Words fail me.
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
Only for someone week enough to needs an authority to determine what is permissible. Consensus among society, based on what is mutually beneficial, on things such as not 'wasting' valuable members by killing them, leaving others to assume their roles etc. is also a pretty good source of what is permissible and what is not. It doesn't take a God to say the taking another man's possessions without payment and permission is not permissible, unless you are incapable, through minimised intellect, to understand why you should not do this.
You *refuse* to think critically. You imagine that your strawmen misrepresentations of "theists" are relevent to anything.
Brady Kelly wrote:
... It doesn't take a God to say the taking another man's possessions without payment and permission is not permissible, unless you are incapable, through minimised intellect, to understand why you should not do this.
You *refuse* to think critically. You refuse even to recognize that you're asserting objective morality ... except that the morality you assert is not grounded in anything, it's just there floating in your assertions.
"You *refuse* to think critically." :laugh: :laugh: Personally I think you do more for atheistic causes than atheists ever could. If they were to harp on about there being no reason to believe in a god without being provoked, they would probably come off just as preachey and annoying as religious nuts. You on the other hand, give pretty substantial weight to there being good reasons not to believe in a god. Look at how the alternatives can rot your brain of ration arguments and substance. I'd probably go as far as to say you're actually an atheist in disguise, actively damaging peoples opinions on religion from the inside out, thanks for your continued dedication and hard work. You're a star! :)
-
People have always found ways to justify what they do. Plenty of religious people kill, despite everything. Religion is just the clown costume that morality wears when it is taught to kids.
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Religion is just the clown costume that morality wears when it is taught to kids.
Spoken like a child who understands far less than he thinks he does. Obviously, religious people are just as capable of violence as anyone else is, and religion itself is just as capable of encouraging violence as is any other sort of social institution. The point remains that the very definition of civilization is the establishment and enforcement of rules and standards of civil conduct. Those rules can be imposed from the top down (the legal system) or they can be imposed from the bottom up (ie, an agreed upon code of moral ethics arising from the traditional beliefs and customs of a people). If a stable, peaceful society can be established by the latter means, the former can be kept to an absolute minimum
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
DavidCrow wrote:
And yet people still "feed" him. :sigh:
You all "feed" me because you all *know* that I'm right. If I really were the "troll" that you fools want to believe that I am, you'd have no difficulty in ignoring me. Nor would you have to resort to insults -- it is, after all, you people who *always* initiate the insults, usually as your first response, and then you (plural) bitch because I return to you exactly what you asked for. If it really were true that what I say is wrong, as you fools want to assert is the case, you'd not have to resort to irrationality and illogic (and sometimes, outright lies) to "argue" against what I say. Nor would you have to resort to "disappearing" my posts. You people respond to criticism of your false worldview just as the Islamists do to criticism of their false worldview: rage, irrationality, illogic, self-contradiction, and attempted intimidation.
But you're just so easy.
-
It doesn't require a theocracy at all. In fact, it is the only way to prevent a theocracy. The only way you can have separation of church and state is if both exist.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
So what governs the actions of those who don't subscribe to a religion?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes, it does.
No it doesn't. He's a fool and a liar (I'm making two moral assertions, by the way).
Ilíon wrote:
No it doesn't. He's a fool and a liar (I'm making two moral assertions, by the way).
I was speaking in the hypothetical. Clearly, if all people were intrinsically 'good' there would be no need for laws or religion. Thats the weakness of his argument. And those who are good, or believe themselves to be so, must understand that some system of authoritarian moral ethics must exist to define what represents 'goodness' for the entire society.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
So what governs the actions of those who don't subscribe to a religion?
Clearly, if a majority do not subscribe to a personal code of ethics (religious or otherwise) than the state must grow in authority to impose such ethics from above. If a minority views 'separation of church and state' as a fundamental statement that they are never to be required to acknowledge the ethical authority of the majority, or that it is the duty of the state to protect them from such, than that achieves the same result - impostition of ethical authority from above, ie - the state assumeing ever greater authority to dictate what constitutes moral behavior.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Ilíon wrote:
No it doesn't. He's a fool and a liar (I'm making two moral assertions, by the way).
I was speaking in the hypothetical. Clearly, if all people were intrinsically 'good' there would be no need for laws or religion. Thats the weakness of his argument. And those who are good, or believe themselves to be so, must understand that some system of authoritarian moral ethics must exist to define what represents 'goodness' for the entire society.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Religion is just the clown costume that morality wears when it is taught to kids.
Spoken like a child who understands far less than he thinks he does. Obviously, religious people are just as capable of violence as anyone else is, and religion itself is just as capable of encouraging violence as is any other sort of social institution. The point remains that the very definition of civilization is the establishment and enforcement of rules and standards of civil conduct. Those rules can be imposed from the top down (the legal system) or they can be imposed from the bottom up (ie, an agreed upon code of moral ethics arising from the traditional beliefs and customs of a people). If a stable, peaceful society can be established by the latter means, the former can be kept to an absolute minimum
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
The point remains that the very definition of civilization is the establishment and enforcement of rules and standards of civil conduct. Those rules can be imposed from the top down (the legal system) or they can be imposed from the bottom up (ie, an agreed upon code of moral ethics arising from the traditional beliefs and customs of a people). If a stable, peaceful society can be established by the latter means, the former can be kept to an absolute minimum
No society can long continue to exist and function as a peaceful society if "ethics" is defined by reference to "the legal system." The reason that we (the West, in general, and America, the particular instantiation of it that you and I care most about) are falling apart is that we, as societies, have abandoned real morality and are trying to get the same moral "buzz" from "the legal system."
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The point remains that the very definition of civilization is the establishment and enforcement of rules and standards of civil conduct. Those rules can be imposed from the top down (the legal system) or they can be imposed from the bottom up (ie, an agreed upon code of moral ethics arising from the traditional beliefs and customs of a people). If a stable, peaceful society can be established by the latter means, the former can be kept to an absolute minimum
No society can long continue to exist and function as a peaceful society if "ethics" is defined by reference to "the legal system." The reason that we (the West, in general, and America, the particular instantiation of it that you and I care most about) are falling apart is that we, as societies, have abandoned real morality and are trying to get the same moral "buzz" from "the legal system."
I agree with that completely. Human civilizaton is simply not possible without moral authority. But democratic systems make a very poor source for stable, moral authority. If the morality does not emerge naturally from the bottom up (as Jefferson, Madison, et al assumed it would) in the form of traditional religious sentiments and beliefs, than a democratic system will become increasingly less socially stable over time.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Granted, you can't be mentally stable that think that sticking a child in a microwave is a rational act. But... Sometimes I feel that mental illness is all the more reason to fry somebody. In this kind on case, I don't know why we feel a need to feel sorry for the insane. It doesn't make them any less guilty or dangerous. If anything, it's another argument against the possibility of rehabilitation. Insane or not, hurt a child like that and society doesn't need you to continue breathing.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
Certainly, this is a very emotional reaction, but it is inconsistent with the assertion that atheism is the truth about the nature of reality. If atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as "sane" and "insane" in the senses we *all* know those words to mean. If atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as "innocence" and guilt;" there are no such things as "choices" and "responsibility." Indeed, if atheism were actually the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as "reason" and "rationality."
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I was speaking in the hypothetical.
I understand that; but I was replying in the concrete, as his original assertion was concrete rather than hypothetical.
And I was merely accepting the terms of his argument in order to counter-argue that the ethical nature of a given individual, as important as it may be, is not the point at all.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Granted, you can't be mentally stable that think that sticking a child in a microwave is a rational act. But... Sometimes I feel that mental illness is all the more reason to fry somebody. In this kind on case, I don't know why we feel a need to feel sorry for the insane. It doesn't make them any less guilty or dangerous. If anything, it's another argument against the possibility of rehabilitation. Insane or not, hurt a child like that and society doesn't need you to continue breathing.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
Who said we had to be sorry for the nsane? IMHO, the question between criminal and insane is relevant when it is about providing an answer. Should we put into jail mentally ill people? There's no chance that jail cures them, and the problem stays the same when they are released. Is jail a deterrent for such people? Probably not. So we put people behind bars after they committed such an action because we have no other solution to provide. We are not far from the Middle Age when insane people were locked somewhere.
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
-
Why? Why do you people get so bent out of shape when other people behave in ways consistent with the philosophy and metaphysics you yourselves espouse?
Ilíon wrote:
Why do you people get so bent out of shape
We dont.
Ilíon wrote:
people behave in ways consistent with the philosophy and metaphysics you yourselves espouse
We dont espouse boiling babies. We just espouse that god doesnt exist. The reason we have morality is that it is good for society as a whole, and what is good for society as a whole is good for the individual. Our gross morality is selfish. I will treat others as I want them to treat me. At a finer level morality is dictated by social expection.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
But you're just so easy.
digital man wrote:
But you're just so easy.
We all know that assertion simply cannot be true; just look at how often some of you try to hit on me (*), to no avail: clearly, I am *not* easy. (*) How else do you people expect me to interpret all the sexual imagery that so many of you try to inflict upon me: extremely clumsy attempts at seduction.
-
Certainly, this is a very emotional reaction, but it is inconsistent with the assertion that atheism is the truth about the nature of reality. If atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as "sane" and "insane" in the senses we *all* know those words to mean. If atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as "innocence" and guilt;" there are no such things as "choices" and "responsibility." Indeed, if atheism were actually the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as "reason" and "rationality."
-
And I was merely accepting the terms of his argument in order to counter-argue that the ethical nature of a given individual, as important as it may be, is not the point at all.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Ro0ke wrote:
Those statements don't make sense.
They do make sense. Moreover, they are all true. (For, after all, things may make sense, and yet be false.) I have no experience of you, so I have no idea whether you (presonally) are willing to think critically about these things (as I already know that most of the persons who most frequently post here are not so willing). Therefore, the reasonable thing to do is to assume, unless shown otherwise, that you are willing to think critically (and I am a reasonable man). What is that that you think "doesn't make sense?" What is it that you're having difficulty grasping? Until I know what piece(s) of information you're missing, I can hardly try to supply it.
-
Yep. A total moron. He's got 25 years to think about it and rot.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
Ro0ke wrote:
Those statements don't make sense.
They do make sense. Moreover, they are all true. (For, after all, things may make sense, and yet be false.) I have no experience of you, so I have no idea whether you (presonally) are willing to think critically about these things (as I already know that most of the persons who most frequently post here are not so willing). Therefore, the reasonable thing to do is to assume, unless shown otherwise, that you are willing to think critically (and I am a reasonable man). What is that that you think "doesn't make sense?" What is it that you're having difficulty grasping? Until I know what piece(s) of information you're missing, I can hardly try to supply it.
Ilíon wrote:
What is that that you think "doesn't make sense?" What is it that you're having difficulty grasping? Until I know what piece(s) of information you're missing, I can hardly try to supply it.
Fair enough. I don't understand what religion, or the lack of religion, has to do with the definition of guilt or innocence, sanity or insanity.
-
Ilíon wrote:
Why do you people get so bent out of shape
We dont.
Ilíon wrote:
people behave in ways consistent with the philosophy and metaphysics you yourselves espouse
We dont espouse boiling babies. We just espouse that god doesnt exist. The reason we have morality is that it is good for society as a whole, and what is good for society as a whole is good for the individual. Our gross morality is selfish. I will treat others as I want them to treat me. At a finer level morality is dictated by social expection.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Ilíon Why do you people get so bent out of shape when people behave in ways consistent with the philosophy and metaphysics you yourselves espouse? . fat_boy We dont espouse boiling babies.
*Real* stupidity is not intentional; the "stupidity" of your comment is intentional. Therefore, your comment is not a reflection of actual stupidity, but of something else. I'm thinking it's a reflection of intellectual dishonesty (or, in old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon, it's a reflection of lying).