicators, not the actual essence of morality. This is obviously very important when you want to talk about more complex issues and abstract questions of morality, in which there may be immediate rewards for doing something that is ultimately lousy (for example).

Reward and punishment is a Feedback system, yes. Your system still has rewards and punishments in it, as you yourself have already admitted, empathy is found in both systems and thus you have not shown why yours is inherently superior for more complex issues and abstract questions of morality than any other system.


Again, no I didn't. What I said was that I know I'd want help, so I give help. I'm not helping Joe Shmoe on the street because I believe doing so will increase my chances of receiving help in the future. Indeed, I have specifically thought about this, and I don't actually think me helping Joe Shmoe will have any statistically significant impact on my future odds of receiving help.

It's merely a case of empathy. I can't read other people's minds, so I use my own experience and feelings to try to help me guess at what other people might feel, think, or want. If I know that I would want to have some help in a particular situation, I guess that another person might want help in that situation. Unless there is a specific reason for me not to do so, I offer the help. My default is, "Let's be polite/nice/helpful." That's just how I roll.
You seem to have misunderstood the purpose of that description of expectation in my post. You have describe your expectations of a religious person’s reasons for making moral choices, by their appearances to you, as an outsider observing them. And I, did the same thing to your choices, as an outsider observing, the same can be said of the appearances of observing your reasons for making moral choices.

Your default position, that religious morality is inferior to non-religious morality because the religious morality promises rewards and punishments as the sole cause of it’s influence, is just as erroneous as my example of your sole reasons for observing your morality choices. That was the point of that description.

If past experience provides an accurate read, I suspect that I've just wasted my time responding to you. You've already made up your mind (as evidenced by several glaringly incorrect assumptions on your part so far) and you aren't really interested in gathering information that would help you determine whether or not you're right.

In view of this, I strongly suggest that you place me on your ignore list and avoid responding to my posts in the future.

Really? Funny that. On the other hand, it’s quite clear that you too have already made up your mind and you aren't really interested in gathering information that would help you determine whether or not you're right, but instead you’d rather to be able to continue to attack your adversaries unhindered and not have them refute your erroneous statements publicly, because then you have to expose them to scrutiny…

As to the: In view of this, I strongly suggest that you place me on your ignore list and avoid responding to my posts in the future, I strongly suggest that if you don’t want your opinions countered or refuted or debated, you should avoid placing them on a public debate forum on the internet. As to the “ignore list” usage advice, please feel free to use it yourself. I have no intention of determining now not to counter any erroneous anti-religious person claims you may make in the future or other erroneous attacks that you post when I see them. I won’t do that, I’m surprised you even asked just because you don’t like how I argue against some of your views and oppose some of your positions as fervently as you hold them yourself.

*snip*

I think your problem here is the assumption that Bottle is contrasting all religiously affiliated morality with all non-religious morality when what she appears to be contrasting is carrot-stick mentality with something based more in empathy.

All too often, a religious person who believes that atheists cannot be moral will say something like, "If God isn't going to punish you/reward you, why wouldn't you steal/murder/rape/etc?" As Bottle said, this is a scary and childish mentality. It means that the ONLY reason this person would behave in a moral manner is that they are going to get hit with the stick if they don't and they'll get a carrot of they do. There is no thought put into why it is right or wrong and the effects their actions may have on others aren't even examined.

Of course, there are religious and non-religious people who have moved beyond that mentality, who base their moral decisions off of an examination of the action and its effects. Because effects on others must be examined, empathy comes into play here, while it is wholly unnecessary in a carrot/stick based system.

Imagine three different scenarios:

1) An elderly woman is trying to make it across the street with heavy packages and is struggling. A young person is walking past her when another person (God/the law/whatever) walks up and says, "Help that old lady or I'm going to beat you up with this baseball bat." The young person helps.

2) An elderly woman is trying to make it across the street with heavy packages and is struggling. A young person is walking past her when another person (God/the law/whatever) walks up and says, "If you help that old lady, I'll give you $100." The young person helps.

3) An elderly woman is trying to make it across the street with heavy packages and is struggling. A young person is walking past her and notices. This person empathizes with the woman and decides to help.

In the third case, maybe the person feels good about it afterwards. Maybe they get $100 from someone who thinks it was a nice gesture. Maybe someone would have beat them up if they hadn't done it. But those rewards and punishments are not the reason for the action. So who is acting in the most moral fashion? The person who only does it to avoid punishment? The person who only does it to gain reward? Or the person who thinks, "Damn, that looks like it sucks. I'm going to help."?

Hmm, that's interesting, and makes sense. But I still am unsure: why bother going past the first stage? What's the point in acting good if you don't get anything in return? From an evolutionary standpoint altruism may be better for the species, but it would be best for the individual to screw everyone (without getting screwed themselves).

However, since humans are social animals, you cannot screw everyone without getting screwed yourself.

I think your problem here is the assumption that Bottle is contrasting all religiously affiliated morality with all non-religious morality when what she appears to be contrasting is carrot-stick mentality with something based more in empathy.
I'm not assuming that she is making a blanket statement against religous peoples beliefs (but she frequently does), I'm pointing out that her system is just as carrot and stick as the religious belief she tries to demean. (more on that next part below).


All too often, a religious person who believes that atheists cannot be moral will say something like, "If God isn't going to punish you/reward you, why wouldn't you steal/murder/rape/etc?" As Bottle said, this is a scary and childish mentality. It means that the ONLY reason this person would behave in a moral manner is that they are going to get hit with the stick if they don't and they'll get a carrot of they do. There is no thought put into why it is right or wrong and the effects their actions may have on others aren't even examined.

And I’m arguing that this example is a strawman, or more specifically, a red herring. Because the position that some are above the carrot and stick mentality is an erroneous claim… (again, more below, waiting for your example).

Cutting to example 3:
3) An elderly woman is trying to make it across the street with heavy packages and is struggling. A young person is walking past her and notices. This person empathizes with the woman and decides to help.

In the third case, maybe the person feels good about it afterwards. Maybe they get $100 from someone who thinks it was a nice gesture. Maybe someone would have beat them up if they hadn't done it. But those rewards and punishments are not the reason for the action. So who is acting in the most moral fashion? The person who only does it to avoid punishment? The person who only does it to gain reward? Or the person who thinks, "Damn, that looks like it sucks. I'm going to help."?

In the third case, the young person ‘empathizes’ with the woman and decides to help? Let's examine what that really means, shall we? As you said, they ‘feel good about it.’ THAT is the carrot. The feel good about it is simply a different carrot, but it’s still a carrot. And the other side of that example is the person that is in a hurry, sees the old lady in need, proceeds to swear up and down something like, “why now, damnit, old people shouldn't be allowed out in public if they can’t help themselves etc., etc., etc.," and yet, they too, in the end, stop and help the old lady because they know themselves enough to know that if they didn't they will feel ‘bad’ about it later, and that ‘bad’ feeling is the Stick for this version of everyones ‘carrot and stick’ mentality. My point is that in all three examples of yours, and in Bottle’s description of her position from the posts above, the carrot and stick influence is just as true for one as the other positrons as well. Simply trading one carrot for a different carrot or one stick for a different stick, does not make one more moral than the other, all of them use carrots and sticks.

In fact, I could claim that the religious carrot and stick influence system uses bigger carrots and sticks and thus, is likely to be more effective and influential in achieving moral behavior in more situations.

I'm not assuming that she is making a blanket statement against religous peoples beliefs (but she frequently does), I'm pointing out that her system is just as carrot and stick as the religious belief she tries to demean. (more on that next part below).

...except that it isn't. You're doing an awful lot of twisting to try and get it there, but it isn't the same. It's kind of like the people who try to argue that all actions are selfish because you decide to take them. At that point, the words have become meaningless.

Empathy doesn't dangle a carrot in front of you or brandish a stick. Feeling good or bad are results of either acting based on empathy or ignoring it, but they are not the reason for the action. The person in the 3rd scenario didn't say, "I'm going to help this lady because I'll feel so good about it later and I'll pat myself on the back." They did it because they saw that she was in need of help. Feeling good about it, if it even happens, is a side-effect.

And that doesn't even bring in another very obvious difference - the need in both of the first two scenarios for a separate person to tell them what to do. Someone who's morality is completely carrot/stick based has actually not developed any moral views of their own. All they do is what others tell them to do - what others will either punish or reward them for.

In fact, I could claim that the religious carrot and stick influence system uses bigger carrots and sticks and thus, is likely to be more effective and influential in achieving moral behavior in more situations.

Of course it would be more effective. Not necessarily because it uses bigger rewards and punishments, but because it will catch people who haven't matured enough to develop their own moral views. Of course, organized religion often actively keeps them from maturing beyond that as well, by discouraging questioning of that particular religion's system.

In fact, I could claim that the religious carrot and stick influence system uses bigger carrots and sticks and thus, is likely to be more effective and influential in achieving moral behavior in more situations.

You'd be wrong, though. Internalized carrot/stick morals are generally far more effective than external carrot/stick morals.

So if you want to improve moral behavior, whether you're using a religious system or not, it's best if you get the person to make the carrot/stick a part of themselves.

That's not to say that having a bigger carrot/stick would not make for an improvement in moral behavior in some cases, just that internalized carrot/stick morals do a lot better job than bigger external carrot/stick in general.

...
Empathy doesn't dangle a carrot in front of you or brandish a stick. Feeling good or bad are results of either acting based on empathy or ignoring it, but they are not the reason for the action. The person in the 3rd scenario didn't say, "I'm going to help this lady because I'll feel so good about it later and I'll pat myself on the back." They did it because they saw that she was in need of help. Feeling good about it, if it even happens, is a side-effect.
...

Empathy is not the exclusive domain of either moral system, it can't be used exclusively by the non-religious position nor the religious position, thus, the 'act' of having empathy can't be the measuring stick for determining which moral code system is better than the other. Bottle used it in such a way, and you have too, that makes it sound like the use of empathy makes it superior to other methods of moral choice methodologies, but I submit that without empathy there are no ‘moral choices’ at all anyway, just instinctive non-choice behaviors. And instinctive non-choice behaviors can’t be moral or not moral, they just are. And so, to argue that someone needs to ‘grow into empathy realization” is not really saying anything, because they are either capable of moral behavior or they are not able and they are like animals.

Empathy tells us that it is time for us to make a moral choice, it cannot be the choice method itself.

You'd be wrong, though. Internalized carrot/stick morals are generally far more effective than external carrot/stick morals.

True enough. But a religious carrot/stick system can be just as internalized as a non-religous system can be. And that's really what I was going for with that statemnet, the idea in the person's head of how big the carrot/stick might be for a choice in behaviors. Is it just me feeling good or bad about myself, OR, is it just me thinking about how God is feeling good or bad about me (bigger carrot/stick).

So if you want to improve moral behavior, whether you're using a religious system or not, it's best if you get the person to make the carrot/stick a part of themselves.

Agreed.

That's not to say that having a bigger carrot/stick would not make for an improvement in moral behavior in some cases, just that internalized carrot/stick morals do a lot better job than bigger external carrot/stick in general.

I agree again. Making the boy feel bad about his action is more effective than trying to catch him stealing cookies from the cookie jar with 24 hour surveillance systems. :p

Empathy is not the exclusive domain of either moral system, it can't be used exclusively by the non-religious position nor the religious position, thus, the 'act' of having empathy can't be the measuring stick for determining which moral code system is better than the other.

And, once again, you shift the discussion to try to make it about religion vs. non-religion. That isn't the discussion.

Now empathy is the exclusive domain of a moral system that has moved beyond the carrot/stick mentality. In the carrot/stick mentality, the only consideration is the reward or punishment being brandished for the action. The plight of others is irrelevant. There is no need whatsoever for empathy in such a system because actions are taken, not based on a consideration of how others are affected, but instead based in a fear of punishment or a desire for a reward.

Bottle used it in such a way, and you have too, that makes it sound like the use of empathy makes it superior to other methods of moral choice methodologies, but I submit that without empathy there are no ‘moral choices’ at all anyway, just instinctive non-choice behaviors. And instinctive non-choice behaviors can’t be moral or not moral, they just are. And so, to argue that someone needs to ‘grow into empathy realization” is not really saying anything, because they are either capable of moral behavior or they are not able and they are like animals.

Guess how we get animals to behave as we want them to? We either wave a stick at them or offer them a carrot. Moving beyond that mentality is exactly what Bottle and I are talking about.

Empathy tells us that it is time for us to make a moral choice, it cannot be the choice method itself.

It can be an integral part in making the decision. But if one is still stuck on a punishment/rewards system, there is no need for it at all.

True enough. But a religious carrot/stick system can be just as internalized as a non-religous system can be. And that's really what I was going for with that statemnet, the idea in the person's head of how big the carrot/stick might be for a choice in behaviors. Is it just me feeling good or bad about myself, OR, is it just me thinking about how God is feeling good or bad about me (bigger carrot/stick).

I'm pretty reluctant to say that God's feelings are a bigger carrot/stick than our own feelings. That very much depends on how close the person feels to God, I think.

I agree again. Making the boy feel bad about his action is more effective than trying to catch him stealing cookies from the cookie jar with 24 hour surveillance systems. :p

On the other hand, maybe those surveillance systems would be good in the short term. I was a tricky little bastard when it came to getting in the cookie jar. (Yes, we actually had one.)

Whew, I finally caught up with the thread.
Here's what makes me sad:

The issue of religious bigotry is an important one. There are many significant points to be made, many interesting lines of conversation to be pursued, and many possible resolutions to be debated. But the OP manages to bury all of that.

Instead, all I see is yet another Western Christian (he's not fooling anybody) crying about how hard it is to be Christian because meanie-head agnostics and atheists say mean things on an internet forum. Then he turns around and flat-out states that atheists and non-religious individuals can't possibly be moral, which kind of leads you to wonder why the fuck he expects them to behave themselves when he has specifically stated that he believes them to be incapable of doing so.

What a waste. You're not oppressed, little Christian. You never have been. Sometimes people disagree with you. Sometimes people just plain don't like you. Sometimes they tell you so. Boo. Fucking. Hoo.

I'm an atheist non-hetero feminist. Do you really want to compare the size of our oppressions? Why bother? We both know mine's bigger. Yet I've managed to get the fuck over myself and actually talk about issues instead of crying about how people sometimes don't bow down and lick my belief system and tell me how great it tastes.

Thankfully, there are people on this forum (several of whom are "out" as non-religious) who have made this thread interesting and productive. Good on you, folks.
I hope when I say, "I love you," you'll take in context as a form of respect and not in a creepy stalkerish way. Because your post is simply made of win.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/anti-christianBigotry.gif
Picture == 1000 words
You know, that pretty much sums up the debate on gay marriage that we had with Dixie recently. Its very revealing of his mentality.
As a side note, IDT just kicks ass in general.

Religious bigotry?
Yeah, that's what they're now calling it when they get their way less than 75% of the time. Just like not allowing them to run everones life according to their rules is now "persecution" against Christians. :rolleyes:
Indeed. "You're oppressing us by saying that we can't persecute you anymore! Waaaaaah!"


Honestly, given that Dixie's definition of religious bigotry is not letting a given religion dictate policy, this thread should have been over before it began. Especially when he turns around and says "Atheists actually believe in God; they just hate Him because they're evil and want to be able to justify their wicked ways. They don't want to be held accountable for their vile actions."
Frighteningly, in saying that, he implicitly admits that he desires to rape/murder/steal/whatever, and would do so if he felt could get away with it.

Even many others seem to be claiming that pointing out problems with a given religion--especially thinking many of its beliefs are stupid-- is bigotry. But it's not. You can think somebody has stupid ideas without thinking that they are bad people, or even without thinking that they are stupid people. I mean, Newton had some very silly ideas (remember, he was very into alchemy), but his work in science was still brilliant. Aristotle believed plenty of foolish things, but again, he was still no idiot.

On the other hand, I would consider the mainstream Christian belief very bigoted indeed-- not only is anybody who disagrees with you wrong, but they will, deservedly, suffer eternal torment for it. But I certainly don't paint all Christians with this brush. I recognize that some don't believe that.

I think your problem here is the assumption that Bottle is contrasting all religiously affiliated morality with all non-religious morality when what she appears to be contrasting is carrot-stick mentality with something based more in empathy.

All too often, a religious person who believes that atheists cannot be moral will say something like, "If God isn't going to punish you/reward you, why wouldn't you steal/murder/rape/etc?" As Bottle said, this is a scary and childish mentality. It means that the ONLY reason this person would behave in a moral manner is that they are going to get hit with the stick if they don't and they'll get a carrot of they do. There is no thought put into why it is right or wrong and the effects their actions may have on others aren't even examined.

Of course, there are religious and non-religious people who have moved beyond that mentality, who base their moral decisions off of an examination of the action and its effects. Because effects on others must be examined, empathy comes into play here, while it is wholly unnecessary in a carrot/stick based system.

Quite. Glad to see my post was understandable, at least to somebody. :D

Just to make it really clear, Demi is right: I was not in any way saying that religiosity automatically equals carrot-and-stick morality. God belief doesn't magically strip people of moral agency, nor does it remove their frontal cortex. Religious people are no less able to become morally developed than are non-religious people. It's just that SOME religious people remain stunted at an infantile moral stage, probably because it is easier and simpler to abdicate moral responsibility. There are similarly lazy individuals who choose other excuses for their personal moral slacking (racism, cults, even extremist political systems).

The people who scare me are the people who insist that without God they have no reason to be moral. I don't care if you're an atheist or a theist, that shit should worry you. Best case scenario, they're ignorant and have never bothered with introspection. Worst case scenario, they're telling you the truth, and you're face to face with a sociopath.

I'm pretty reluctant to say that God's feelings are a bigger carrot/stick than our own feelings. That very much depends on how close the person feels to God, I think.

Very much so. Pardon the crudity, but God's feelings mean precisely dick to me. I can never know whether any particular God even exists, let alone whether or not it approves of my actions, so speculation about God's feelings carries the same moral weight with me as does speculation about Darth Vader's feelings, or the Easter Bunny's. It can make for interesting academic or theoretical discussions, but when it comes to my actual moral code it's totally irrelevant.

Frankly, if you introduce me to a total stranger (let's call her Jill), her feelings will mean more to me than God's. I will be infinitely more concerned about whether or not I'm hurting Jill's feelings than I will be about God's, because at least I can know Jill exists and interact with her to find out how my actions are impacting her emotional state.

So, for me, the feelings of a total stranger are even more of a carrot-and-stick than the feelings of any God.

I was skeptical, because I think that morality is rooted in a belief of some higher power which will ultimately hold you accountable for betraying morality. Otherwise, there is really no intrinsic reason to behave morally. Just as 'responsibility' can only be maintained if there is someone to hold you responsible.

So your saying, people need god to be there to judge people like some super santa clause, rewarding good people with heaven instead of presents, and punishing people with hell instead of coal otherwise there is no reason to be good. Your saying people never do kind acts out of thee goodness of there hearts without expecting some sort of reward, or people avoid commiting crimes cause they think god is going to get them.

Very much so. Pardon the crudity, but God's feelings mean precisely dick to me. I can never know whether any particular God even exists, let alone whether or not it approves of my actions, so speculation about God's feelings carries the same moral weight with me as does speculation about Darth Vader's feelings, or the Easter Bunny's. It can make for interesting academic or theoretical discussions, but when it comes to my actual moral code it's totally irrelevant.

Frankly, if you introduce me to a total stranger (let's call her Jill), her feelings will mean more to me than God's. I will be infinitely more concerned about whether or not I'm hurting Jill's feelings than I will be about God's, because at least I can know Jill exists and interact with her to find out how my actions are impacting her emotional state.

So, for me, the feelings of a total stranger are even more of a carrot-and-stick than the feelings of any God.

Not only that, but there are plenty of people who believe in God but don't seem to care much about God's feelings. Some people believe in God, but still manage to avoid any real moral growth. Somehow the carrot/stick ain't doing its job in those cases.

Not only that, but there are plenty of people who believe in God but don't seem to care much about God's feelings. Some people believe in God, but still manage to avoid any real moral growth. Somehow the carrot/stick ain't doing its job in those cases.

I think the problem with those people is that they think they're actually holding the stick - and they get pleasure out of brandishing it.

Christians have been bashed for centuries? What world do YOU live in?

What utter bullshit. Why would I feel jealous about not having a relationship with somebody I don't believe in? I certainly don't hate and despise little kids because they believe in Santa.

Well, at least in the last century, they were not only bashed they were killed.

Under Stalinist USSR, more Christians died from religious persecuition than did died under Roman persecution in the first few centuries AD.

Expand your historical perspective.

--
Plop
:fluffle:

Personally I'm not sure that religious feelings can be called "internal" in the same way we are saying empathy is. Assuming that we are still talking about carrots and sticks. If you do something because some external entity (god or guy-with-baseball-bat, it's all the same for the purposes of this example) will punish you, then that's not internal is it?

On the other hand I have no problem thinking of empathy as a carrot & stick thing, for argument's sake. As others have said, empathy doesn't mean you help people because you know it will make you feel good; but I suppose you could argue that (at least subconciously) you will remember feeling good afterwards the last time you helped someone.

Seems to me that, however you want to carve things up, internal motivations are "better" than external ones, though - they are the third of the three types of motivation discussed earlier, after all.

Not trying to convince anyone here -- just saying what I think.

I think the problem with those people is that they think they're actually holding the stick - and they get pleasure out of brandishing it.

I think that's the case for some of them. But there are others that seem to be just plain apathetic about God. They believe God exists, but they don't care enough about that fact to grow morally. I've seen a lot of nominal Catholics fall into this category, and a fair number of Protestants end up in that category in college.

Quite. Glad to see my post was understandable, at least to somebody. :D

Just to make it really clear, Demi is right: I was not in any way saying that religiosity automatically equals carrot-and-stick morality. God belief doesn't magically strip people of moral agency, nor does it remove their frontal cortex. Religious people are no less able to become morally developed than are non-religious people. It's just that SOME religious people remain stunted at an infantile moral stage, probably because it is easier and simpler to abdicate moral responsibility. There are similarly lazy individuals who choose other excuses for their personal moral slacking (racism, cults, even extremist political systems).

The people who scare me are the people who insist that without God they have no reason to be moral. I don't care if you're an atheist or a theist, that shit should worry you. Best case scenario, they're ignorant and have never bothered with introspection. Worst case scenario, they're telling you the truth, and you're face to face with a sociopath.
Your position stands better now, but it's still trying to dehumanize your opponent as your main attack. You, say, SOME religious people remain... why do they have to be religious people that you are talking about?

Why can't they be SOME athiest people think... or SOME agnostic people have no empathy? You attack your opponents position by trying to make them something less than fully human, that is, full humans have empathy, in fact, it's a mental disorder if one doesn't. You attempt to equate that condition with your adversaries who in this case happen to be religious people.

Who are these people with no empathy that you are talking about? Jews? Muslims? Christians? Who are these vile and shallow creatures who aren't fully human because they are underdeveloped?

The argument that the SOME-religious have no empathy is no more valid that the religious who claim that atheist have no morals. Both arguments suffer from the fundamental flaw of trying to dehumanize their opponent. Real empathy is to recognize the humanity of even those who are try to dehumanize you first. Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.

I'm pretty reluctant to say that God's feelings are a bigger carrot/stick than our own feelings. That very much depends on how close the person feels to God, I think.


Not God's actual feelings, the person's feelings about pleasing God or not. The same as I may feel worse if my Father is disappointed in me than if I am disappointed in myself... Whether or not the person’s father is actually disappointed in them was not what I meant.

Who are these people with no empathy that you are talking about? Jews? Muslims? Christians? Who are these vile and shallow creatures who aren't fully human because they are underdeveloped?

First of all, Bottle never said anything about anyone not being "fully human". Immature, yes, but not less than human.

People who say things like this are underdeveloped, either because they simply haven't thought about it or because they really are stunted somehow:

I was skeptical, because I think that morality is rooted in a belief of some higher power which will ultimately hold you accountable for betraying morality. Otherwise, there is really no intrinsic reason to behave morally. Just as 'responsibility' can only be maintained if there is someone to hold you responsible.

In other words, "The only reason I act morally is because some deity is going to wack me with a stick otherwise."

The argument that the SOME-religious have no empathy is no more valid that the religious who claim that atheist have no morals.

How is characterizing some religious people in a certain way equivalent to characterizing all atheists in a certain way?

Bottle isn't pulling this claim out of thin air. There are religious people (Dixieanna, for instance) who flat-out state that the only possible reason for morality is having a god who will whack you with a stick if you're bad and give you cookies if you're good - people for whom empathy has no place in morality.

... Bottle isn't pulling this claim out of thin air. There are religious people (Dixieanna, for instance) who flat-out state that the only possible reason for morality is having a god who will whack you with a stick if you're bad and give you cookies if you're good - people for whom empathy has no place in morality.

Do you really think Dixieanna has no empathy for her fellow human beings? Or are you only accusing her of that because of she holds a view that you don't agree with and you want to belittle her opinion as much as possible?

I've already said how I think that your carrots and sticks are just different carrots and sticks than the ones you think Dixieanna requires in her moral code system. You have rewards and punishments in yours too and Dixieanna says that she thinks the carrots and stick system itself requires a God to set it up. If there is no reward, there is no motivation to do anything. How can one disagree with that? Why eat a meal if you aren't full afterward? Why have empathy if there is no reward for it's own existence?

Do you really think Dixieanna has no empathy for her fellow human beings? Or are you only accusing her of that because of she holds a view that you don't agree with and you want to belittle her opinion as much as possible?

I think she has no such empathy for anyone who openly claims an opposite moral or political viewpoint. She herself has made that abundantly clear.



If there is no reward, there is not motivation to do anything. How can one disagree with that? Why eat a meal if you aren't full afterward? Why have empathy if there is no reward for it's existence?

Becuase good behaviour is its own reward, and its the wiser, more well adjusted person who doesnt need the carrot?

The trouble with religious bigots is, they want to draw lines based on their own comfort zones, but they don't want any such line imposed on them. They clearly have limits and 'morals', but these are excused and rectified as appropriate, while other moral views are condemned and scorned. Again, go look up the word "bigot" and see what it says, you'll find that fits the definition to a tee.

And the problem with organized religions is that they kill people if they are different. Here the "God" of the christians, who you are defending, as well as the Jews god and the islam god says this. "I have wiped out many nations, devastating their fortress walls and towers. Their cities are now deserted; their streets are in silent ruin. There are no survivors to even tell what happened. I thought, 'Surely they will have reverence for me now! Surely they will listen to my warnings, so I won't need to strike again.' But no; however much I punish them, they continue their evil practices from dawn till dusk and dusk till dawn." So now the LORD says: "Be patient; the time is coming soon when I will stand up and accuse these evil nations. For it is my decision to gather together the kingdoms of the earth and pour out my fiercest anger and fury on them. All the earth will be devoured by the fire of my jealousy. "On that day I will purify the lips of all people, so that everyone will be able to worship the LORD together. My scattered people who live beyond the rivers of Ethiopia will come to present their offerings. (Zephaniah 3:6-10 NLT)

I think she has no such empathy for anyone who openly claims an opposite moral or political viewpoint. She herself has made that abundantly clear.

She might, or might not, it's totally irrelevant though because I've already said that neither side can claim the moral high ground if they use that argument.

Becuase good behaviour is its own reward, and its the wiser, more well adjusted person who doesnt need the carrot?

How can you say, its own reward, and then pretend that this 'reward' isn't somehow a 'carrot?' If there is a reward involved, it is a carrot.

Do you really think Dixieanna has no empathy for her fellow human beings? Or are you only accusing her of that because of she holds a view that you don't agree with and you want to belittle her opinion as much as possible?

I don't know if Dixieanna has empathy or not. I do know that Dixianna personally stated that, in her opinion, empathy does not inform morality - that morality can only exist with a God who is going to smite you if you do something wrong.

I've already said how I think that your carrots and sticks are just different carrots and sticks than the ones you think Dixieanna requires in her moral code system.

And I've already explained how you are wrong.

Meanwhile, I don't have to "think" anything about Dixieanna's moral code system. She spelled it out. She absolutely requires a deity to provide those things.

You have rewards and punishments in yours too and Dixieanna says that she thinks the carrots and stick system itself requires a God to set it up.

That's just it. My moral system isn't based on rewards and punishments. If they are there, that's nice, but they are unnecessary to the system itself. I don't need a reward to notice that someone is in distress and needs help. In fact, chances are good that I won't get one. I don't need a punishment to keep me from stealing out of someone's purse. And so on...

If there is no reward, there is no motivation to do anything. How can one disagree with that? Why eat a meal if you aren't full afterward? Why have empathy if there is no reward for it's own existence?

I'd have to ask how you can talk about empathy and yet still require a reward at the end. If you have to get something in return, you aren't acting based on empathy - you're acting based on your own personal desires.

She might, or might not, it's totally irrelevant though because I've already said that neither side can claim the moral high ground if they use that argument.

How appropriate that your name is Balderdash...
If such a person spews very little else but hate and bile towards anyone with an opposing viewpoint, such as Liberals, or Atheists on this board, then your own question of "do you really think Dixieanna...." is pretty much answered, isnt it?





How can you say, its own reward, and then pretend that this 'reward' isn't somehow a 'carrot?' If there is a reward involved, it is a carrot.

Again, your logic is fuzzy.

Its the wiser man who acts in good manner towards others, becuase he beleives its the right thing to do....without having to be told its what someone (thing) WANTS him to do.

It also implies the purer morality.
Wich is better, the child that doesnt steal becuase he knows its wrong, or the one that doesnt steal becuase he is afraid of the punishment?

Do you really think Dixieanna has no empathy for her fellow human beings?

Yes. Yes I do.

Yes. Yes I do.

Indeed, Dixie strongly implied that with the whole "If nobody will kick the shit out of you for being a jackass, why shouldn't you be?" as if empathy is nonexistent.

See, now, there you go making religious believers seem scary to me.
It's scary to me, too, which is why I want to find a way to disprove it.

Do you really only behave good because you'll get a reward?

I like being nice to people. More importantly, I generally do not like being mean to people. I'll be plenty mean if properly provoked, but my default attitude is to avoid hurting other people.
But doesn't that mean I'm behaving just so I don't feel guilty? In other words, I act a certain way to avoid me from feeling unhappy.

Actually, from an evolutionary standpoint we are social primates. We thrive in groups. This is kind tied to the second level of morality, using Kohlberg's model, because it's about recognizing that your own welfare does not exist in a vacuum. Even if you don't reap a personal reward immediately, your actions may benefit a larger group to which you belong, and this may end up improving your life down the line.
That's true, I guess I didn't really mean evolutionary. As a species, altruism is much better than being self-centered. However, being a manipulative jerk can have benefits, too. I'm just unsure which has the higher payoff: being "good" or being "bad."


Who needs absolute morality? I don't believe any such critter exists. Morality is 100% subjective, in my opinion.
I don't mean black and white, clear-cut absolute morality. But morality is, "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." You may not have an absolute law for how to live your life, but you still probably have done thing which you regret because they were "bad," as well as things you are proud of because they were "good." And you probably recognize the actions of others as good or bad. If morality were completely subjective, actions would be irrelevant. I could decide everything I do was good, or everything everyone else did was bad. But I don't, and honestly believe I never could. I'm curious as to why I can't.


Since every individual is going to have a slightly different idea of what the "best" route is going to be, it's only natural that we also will have different ideas about which path we should take.
What if someone's definition of "best" is to take advantage of everyone they meet? There must be at least some objectivity, even if it only exists because it is hardwired into our brains.

It's scary to me, too, which is why I want to find a way to disprove it.

I'm with you on that one.


But doesn't that mean I'm behaving just so I don't feel guilty? In other words, I act a certain way to avoid me from feeling unhappy.
Feelings are indicators. You can't always rely on them blindly (since sometimes things that feel good in the moment are actually not good ideas), but you should pay attention to them because they are information.


That's true, I guess I didn't really mean evolutionary. As a species, altruism is much better than being self-centered. However, being a manipulative jerk can have benefits, too. I'm just unsure which has the higher payoff: being "good" or being "bad."

I'd say it depends on what you're trying to achieve. For me, with my particular beliefs and goals, being "good" tends to be the better choice from a pragmatic standpoint. It also makes me feel happier (generally speaking), so I find that there are very few situations in which I even am interested in being "bad."


I don't mean black and white, clear-cut absolute morality. But morality is, "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." You may not have an absolute law for how to live your life, but you still probably have done thing which you regret because they were "bad," as well as things you are proud of because they were "good." And you probably recognize the actions of others as good or bad.

Yes, and all of that is 100% subjective. I have my moral code and my moral standards, and I judge my actions and the actions of others based on my personal moral code.


If morality were completely subjective, actions would be irrelevant.

How so?


I could decide everything I do was good, or everything everyone else did was bad.

You could. I don't.


But I don't, and honestly believe I never could. I'm curious as to why I can't.

I don't know why you can't, but I know that I can't for the same reason that I can't bring myself to falsify data just to get a grant. It's not about guilt or fear of being caught, so much as it's about my ultimate goals; I want to learn about the world as it actually is, because I'm a curious monkey like that. Cheating doesn't accomplish that.

I could "cheat" my moral system, technically, by choosing to view anything as moral whenever I wanted. But that wouldn't help me achieve my goals, and it wouldn't make me happy, so why would I do it?


What if someone's definition of "best" is to take advantage of everyone they meet?

Then that's their standard.


There must be at least some objectivity, even if it only exists because it is hardwired into our brains.
Why? It seems like you're just saying that because you don't like the alternative.

First of all, Bottle never said anything about anyone not being "fully human". Immature, yes, but not less than human.

People who say things like this are underdeveloped, either because they simply haven't thought about it or because they really are stunted somehow:

Exactly.

As a matter of fact, if I really did think that such people were not "fully human," I probably would cut them more slack. I hold adult humans to a particular standard of conduct, but I don't apply that same standard to non-humans. If a dog behaves "immorally," I don't blame him for his actions the way I would blame an adult human, because I don't expect non-humans to have the functional capacity of humans.

The very reason I find carrot-and-stick humans so bothersome is that I believe they absolutely are CAPABLE of being morally-developed individuals. They have the capacity for mature morality, and they are not exercising it. I think that's shitty (and/or scary, depending on why).

That's just it. My moral system isn't based on rewards and punishments. If they are there, that's nice, but they are unnecessary to the system itself. I don't need a reward to notice that someone is in distress and needs help. In fact, chances are good that I won't get one. I don't need a punishment to keep me from stealing out of someone's purse. And so on...

Maybe I'm a complete weirdo for this, but I don't want to steal anybody's purse.

I just don't want to. I'm not interested in doing it. Kind of like how I'm not interested in eating broccoli. It doesn't seem remotely appealing to me.

Do other people really walk around wishing they could steal a purse, but refraining because they don't want to go to jail/Hell?

Maybe I'm a complete weirdo for this, but I don't want to steal anybody's purse.

I just don't want to. I'm not interested in doing it. Kind of like how I'm not interested in eating broccoli. It doesn't seem remotely appealing to me.

Do other people really walk around wishing they could steal a purse, but refraining because they don't want to go to jail/Hell?
People act in such a way as to maximise the effect of their actions. It is the judgement of the value in any given action that varies from person to person.

Although you and I see no value in performing the theft of a purse (possibly for slightly different reasons, and excluding exceptions such as knowledge of a live explosive device in said purse), there are many for whom gaining its contents is sufficient to make it a desirable course of action, which is why the threat of punishment in society is generally necessary to introduce a negative factor into this value judgement.

People act in such a way as to maximise the effect of their actions. It is the judgement of the value in any given action that varies from person to person.

Although you and I see no value in performing the theft of a purse (possibly for slightly different reasons, and excluding exceptions such as knowledge of a live explosive device in said purse), there are many for whom gaining its contents is sufficient to make it a desirable course of action, which is why the threat of punishment in society is generally necessary to introduce a negative factor into this value judgement.
Well, yeah, I guess I know there are some people who feel that way, but in this thread there are folks acting as if the overwhelming majority of people feel that way.

I always kind of assumed that a relative minority of jackasses really wanted to steal stuff and hurt people, but that most folks were like me...generally uninterested in hurting others.

Well, yeah, I guess I know there are some people who feel that way, but in this thread there are folks acting as if the overwhelming majority of people feel that way.

I always kind of assumed that a relative minority of jackasses really wanted to steal stuff and hurt people, but that most folks were like me...generally uninterested in hurting others.
I think it's not really an "interest" in hurting others, but rather a state of indifference that's actually in play here. The interest is in gaining the purse - that the owner is harmed and deprived of their posession is just an unfortunate consequence. And that, perhaps, might hit closer to home as something that humans certainly would be capable of doing. We do this all the time in our society, whether it be the contemptable concept of a "Just War" or the generally accepted notion of Punitive Justice, where we cast aside our notions of the impact of our actions on others as collateral damage in favour of promoting a larger idealistic goal of security or lawfulness.

Although we would tend to think that our natural tendencies press us against harming people for material gain, the fact that this is actually what happens is a testament to the power of our social constructs in driving our actions. I wouldn't be too surprised if it really is the majority view that the law is all that stops people from certain crimes - it would be an appropriate consequence of a culture that says it would let you die if you didn't have the money to eat.

I think it's not really an "interest" in hurting others, but rather a state of indifference that's actually in play here. The interest is in gaining the purse - that the owner is harmed and deprived of their posession is just an unfortunate consequence.

In many cases, I'm sure you're right.

But I don't want the purse. Do most other people want it?


And that, perhaps, might hit closer to home as something that humans certainly would be capable of doing. We do this all the time in our society, whether it be the contemptable concept of a "Just War" or the generally accepted notion of Punitive Justice, where we cast aside our notions of the impact of our actions on others as collateral damage in favour of promoting a larger idealistic goal of security or lawfulness.

Speak for yourself. I don't "cast aside" any such notions. The reality that one often must sacrifice something to gain something else does not in any way require that one disregard the sacrifice. Far from it.


Although we would tend to think that our natural tendencies press us against harming people for material gain,

Who's we? I think our 'natural tendencies' press us in many different directions, and sometimes the direction is toward harming others. This is why I think it's stupid for anybody to blindly rely on their "gut" reactions at all times. Your natural impulses are useful information, but that doesn't mean they're always right.


the fact that this is actually what happens is a testament to the power of our social constructs in driving our actions.

You seem to believe that our "social constructs" are independent of our "natural impulses." I think the two are very often quite deeply intertwined.


I wouldn't be too surprised if it really is the majority view that the law is all that stops people from certain crimes - it would be an appropriate consequence of a culture that says it would let you die if you didn't have the money to eat.
:( I guess I can't refute that. It's certainly possible.

Maybe I'm a complete weirdo for this, but I don't want to steal anybody's purse.

I just don't want to. I'm not interested in doing it. Kind of like how I'm not interested in eating broccoli. It doesn't seem remotely appealing to me.

Do other people really walk around wishing they could steal a purse, but refraining because they don't want to go to jail/Hell?

so it seems.

when my niece left her purse in the cart in the walmart parking lot the film showed that the couple who stole it had been on their way into the store when they noticed the purse, grabbed it, got into their car and drove away. they they spent the next hour or so taking porn pics of themselves with her camera phone. until the police showed up to take it back from them.

too bad they werent afraid of god's punishment, it would have saved my niece some trouble.

some people have larceny in their hearts and only the fear of punishment keeps them from doing it. unless it doesnt stop them at all.

i dont understand the desire to take other people's things, i just know that thats what some people would like to do. i dont care what reason they have for not doing it, im just glad they dont.

so it seems.

when my niece left her purse in the cart in the walmart parking lot the film showed that the couple who stole it had been on their way into the store when they noticed the purse, grabbed it, got into their car and drove away. they they spent the next hour or so taking porn pics of themselves with her camera phone. until the police showed up to take it back from them.

too bad they werent afraid of god's punishment, it would have saved my niece some trouble.

some people have larceny in their hearts and only the fear of punishment keeps them from doing it. unless it doesnt stop them at all.

i dont understand the desire to take other people's things, i just know that thats what some people would like to do. i dont care what reason they have for not doing it, im just glad they dont.
That certainly is a pragmatic reaction on your part. As a short-term solution, I can see how it might be handy to just "put the fear of God" into some people to keep them from fucking up life for everybody else.

I'm also interested in a more long-term solution, however. WHY did those two people want to steal the freaking purse? What happened, or did not happen, to make them turn out that way? How come I have no interest in stealing that purse, but they did? And what could we do to decrease the likelihood that an infant will grow up to be a purse-stealing jerkwad?

Personally, I have not found that the "carrot-and-stick" form of religious indoctrination decreases a person's likelihood to be an asshole. Indeed, a lot of the classic "conservative" Christian belief system is founded on the idea that everybody is innately a jerk and only fear of God keeps them in line, and it seems to me that if you constantly teach somebody that they're innately a jerk then eventually they're going to live up to your expectations.

Personally, I have not found that the "carrot-and-stick" form of religious indoctrination decreases a person's likelihood to be an asshole. Indeed, a lot of the classic "conservative" Christian belief system is founded on the idea that everybody is innately a jerk and only fear of God keeps them in line, and it seems to me that if you constantly teach somebody that they're innately a jerk then eventually they're going to live up to your expectations.

I don't have the urge to steal shit either. I wonder... would growing up with a few simple rules rather than rules that dictate when and how you can breath make for a person better able to control themselves? I mean, freedom was never a big deal for me. I kind of always had it. People who don't do well with freedom are those brought up with strict rules or are sheltered... Just a thought.