# O'Reilly -Tides prove God!



## Ramirez (Jan 7, 2011)

Guess Bill never heard of the moon or gravity.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 7, 2011)

Maybe, if the video you linked to wasn't so idiotically edited, your OP wouldn't look so childish?


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 7, 2011)

Typical arrogant atheist *******.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 7, 2011)

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/1999/still1.html



> Many of us nonbelievers are arrogant, incredibly arrogant, and in our single-minded attempt to engage in spiritual cleansing, we often forget that we have no more a monopoly on the truth than anyone else. Yet this reality does not seem to prevent some nonbelievers from howling their indignation loudly, bolstering their own sense of superiority by ridiculing those who believe in God. It is this rigid attitude that unites fundamentalist atheists with their religious cousins in that fundamentalist atheists are not content to revel in their own perfect worldview, but rather they must also prove others wrong in order for them to be right. It is this intellectual elitism that religious believers see when they glance behind them at those atheists who nip at their heels. In the end, this had led to a serious image problem for the rest of us for whom our atheism is not challenged by the coexistence of religious belief.





> It is important to notice that Gore never once says that arrogant atheists are wrong for proclaiming their beliefs or even for proclaiming them passionately. Gore says that they are wrong for putting down others who do believe, and in that remark lies the rub. The result of denigrating the beliefs of others, no matter how silly they seem to us, is bigotry and intolerance.



I guess sometimes I can agree with Al Gore.


----------



## billc (Jan 7, 2011)

If this guy puts on a uniform we better watch out.  Atheists in uniforms are scary.


----------



## Ramirez (Jan 7, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Maybe, if the video you linked to wasn't so idiotically edited, your OP wouldn't look so childish?



 maybe if O'Reilly wasn't so breathtakingly ignorant then videos like that wouldn't be possible.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jan 7, 2011)

Ramirez said:


> maybe if O'Reilly wasn't so breathtakingly ignorant then videos like that wouldn't be possible.


 
Totally. We should blame the other person, not the one doing the actual insulting.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jan 7, 2011)

I also liked how David Silverman says he can't explain how the tides work :lol:

Pax,

Chris


----------



## SensibleManiac (Jan 8, 2011)

It's a good thing that O'Reilly doesn't need to believe or understand gravity in order for it to work or else he'd really be in trouble. 

The video is childish and obviously put out by someone who wants to provoke emotion as opposed to an enlightening debate.

I don't for a second propose to know and understand everything, but I know enough to see when someone is trying to appeal to emotion and not reason. 

If you guys want to have a discussion based on reason I'm all for it, let's leave out the childishness for people like the editor of the video, O'Reilly and his guest.

I've never heard of problems arising because of too much compassion or reasoning. So as long as we can stick to that, a beneficial debate can occur.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Jan 9, 2011)

I guess no one wants to look under this stone as we may uncover some truth?


----------



## billc (Jan 9, 2011)

I'll be polite and bite at this one.  Where did gravity come from?  Where did the elements for the beginning of the universe come from?


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 9, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I'll be polite and bite at this one.  Where did gravity come from?  Where did the elements for the beginning of the universe come from?



No one knows. Its like saying well it started with the big bang, but there you have the question what made the big bang? If there's a god, well where did god come from? Soooo many interesting questions.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Jan 10, 2011)

Gravity is a natural phenomenon in which objects with mass attract each other.
It is a very precise phenomenon that can be scientifically studied, there is nothing supernatural about it.
Where does it come from?
There is much we don't know about origins of natural phenomenon. 
My argument is simply that because there are things we don't understand, (and there are many) that does not confirm or deny an existence of God, what does deny an existence of God is the profound lack of evidence in nature that the universe was created by a being.
Further than that there is no evidence whatsoever that an intelligent God wants us to believe in him.

If we look carefully at all religions we understand their limitations and that they really focus on control of groups of people and the continuation of the religious groups but there is actually very little concern for understanding the truth about the world around us.
I can say this because if we look closely at all the different faiths we see that they only change when they are forced to face truth because people can no longer deny the truth when there is evidence to support it.

There is much we don't know, it is estimated that approximately 73% of the matter and energy that exists in our universe is unknown, we call it dark matter and dark energy because we don't know exactly what it is and exactly how it functions.

That being said, the big bang happened when pressure built up from gases that caused an explosion that continues to expand the universe today.

If anyone wants some great reading on the natural phenomenon that happen in the universe I would suggest Michio Kaku's excellent books, Parallel Worlds and Visions are two of his best.Visions being about technology in the future.

In truth the more we understand about the complex world around us, the more complex it gets.

The thing is that the more we understand the less that which we understand points to a creator and more to an emergent understanding that the physical world is subjected to natural laws and effects.

There is nothing supernatural to it.

My biggest problem with belief systems is that they fall miserably short when compared to understanding.
When we understand, we are far better off then when we believe.
Belief does have it's place but let's look carefully at how it pales in comparison to understanding.
While belief does offer comfort, understanding offers potential solutions.
Belief in mythologies, (for example an arc that held pairs of all the animals in the world) stunts the ability to understand the world and the progress it can bring.
Human progress is gained through studying and understanding the evidence around us.
Not through accepting the world around us as supernatural in origin.
I feel it's a cop out to say that we'll we don't understand it so a God must have created it.
Let's further study to understand it, is a better response.

This isn't arrogance, It's embracing the seeking out of truth. 

Isn't it arrogant to say that we know something when clearly we don't?
(Like saying I know that God exists)
I'm not saying that it's not ok have have your beliefs, you should be free to believe whatever you want. I'm just saying that when someone states that they know something, like the belief in their deity to be true, I have a right to question that.

If we are honest with ourselves and each other we quickly realize that our beliefs in superstitious deities or superstitions in general are based on fear and not reason or compassion. 
Two of the most important factors in human progress. I can provide evidence for that if anyone actually needs it.


----------



## Tanaka (Jan 10, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I'll be polite and bite at this one.  Where did gravity come from?  Where did the elements for the beginning of the universe come from?


I normally avoid these kinds of arguments and debates. But I am bored. As a human you're used to things you have seen on earth. For example, "The need for a cause and effect."
The way you are looking at gravity is kind of obscure to what gravity really is. Gravity basically a force caused by the curvature of spacetime. Masses that exist in spacetime also cause a curvature of it, but gravity is a very WEAK force.(Which may not be true in other parts of the universe, who knows?)
So in short, obviously gravity has existed ever since mass has existed. And if someone where to believe matter and energy have always existed. Then one could say gravity has always existed; it just wasn't what it was until after Big Bang.(Which is where time began).


----------



## Tanaka (Jan 10, 2011)

As for the video, I am Atheist and I would have to agree that video was stupid due to the horrible editing. I could not understand the point that O'Reily was trying to make because of all the dumb things that were going on.


----------



## granfire (Jan 10, 2011)

Tanaka said:


> As for the video, I am Atheist and I would have to agree that video was stupid due to the horrible editing. I could not understand the point that O'Reily was trying to make because of all the dumb things that were going on.




I have tried a few times to understand a point O'Reilly is trying to make, even with no editing, it's not easy....


----------



## Nomad (Jan 10, 2011)

OK, I can't see the video in question because of restrictions from Youtube at work, but I did see the Colbert Report the other night where O'Reilly made this claim (multiple times over the course of several months), and thought it was pretty hilarious.

The corollary of "just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist" is just because you can't explain something doesn't mean there isn't a completely rational explanation for it...

Personally, I think the entire Religion VERSUS Science thing is a ridiculous argument in the first place, though it obviously has a long tradition, looking at the church's response to men from Copernicus & Galileo to Darwin.  There is no reason why belief in science excludes religion or vice versa.


----------



## granfire (Jan 10, 2011)

Nomad said:


> OK, I can't see the video in question because of restrictions from Youtube at work, but I did see the Colbert Report the other night where O'Reilly made this claim (multiple times over the course of several months), and thought it was pretty hilarious.
> 
> The corollary of "just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist" is just because you can't explain something doesn't mean there isn't a completely rational explanation for it...
> 
> Personally, I think the entire Religion VERSUS Science thing is a ridiculous argument in the first place, though it obviously has a long tradition, looking at the church's response to men from Copernicus & Galileo to Darwin.  There is no reason why belief in science excludes religion or vice versa.



But you are taking the logical approach...


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 10, 2011)

Nomad said:


> There is no reason why belief in science excludes religion or vice versa.



If you rigorously apply the scientific method to all of your thinking and beliefs (granted, no one does this) then you cannot be religious.  The scientific method requires us not to grant certainty to that which has no evidence.  At best, you could be "agnostic" about religion.  It cuts the other way too, since a religious person who applies the scientific method to their beliefs will come up with some uncomfortable conclusions.  Those who adhere to both tend to compartmentalize their beliefs into a different category that doesn't get the same scientific standards applied to it.  This isn't limited to religion either.


----------



## Rayban (Jan 10, 2011)

My signature kinda says it all.

I'm probably one of the most atheist people you will ever meet... read... whatever.

But just because I don't believe in god or any paranormal phenomena for that matter (I like proof), doesn't mean I have any right at all to verbally bash someone's religion which, lamentably, most atheists do.  Everyone has the freedom to believe what they want in their own mind, its a fundamental part of being a sentient being.  The thing I hate about religion, especially institutionalized religion is that they try to scrub out one of the most important words ever thought of. "WHY". Debate is healthy and it promotes new ideas and new points of view. I know that if someone was to show me proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that a god existed, I would believe.

Rowan Atkinson said it best

"To criticize a person for their race is manifestly irrational and  ridiculous, but to criticize their religion, that is a right. That is a  freedom. The freedom to criticize ideas, any ideas - even if they are  sincerely held beliefs - is one of the fundamental freedoms of society. A  law which attempts to say you can criticize and ridicule ideas as long  as they are not religious ideas is a very peculiar law indeed."


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 10, 2011)

Very well said, Rayban.  I am as guilty as anyone of expressing exasperation at religious beliefs in intemperate terms at times.  

It has not ever been my real intent to belittle those that elect to believe in their version of the 'creator deity myth'  but has been the verbal equivalent of flinging my hands in the air at abstruse thinking.

People have the right to believe whatever they wish ... but then again, expecting absolute protection from the consequences of their beliefs is unrealistic.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 10, 2011)

I think that many of the "militant atheists" are as they are due to  their own ego, a need to feel superior and a desire to be "right" and to prove others wrong. It's more about "them" than it is about anything more "elevated".


----------



## elder999 (Jan 10, 2011)

As a scientist, I have to say (*again!*) that it is simply not the place of science to prove or disprove a being who exists before, during,after and outside of the constraints of space/time. 

As a religious person, I have to say (*again*!) that it is not the place of religion to conform to scientific law. 

The two are, for the present time and foreseeable future, almost entirely exclusive.

Where there are instances that "evidence of God" exists, they are usually individual and experiential, and-to use the scientific parlance-non duplicable or disprovable. Where ther is a scientific explanation-like those for gravity-that explanation suffices, and is independent of anything that could be called, said to resemble or even remotely be construed as "God."

To do otherwise is silly, like Bill O'reilly-and has as much resemblence to true religious thought or science as he does to a real journalist.....for Christ's sake! :lfao:


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 10, 2011)

elder999 said:


> As a scientist, I have to say (*again!*) that it is simply not the place of science to prove or disprove a being who exists before, during,after and outside of the constraints of space/time.
> 
> As a religious person, I have to say (*again*!) that it is not the place of religion to conform to scientific law.
> 
> ...


 
For gods sakes Elder, where have you been??? Your logic has been soully missed....


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 10, 2011)

I dont see militant atheism folks.

Atheists are not knocking on doors trying to convert anyone, they dont beg you for money on the street corner, they dont open buildings and erect huge signs proclaiming that religious people are idiots, they dont shoot pro-choice doctors, and theyre not strapping bombs to themselves and blowing themselves up in a central market.

I see them writing books, doing interviews, and conducting debates where they defend their position with all the tenacity the theists defend their own point of view with If you disagree with their point of view, and have closed your mind to their arguments, turn off the TV, dont read the book and dont buy the magazine or newspaper. Simple.

I agree with the thought written above, to each their own and while I may disagree with what you believe, I will defend your right to believe as you wish, as long as you respect my parallel right.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 10, 2011)

> they don&#8217;t open buildings and erect huge signs proclaiming that religious people are idiots,



Really?















[/IMG]
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html

Close enough.


----------



## Rayban (Jan 10, 2011)

Very very true Ken.

On a personal note I find organized religion simply as means of controlling the masses.  That being said I will respect anyone who follows them so long as they respect my right to disagree (amicably).

At the end of the day you have no idea why a person has decided to follow a certain religion or belief. It's about as personal as it gets.



elder999 said:


> Where ther is a scientific explanation-like  those for gravity-that explanation suffices, and is independent of  anything that could be called, said to resemble or even remotely be  construed as "God."



Even the brightest scientists call the Higgs Boson the "God" particle which theoretically bestows mass to larger particles.

This brings me to two realizations that I had a while ago about God and religion.

God: an unknown force responsible for the creation of the universe.  Whether it is something like the Higgs Boson or a figure on a cloud somewhere out there. (Personally I think it quite arrogant that god is portrayed by many as a human male)

Religion: Introduces a set of moral principles that you can choose to live by.  An example is the bible.  I would imagine everyone picks and chooses which principles to follow and believe in and which they do not.  I would be quite horrified if someone followed it word for word.
"disobedient children must be stoned to death"
"Women must be isolated when they are on their period"...etc
Yeah just try and follow that word for word.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 10, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Dude I can drive around my small Canadian city and find twenty religious signs in less then an hour. You pointed to two "paid" signs. Go for a drive and count the religious vs atheist signs you see, keep a running total. I'll bet you a beer it'll be ten to one for the religious side.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 10, 2011)

You said they don't...



> erect huge signs proclaiming that religious people are idiots



I think you were wrong.

Look's like the atheists are as much into the evangelizing game as anybody else these days.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 10, 2011)

Rayban said:


> Even the brightest scientists call the Higgs Boson the "God" particle which theoretically bestows mass to larger particles..


 
As "God" particles go, it's merely the flavor of a generation, and even the brightest _religious_ scientists carefully place those quotation marks around *"*God*"* when denoting it as such......it's mostly tongue in cheek, especially for all those atheists.....


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 10, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> Dude I can drive around my small Canadian city and find twenty religious signs in less then an hour. You pointed to two "paid" signs. Go for a drive and count the religious vs atheist signs you see, keep a running total. I'll bet you a beer it'll be ten to one for the religious side.



Atheists who think they have to take (and fight for) "a side" is an example of that "militant atheism" IMO.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Jan 10, 2011)

> As a human you're used to things you have seen on earth. For example, "The need for a cause and effect."
> The way you are looking at gravity is kind of obscure to what gravity really is. Gravity basically a force caused by the curvature of spacetime. Masses that exist in spacetime also cause a curvature of it, but gravity is a very WEAK force.(Which may not be true in other parts of the universe, who knows?)
> So in short, obviously gravity has existed ever since mass has existed. And if someone where to believe matter and energy have always existed. Then one could say gravity has always existed; it just wasn't what it was until after Big Bang.(Which is where time began).



Time began at the big bang? You do realize that it is quite possible and probable that other universes exist as well? 

I do have a problem with many of the arguments being provided here in that they are false.

Let's look at a few of them.




> As a scientist, I have to say (again!) that it is simply not the place of science to prove or disprove a being who exists before, during,after and outside of the constraints of space/time.
> 
> As a religious person, I have to say (again!) that it is not the place of religion to conform to scientific law.
> 
> ...


----------



## billc (Jan 10, 2011)

More have killed in the name of atheism, than religion. Scientific socialism, is that what those camps were for? the atheists killed for "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need," because religion is the opiate of the masses. Some of the greatest scientists in the world, explored the nature of the world to understand God and how he made things work.  The murder of abortion doctors is the act of a lone  religous extremist, the creation of gulags, and death camps is organized atheism at its worst, and they kill millions at a go.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Jan 10, 2011)

> More have killed in the name of atheism, than religion


Really?? can you find specific examples from history, something that I can find in a text book.

I can only think of one off the top of my head compared to many for the religion side.


----------



## billc (Jan 10, 2011)

I have to go nighty night, but I will leave you with these, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Kim Il sung and his son, Mao, and all the little atheists aroundthe world who are trying to become big atheists.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 10, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I have to go nighty night, but I will leave you with these, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Kim Il sung and his son, Mao, and all the little atheists aroundthe world who are trying to become big atheists.



Hitler insisted he was Catholic.


Those others, of course, couldn't have been atheists. Like Hitler, they clearly worshipped themselves.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 10, 2011)

Yeah being totalitarian had/has nothing to do with it.


----------



## billc (Jan 10, 2011)

I keep forgetting Ho Chi Mihn. 

For all the atheists out there, here is a special offer from Andrew Klavan, author and screenwriter:  God in 60 days,





 
I don't think there is a money back garauntee.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 10, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Atheists who think they have to take (and fight for) "a side" is an example of that "militant atheism" IMO.


 
Youre right we should just let religious people shove their beliefs down our throats, like they did for thousands of years. We like being told how to live our lives.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 10, 2011)

SensibleManiac said:


> "Militant atheism?"
> I've yet to see anyone kill people in the name of atheism.



Ahem, Columbine.


----------



## granfire (Jan 10, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> Ahem, Columbine.



No, seriously.

Not to Goth kids snapping....


----------



## Rayban (Jan 10, 2011)

billcihak said:


> More have killed in the name of atheism, than religion. Scientific socialism, is that what those camps were for? the atheists killed for "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need," because religion is the opiate of the masses. Some of the greatest scientists in the world, explored the nature of the world to understand God and how he made things work. The murder of abortion doctors is the act of a lone religous extremist, the creation of gulags, and death camps is organized atheism at its worst, and they kill millions at a go.



Sorry you're dead wrong there.  Not saying Atheists are saints (no pun intended) But religion has had its hands in more wars and schisms and have claimed far more lives.  Most of the first wars were about differing culture and points of view.  Throughout most of human history religion has been central to almost every culture.

As for the dictators.

First off, they have nothing to do with the discussion of Religion and Atheism.  What they believe is irrelevant. Bad people will do bad things regardless of their spiritual orientation.

But for the record:

http://stupac2.blogspot.com/2006/10/hitler-stalin-and-mao-were-not-atheists.html


----------



## Rayban (Jan 10, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> Ahem, Columbine.




Again, what has that got to do with atheism.  Forgive my ignorance, I'm only partially familiar with the shooting.

Bad people will do bad things reguardless of their chosen religion.


----------



## Tanaka (Jan 11, 2011)

SensibleManiac said:


> Time began at the big bang? You do realize that it is quite possible and probable that other universes exist as well?
> 
> I do have a problem with many of the arguments being provided here in that they are false.
> 
> Let's look at a few of them.



And?

Time began with Big Bang
Other possible existing universes do not have any relevance to that statement.


----------



## Tanaka (Jan 11, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I have to go nighty night, but I will leave you with these, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Kim Il sung and his son, Mao, and all the little atheists aroundthe world who are trying to become big atheists.


Hitler was Catholic, who also did what he did based on his Catholic beliefs. Which I have access to quotes from his diary where he directly said this. Hitler was one of those Christians that forgot Jesus was Jewish, so he hates Jews for Jesus's death. (Btw Hitler was a church going man)

You may find Atheist that have killed people or even many people.
But you won't really find anyone killing people "In the name of Atheism"

Or for Oppression of religion. It was usually other religious people oppressing another religious group.


----------



## Tanaka (Jan 11, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> Ahem, Columbine.


Columbine was not done in the name of Atheism. If I am remembering correctly. This was a school shooting in response to school bullying that occurred to a group of students that went to the school. I think the same type of occurrence happened at Virginia Tech.


----------



## Tanaka (Jan 11, 2011)

billcihak said:


> More have killed in the name of atheism, than religion. Scientific socialism, is that what those camps were for? the atheists killed for "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need," because religion is the opiate of the masses. Some of the greatest scientists in the world, explored the nature of the world to understand God and how he made things work.  The murder of abortion doctors is the act of a lone  religous extremist, the creation of gulags, and death camps is organized atheism at its worst, and they kill millions at a go.


If they were doing their research to understand "God"
Then they weren't "Greatest scientist" in my opinion.  Greatest Scientist start with no Bias and are lead by their evidence.
Not to say they don't believe in God, but they don't put their belief in God inside their studies.  What Bill O'Reily and a couple of others are doing. Is what is formally called "God of Gaps" fallacy.
It's a common occurrence, especially when you have those of religion who like to constantly question the cause of each explanation you give them. For example, 
"Where did humans come from"
"They evolved from previous ancestor"
"Where did they come from"
"That previous ancestor also evolved from a previous ancestor"
"Oh yeah... well where did life come from?"
"Life came from self replicating organic molecules that were left chirality bias due to a type of early natural selection process"
"Where did those molecules come from"
"They were formed due to conditions of early earth(which was a reducing atmosphere) which caused carbon to bond and form amino acids"
"Oh yeah, where did the earth come from?"
The earth is a product of a proto planetary disc cloud around the center of our current sun/star as you had matter clashing together in this cloud(Along with the help of gravity). You start to have the formation of planets." 

I could go on, but the point is... What they're doing is looking for one gap to place God in. If I would to lack an explanation at the point of. "Where did life come from"
The person would of just slipped in God at that point. For example "See, God exist or else you wouldn't have life on earth"

There's many variations to the God of gaps arguments, but I am too sleepy to be specific anymore. Usually when anyone who is trying to give reason for God ask "Well how do you explain this?"(in some fashion)
They are more than likely about to make "God of Gaps" fallacy.


----------



## Carol (Jan 11, 2011)

Tanaka said:


> Hitler was Catholic, who also did what he did based on his Catholic beliefs.



His Catholic beliefs told him to send [Catholic] Priests to Dachau?


----------



## Tanaka (Jan 11, 2011)

Carol said:


> His Catholic beliefs told him to send [Catholic] Priests to Dachau?


Ones that resisted his Nazi beliefs... he probably saw them as blaspheme.
He didn't lock them up merely for being Catholic Priest if that is what you're hinting. He was actually very close to them, until they resisted his Nazi regime.


----------



## Carol (Jan 11, 2011)

Tanaka said:


> Ones that resisted his Nazi beliefs... he probably saw them as blaspheme.
> He didn't lock them up merely for being Catholic Priest if that is what you're hinting. He was actually very close to them, until they resisted his Nazi regime.



Hitler was most intent on creating his master race.  He was too concerned about upsetting the apple cart with his precious aryans in his own country, but he found priests for the taking amongst the Poles, who -- like the Czechs -- were racially undesirable.  The Poles lost half their total priests at Dachau


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 11, 2011)

Rayban said:


> Again, what has that got to do with atheism.   Forgive my ignorance, I'm only partially familiar with the shooting.






Tanaka said:


> Columbine was not done in the name of Atheism. If I am remembering correctly. This was a school shooting in response to school bullying that occurred to a group of students that went to the school. I think the same type of occurrence happened at Virginia Tech.



The Columbine shooters did, however, target students who professed a belief in god.  It's been a while, but IIRC Initial reports tried to claim the shooters were satanists, and later pagans to explain why they chose to do this, but these claims were refuted by one of the shooter's own diaries stating that as an atheist he had no reason to suppress his instinct to kill.

So, while the school shootings in Columbine were not necessarily _predicated_ on Atheism, both his decision TO carry out the shooting a choice of Victims most certainly was.  At least that's how I'd interperate what he wrote.  You're mileage may vary.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 11, 2011)

The "religion killed more than atheism (Stalin, Pol Pot, etc) is a diversion from the original statement that Atheists mind their own business and "I care less if you believe or not" blabber for up thread. I "believe" that many Atheists do indeed care what I believe, otherwise they wouldn't spend so much money on billboards, or time on the internet arguing who killed more people than who.


----------



## Tanaka (Jan 11, 2011)

Carol said:


> Hitler was most intent on creating his master race.  He was too concerned about upsetting the apple cart with his precious aryans in his own country, but he found priests for the taking amongst the Poles, who -- like the Czechs -- were racially undesirable.  The Poles lost half their total priests at Dachau


Well you could say that, or it could be that since the Poles resisted Hitler instead of agreeing to his demands when he was being "nice" to them. I put quotations around nice for a reason.(Because Hitler's Nice is... If you meet my demands we will get a long just fine.)

I merely based what I said off of the things he said himself.


> "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
> - Adolf Hitler, to General Gerhard Engel, 1941





> "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.  It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few  followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to  fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer  but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read  through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His  might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of  vipers and adders. ...Today, after two thousand years, with deepest  emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it  was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross."
> 
> - Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 11, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> The "religion killed more than atheism (Stalin, Pol Pot, etc) is a diversion from the original statement that Atheists mind their own business and "I care less if you believe or not" blabber for up thread. I "believe" that many Atheists do indeed care what I believe, otherwise they wouldn't spend so much money on billboards, or time on the internet arguing who killed more people than who.



Perhaps imagining yourself in a different context will explain the intent of the billboards.  Imagine you live in Saudi Arabia, where Islam is the dominant religion.  On a regular basis, you are asked which mosque you attend.  On a regular basis, you are told that being a Christian makes you a bad person - not only that your beliefs are wrong, but that they make you incapable of goodness.  In a recent poll, Christians came in dead last in a list of groups that people would vote into political office (OK, doesn't jive with SA, but you get the point).  Everywhere you turn is the default assumption that you are a Muslim, that you believe in Islam, that everyone believes in and respects Islam.

Now imagine in that context you begin to make your arguments in the public square is that not only is it acceptable to be a Christian, not only can you be a good person and a Christian, but that Christianity is right.  Are you being "militant"?  Are you being "intolerant"?  Are you trying to force your beliefs onto all your Muslim neighbors?  

Or are you standing up for yourself and your beliefs, fighting for equal standing, and trying to change the default assumption around you that Islam is the only true and right course for all?  Put yourself in the atheists' shoes.  Militancy and evangelism has almost nothing to do with their actions.


----------



## Tanaka (Jan 11, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> The Columbine shooters did, however, target students who professed a belief in god.  It's been a while, but IIRC Initial reports tried to claim the shooters were satanists, and later pagans to explain why they chose to do this, but these claims were refuted by one of the shooter's own diaries stating that as an atheist he had no reason to suppress his instinct to kill.
> 
> So, while the school shootings in Columbine were not necessarily _predicated_ on Atheism, both his decision TO carry out the shooting a choice of Victims most certainly was.  At least that's how I'd interperate what he wrote.  You're mileage may vary.



Good point. But he only did this for one student, and she was already injured before they asked her about her belief in God. Which the conversation consisted of her yelling "Oh, please God help me" while she was seriously wounded. The shooter went back to ask if she believed in God. And she wavered between yes and no(trying to get the answer he wanted). Then the shooter asked "why" and she responded "Because my family believes." Then he taunted her and left her there wounded. So it was clear they were there not to oppress religion. In fact it was quite clear that they were going specifically after the ones they disliked for more "emotional" reasons(aka Bullying). As you can see from these quotes. 


> "Everyone with white hats, stand up! This is for all the **** you've given us for the past four years!" and "All jocks  stand up! We'll get the guys in white hats!" (wearing a white baseball  cap at Columbine was a tradition amongst sports team members).-Taken from the Wiki article



Atheism really doesn't come with any emotions attached. While you do have some kids who are angry at "God" and want to backslide(or whatever you call it)
They are not considered atheist, since they are "angry at God" in the first place. While Atheism is the belief of God not existing. So it's really hard to find someone to kill in the "name of Atheism" 
So in conclusion I believe the reason why they carried out the shooting was due to bullying.
The reason why they targeted certain students was due to bullying and probably rejection. 
And they used their Atheistic beliefs to reduce their cognitive dissonance.


----------



## granfire (Jan 11, 2011)

I did not follow the morbid tale, but I have heard that the 'do you believe in God' episode was not in fact true.

Not to mention that it could have been meant differently.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 11, 2011)

SensibleManiac said:


> I do have a problem with many of the arguments being provided here in that they are false.
> 
> Let's look at a few of them.
> 
> ...


 
It&#8217;s not a cop-out at all. As one who *routinely* utilizes the scientific method, I can demonstrate that in this instance it is wholly inadequate to the task.

First, let us postulate a being who created everything. Most call this _hypothetical_ (not &#8220;theoretical&#8221 being &#8220;God,&#8221; though &#8220;Creator&#8221; does just as well, and I sometimes call he/she/it &#8220;foot_.&#8221;:lol:_

For such a being to have brought everything into existence-for such a being to have been responsible for the &#8220;big bang,&#8221; it would have to have existed _before_ the big bang-which means that such a being likely exists-or, at least, _existed_- *outside* our space/time. 

We cannot measure, predict or test for such a being-therefore the scientific method cannot be applied. If we posit that such a being paradoxically exists both within and without our space/time,we still clearly lack the means to measure, predict or test for such a being. And, as far as direct experience of such a being goes, such experiences are, by definition, subjective, and-more to the point-not disprovable , however duplicable they may or may not be-though they usually are not.

Of course, you have the right to apply reason to understanding anything, and one can certainly use science to investigate certain things: archaeology to investigate the various religions of the world, or medicine for so-called &#8220;faith healings.&#8221; A lot of interesting work on religious experience that people associate with &#8220;god&#8221; is being done in neuroscience.But there is no room, as yet, within the scientific method for an investigation of &#8220;God.&#8221;

The tools and metrics for measuring, testing and predicting simply don&#8217;t exist.


----------



## Tanaka (Jan 11, 2011)

granfire said:


> I did not follow the morbid tale, but I have heard that the 'do you believe in God' episode was not in fact true.
> 
> Not to mention that it could have been meant differently.


Yeah it wasn't true in the fact of Cassie Bernall's case.
Which christians have been using as a "martyr" type case. They were saying that before the shooter shot her in the head. They asked her if she believed in God. And she said "yes"

Students around her and ones that were hiding underneath the table testified that she said nothing(She was only silently praying under the table). The shooter merely ducked under the table and said "Peekaboo" than shot her in the head.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 11, 2011)

elder999 said:


> But there is no room, as yet, within the scientific method for an investigation of God.
> 
> The tools and metrics for measuring, testing and predicting simply dont exist.



Ah, but very few people espouse the Clockmaker God of the deists, most posit a God that intervenes in the world from time to time.  Even if that God restricts itself to producing feelings of ineffability and wonder in your mind, that God is still causing changes in the physical universe since all workings of the brain are based on physical processes.  Thus, in principle at least, this God must produce physical changes that are measurable, and could be used to deduce characteristics of this God.  Where I would start the search would be in physical changes that appear to violate our own rules such as causality, since a being outside our space-time would be outside our Universe's causal chain.  

Of course those tools and metrics may not exist, maybe could never exist, but we are speaking in principle - if we couldn't invent tools to measure neutrinos, that does not make the theory predicting their existence non-scientific.  No more so than the scientific prediction of black holes long before physical evidence of their existence was found.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 11, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Ah, but very few people espouse the Clockmaker God of the deists, most posit a God that intervenes in the world from time to time. Even if that God restricts itself to producing feelings of ineffability and wonder in your mind, that God is still causing changes in the physical universe since all workings of the brain are based on physical processes. Thus, in principle at least, this God must produce physical changes that are measurable, and could be used to deduce characteristics of this God. Where I would start the search would be in physical changes that appear to violate our own rules such as causality, since a being outside our space-time would be outside our Universe's causal chain.
> 
> Of course those tools and metrics may not exist, maybe could never exist, but we are speaking in principle - if we couldn't invent tools to measure neutrinos, that does not make the theory predicting their existence non-scientific. No more so than the scientific prediction of black holes long before physical evidence of their existence was found.


 

Hence my saying that the two were mutually exclusive  "for the present time and forseeable future" in my original post. 

However, as I said, interesting work is being done in neuroscience measuring what people mean when they say that they are "experiencing God,"-measuring those very brain changes you spoke of.....


----------



## billc (Jan 11, 2011)

I heard an interview with someone who studied Columbine and the shooter.  The leader wasn't a victim of bullying but was more along the lines of wanting to be famous.  He wrote that the one of the things he hated most was stupid people.  The other guy was more along the lines of the follower.  ONe expert posited that the kid suffered from megolamania.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Jan 11, 2011)

> We cannot measure, predict or test for such a being-therefore the scientific method cannot be applied. If we posit that such a being paradoxically exists both within and without our space/time,we still clearly lack the means to measure, predict or test for such a being. And, as far as direct experience of such a being goes, such experiences are, by definition, subjective, and-more to the point-not disprovable , however duplicable they may or may not be-though they usually are not.
> 
> Of course, you have the right to apply reason to understanding anything, and one can certainly use science to investigate certain things: archaeology to investigate the various religions of the world, or medicine for so-called &#8220;faith healings.&#8221; A lot of interesting work on religious experience that people associate with &#8220;god&#8221; is being done in neuroscience.vBut there is no room, as yet, within the scientific method for an investigation of &#8220;God.&#8221;
> 
> The tools and metrics for measuring, testing and predicting simply don&#8217;t exist.



This does make sense until the "and-more to the point-not disprovable" part.
The problem is that once something is "not disprovable" as you put it, it becomes irrelevant. 
So this God put us on earth to believe in him and yet he made sure that there was no way we could have any way to truly understand him.
It doesn't add up, why would this God care if we believed in him or not, surely he wouldn't care. Is the belief in him for our benefit only? 
If so why are most people who believe, (and notice here I said most) ignorant when it comes to logic and understanding and even compassion?
I say this because the more ardent the believer, the greater chance they are closed minded to the world around them.
When you think of fundamentalists, do you think of very logical people?
A study was done where brain activity was measured in people discussing their political and religious beliefs and you know what was found? Most of the activity was happening in areas of emotion and not reason, even though they claimed they were thinking logically about what their views.

As for the no room for the scientific investigation of God, if no other evidence can be found in these studies than what is occuring in the mind, is it not safe to say that it is occuring only in the mind?

I invite you to read 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot 
on Russell's teacup analogy.
It is interesting.

From a logical perspective, if God does not want us to be able to have evidence of his existence, is it logical to claim that he exists or wants us to acknowledge him?

It is a valid question.
Especially when we see how believing in anything with lack of evidence is not only dangerous but does nothing for human progress especially if it sidetracks us from further understanding the workings of the mind.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 11, 2011)

SensibleManiac said:


> This does make sense until the "and-more to the point-not disprovable" part.
> The problem is that once something is "not disprovable" as you put it, it becomes irrelevant.


 
I was speaking of direct experience. If an individual has experiential evidence of "God," it's not disprovable, not duplicable, and therefore not testable.

It is, however, empirical evidence of lasting relevance to *them*, and that's all that should matter.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 11, 2011)

> Atheism really doesn't come with any emotions attached. While you do have some kids who are angry at "God" and want to backslide(or whatever you call it)
> They are not considered atheist, since they are "angry at God" in the first place. While Atheism is the belief of God not existing. So it's really hard to find someone to kill in the "name of Atheism"


 
I don't think that they are "angry at God". But some of them sure seem beligerant towards people who believe in God. 

Don't confuse "killing in the name of Athiesm" with a rationale for eliminating religion for social/political reasons.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Jan 11, 2011)

> The "religion killed more than atheism (Stalin, Pol Pot, etc) is a diversion from the original statement that Atheists mind their own business and "I care less if you believe or not" blabber for up thread. I "believe" that many Atheists do indeed care what I believe, otherwise they wouldn't spend so much money on billboards, or time on the internet arguing who killed more people than who.



I think the billboards are more of a backlash to the extreme religious billboars that have been popping up as of the past few years.
Trying to use fear to bring others into submission no longer works very well, I think pushing people to think is much more effcetive and much much better an alternative to bringing progress.

I can speak for myself here but I'm sure many others feel the same way.

We are getting close to a period where weapons of mass destruction can easily fall into the wrong hands, furthermore we are about to see a point in time where technology will begin advancing at a tremendously rapid rate.
The cause for alarm is that with many people on this Earth having irrational beliefs, this poses a huge threat to not just our progress, but our planet and humanity itself.

I'm not speaking of any one particular religion but I feel it's time we all started thinking more rationally.
I think of it as a means of survival and self defense. 

The push for rationality is never a bad thing.


----------



## Carol (Jan 11, 2011)

SensibleManiac said:


> I'm not speaking of any one particular religion but I feel it's time we all started thinking more rationally.
> I think of it as a means of survival and self defense.



Can't argue with that logic. 

I keep seeing the "Sensible" part of you SensibleManiac.  Not sure where you hide the maniac part


----------



## SensibleManiac (Jan 11, 2011)

> I keep seeing the "Sensible" part of you SensibleManiac. Not sure where you hide the maniac part



You'd have to see me hit a punching bag!


----------



## billc (Jan 11, 2011)

So Sensible, you probably don't want Iran to get a nuclear weapon then.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Jan 11, 2011)

Noooooooooo kidding!

Definitely, we need some way to end nuclear proliferation.

This is a tough one though.

They way things are headed many countries will eventually aquire the types of technology that they shouldn't have access to.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 12, 2011)




----------



## Blade96 (Jan 12, 2011)

billcihak said:


> More have killed in the name of atheism, than religion. Scientific socialism, is that what those camps were for? the atheists killed for "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need," because religion is the opiate of the masses. Some of the greatest scientists in the world, explored the nature of the world to understand God and how he made things work.  The murder of abortion doctors is the act of a lone  religous extremist, the creation of gulags, and death camps is organized atheism at its worst, and they kill millions at a go.



oh not again


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 12, 2011)

Sigh.

Folks there have been in recorded human history, (hence maybe .5% of our existence), 2900 gods documented on record somewhere. Some of these gods are mentioned once in passing on an ancient script, or are represented by a single petro glyph carved on one stone door deep in the jungles of X, or there are the Christian, Muslim, Hindu and a handful of other religions that have been recorded billions of times on a multitude of media.

We are all atheists, every single one of us when it comes to these other gods. A christian/muslim/jew does not believe in 2899 of these gods, hence they are by definition atheist, about those gods. 

Of course the obvious questions arise, as to why is one god/religion hold great validity then any other? How do we know our god, or religion is the true faith? Why is everyone else wrong? These are questions you need to answer to your own personal satisfaction.

I believe that we all need to be more tolerant about other religions or lack there of, political beliefs, race and a hundred other issue, it will make the world a better place.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 12, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> Of course the obvious questions arise, as to why is one god/religion hold great validity then any other?



Excellent question - particularly considering that the greatest predictor of which religion you follow is which religion you were raised in.  If God was actively shepherding people to the "correct" religion, you would think that you wouldn't simply believe what you were raised to believe but would be drawn to the right one.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 12, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> oh not again



wanted to clarify on my post some more. I just meant that Bill has already said that.  Just a little dejavu .


----------



## Nomad (Jan 12, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> Sigh.
> 
> Folks there have been in recorded human history, (hence maybe .5% of our existence), 2900 gods documented on record somewhere. Some of these gods are mentioned once in passing on an ancient script, or are represented by a single petro glyph carved on one stone door deep in the jungles of X, or there are the Christian, Muslim, Hindu and a handful of other religions that have been recorded billions of times on a multitude of media.
> 
> We are all atheists, every single one of us when it comes to these other gods. A christian/muslim/jew does not believe in 2899 of these gods, hence they are by definition atheist, about those gods.



While your post makes a great overall point, it's technically incorrect.  An atheist is defined as someone who doesn't believe in *any* god, not just anyone else's god.  

So strictly speaking, someone can't be an atheist to everyone else's gods (if they believe in their own).  In other words, please don't lump everyone else in with us atheists... we like to think we're special


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 12, 2011)

ok people are talking about beliefs....I'd like to go on record as saying I've had some pretty weird crap happen in my life so I'm open to the possibility of angels, gods, spirits, the after life, whatever existing. so i call myself agnostic.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 12, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> ok people are talking about beliefs....I'd like to go on record as saying I've had some pretty weird crap happen in my life so I'm open to the possibility of angels, gods, spirits, the after life, whatever existing. so i call myself agnostic.


 
And the Great Pumpkin, don't you dare forget about the Great Pumpkin!!!


----------



## granfire (Jan 12, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> And the Great Pumpkin, don't you dare forget about the Great Pumpkin!!!


butbutbutbut

it's the _Easter BEAGLE!!!!_


----------



## Carol (Jan 12, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> And the Great Pumpkin, don't you dare forget about the Great Pumpkin!!!



I believe!


----------



## Big Don (Jan 12, 2011)

Carol said:


> I believe!


Those look like the Mediocre Pumpkins to me, Carol...


----------



## granfire (Jan 12, 2011)

those are his minions....


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 12, 2011)

Tanaka said:


> Good point. But he only did this for one student, and she was already injured before they asked her about her belief in God. Which the conversation consisted of her yelling "Oh, please God help me" while she was seriously wounded. The shooter went back to ask if she believed in God. And she wavered between yes and no(trying to get the answer he wanted). Then the shooter asked "why" and she responded "Because my family believes."



I see, that's a different version of the story than was reported.  I'm not saying it's wrong, what with the HIGH QUALITY of the news reporting we get...


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 12, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> I see, that's a different version of the story than was reported.  I'm not saying it's wrong, what with the HIGH QUALITY of the news reporting we get...



I'm not sure at this point what is truth and what is fiction, I haven't looked into it in great detail.  According to the reporting of a recent book however, nearly everything we "know" about the shooters and the shooting is a myth.  Starting with the universal belief that both were unpopular, and bullied.  According to the author and his work, they were actually somewhat popular, and not outcasts or bullied.  I also know that many churches have turned the Christian girl's story into a martyrdom story, which also may not be appropriate.

Like I said, I can't vouch for the authenticity, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.  The book is "Why Kids Kill: Inside the Minds of School Shooters" by Peter Langman.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 12, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> And the Great Pumpkin, don't you dare forget about the Great Pumpkin!!!



cant forget that, eh.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 12, 2011)

granfire said:


> those are his minions....


I could use a few minions.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 12, 2011)

Big Don said:


> I could use a few minions.


 
baked in a pie...


----------



## Big Don (Jan 12, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> baked in a pie...


That is just ridiculous, Ken! How will they carry out my bidding, and,more importantly,bring me beer, if they are in a pie?


----------



## Carol (Jan 13, 2011)

I could use a filet minion.  Very rare, please, with a good Shiraz. :lol:


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 13, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> I dont see militant atheism folks.
> 
> *Atheists are not knocking on doors trying to convert anyone, they dont beg you for money on the street corner, they dont open buildings and erect huge signs proclaiming that religious people are idiots, they dont shoot pro-choice doctors, and theyre not strapping bombs to themselves and blowing themselves up in a central market.*
> 
> ...


 
That all depends on your perspective.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 13, 2011)

Carol said:


> I could use a filet minion. Very rare, please, with a good Shiraz. :lol:


 
I know just the place!
But for me...medium, with blue cheese and roast garlic on top...


----------



## Big Don (Jan 13, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> I dont see militant atheism folks.
> 
> Atheists are not knocking on doors trying to convert anyone, they dont beg you for money on the street corner, they dont open buildings and erect huge signs proclaiming that religious people are idiots, they dont shoot pro-choice doctors, and theyre not strapping bombs to themselves and blowing themselves up in a central market.


So, you didn't watch the childishly edited clip in the OP? Because O'reilly had that guy on to talk about his organization's ads calling all religions myths, etc. The interview had barely begun and Silverman was mocking "Invisible magic man in the sky", and, by the way, plagiarizing from a thirty year old George Carlin bit...


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 13, 2011)

And "militant" doesn't necessarily have to mean "going out and killing people". Thats the definition many atheists like to use because they can then whip out the "what about the Crusades huh? HUH? HUH?!?" canard. Perhaps "rabid atheist" is a better term to use in this conversation. Like this smug and arrogant ***** in the video.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 13, 2011)

My my, it's a darn shame what all those raving, rabid, smug atheists are doing.  They are criticizing religion!  Questioning deeply held beliefs!  Making rational arguments!  Even getting a little heated about it now and again!  Continually being told that they are inferior, immoral and incapable of being good certainly couldn't justify such an extreme reaction.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 14, 2011)

Big Don said:


> I could use a few minions.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 14, 2011)

Blade96 said:


>


I'd thank you for that, but, I hate cats.


----------



## Carol (Jan 14, 2011)

Big Don said:


> I'd thank you for that, but, I hate cats.



Hate.....cats ????

I kill you with cute.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 14, 2011)

Carol said:


> Hate.....cats ????
> 
> I kill you with cute.


 
I_* love*_ cats, Carol-but let's not go there.......:lol:


----------



## Carol (Jan 14, 2011)

elder999 said:


> I love cats, Carol-but let's not go there.......:lol:



DEFINITELY not.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 14, 2011)

Big Don said:


> I'd thank you for that, but, I hate cats.



I sorry but i dont have any loldogs. 



Carol said:


> Hate.....cats ????
> 
> I kill you with cute.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 14, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> My my, it's a darn shame what all those raving, rabid, smug atheists are doing. They are criticizing religion! Questioning deeply held beliefs! Making rational arguments! Even getting a little heated about it now and again! Continually being told that they are inferior, immoral and incapable of being good certainly couldn't justify such an extreme reaction.


 
I'm not sure what Christians you are seeing, but in my 13 years of Christian education, being married to two devout Christians, attending their churches, and having Christian friends, I have never heard that just because you are not Christian that you are inferior, immoral, or incapable of being good.  That is with exeptions, of course, namely people like Phelps and his ilk.

In fact, God calls all of us his children and to love your fellow _man, _not just fellow Christian.  Who want's to love someone that is incapable of those things.

And just to clarify, I am not a Christian.  

One of the first thing that you should understand, if you care to, is that your acts have nothing to do with with whether you achieve God's grace.  It is your faith and belief in him which gives you salvation.  

People are not being told that they are inferior, immoral, or incapable of being good.  It's that people take the message that Christians are offering them, and because they choose not to believe they feel that Christians are inferring that is what they are saying.    Sounds like their issue, not an issue of the Christian message.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 14, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I'm not sure what Christians you are seeing, but in my 13 years of Christian education, being married to two devout Christians, attending their churches, and having Christian friends, I have never heard that just because you are not Christian that you are inferior, immoral, or incapable of being good. That is with exeptions, of course, namely people like Phelps and his ilk.


 
Well......in *all* my life: being the son of an Episcopal priest, the grandson of an Episcopal priest, the descendent of multiple generations of ministers, a religious studies student,having numerous Christian friends (of various stripes), friends of other faiths (of various stripes), being married to two Christians  myself, attending various churches-having made something of an....._er_....*hobby* of other churches in my teen years, I can say that I've seen all kinds, and I *have* heard that just because you are not a Christian you are inferior, immoral, incapable of being good and surely going to hell. In fact, I've heard that if you're not a _fill in the flavor of_ Christian, then you're not really a Christian, and you're inferior, immoral, incapable of being good and surely going to hell. Over the years I've seen all kinds of people do all kinds of beating each other up with the good book, and years *before* I heard of Fred Phelps-and these weren't active "haters," like Phelps-they didn't say that God "hated" anyone, or anything of the sort-just that in their interpretation of scripture you were going to hell if you weren't a Christian-you were "worshipping a false God," or-sometimes _worse_-not worshipping any God at all. I've heard ministers say that they "like Jews, but they're damned to hell for not accepting Christ," and worse......

I mean, have you never seen a Chick Tract?:



> Jesus hates this false religious system(Catholicism)


 




5-0 Kenpo said:


> In fact, God calls all of us his children and to love your fellow _man, _not just fellow Christian. Who want's to love someone that is incapable of those things.


 
And I'd agree with you-but there are those who don't. Scripture is confusing for some-especially interpreting it. 

During the Cerro Grande fire-after the whole town of Los Alamos had been evacuated- one of the people I worked with suggested to another that they should get their congregations together somewhere for a service. The older one, who was some sort of minister for his congregation said, "That'll never happen..." and proceeded to quote a whole series of verses showing why. I was flabbergasted-I liked an respected both men, but was a little taken aback by the silly pettiness of his misinterpretation. It easily could have been worse, though.....



5-0 Kenpo said:


> And just to clarify, I am not a Christian.


 
Neither am I.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> People are not being told that they are inferior, immoral, or incapable of being good..


 
People *are* being told that-just not by the Christians you know.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 14, 2011)

Fair enough.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 14, 2011)

I will also beg to differ. I was told by two christians out preaching at university in 2008 that 'i must have such a terrible life because i didnt believe' This despite the fact I told em I was agnostic and open to the possibility of God.


----------



## Cirdan (Jan 14, 2011)

I remember the local priest visiting us in primary school and telling a story about how africans used to be wild cannibalistic savages (their favourite dish was boiled white man) before the missionaries taught them how to live by the word of god.

If I had to pick a religion it youd be the old Nordic one.. there you could spend every day of your afterlife feasting and fighting and if you died you would be resurrected to do it again tomorrow. Hail Odin!


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 14, 2011)

if I ever need a religion I'll worship tetley tea.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 14, 2011)

:chuckles: Good lass!

I'm more with Cirdan tho' on such matters, except that I'd replace fighting and feasting with dinner and theatre ... sort of a Middle-England Valhalla ... maybe with some Ecky-Thump Tea-Geisha's added in :lol:.


----------



## Cirdan (Jan 14, 2011)

Valkyries beat Geishas every day of the week Sukerkin.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 14, 2011)

:lol: Aye, true that - well the ones that I've seen in mythological imagery anyhow . Sci-Fi imagery too - do a Google of "valkyrie battle beyond the stars" 

Then again, this Valkyrie has more than a touch of the Geisha about her I reckon:

[URL]http://www.rankopedia.com/CandidatePix/30812.gif

And this one, to quote Zaphod Beeblebrox, freeowwn!  She might be mean but ... oh my:

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kvgvvveYqb1qac5qao1_400.jpg[/URL]


----------



## granfire (Jan 14, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> :lol: Aye, true that - well the ones that I've seen in mythological imagery anyhow . Sci-Fi imagery too - do a Google of "valkyrie battle beyond the stars"
> 
> Then again, this Valkyrie has more than a touch of the Geisha about her I reckon:
> 
> ...




Having a guy moment....

:lfao:


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 14, 2011)

On the subject of using the tides as a prop for belief in a creator deity, it befuddles me how someone can make such an association.

Here is a picture of one of the untold billions of galaxies that make up the (so far) observable univers):

http://galacticfool.com/uploads/galacticfool.com/2010/06/m51whirlpool-galaxy.jpg

For me, looking up at the night sky does not prove the existence of a deity that created the universe for the sole benefit of mankind - rather the reverse. If such a being existed, it can't think very much of humanity, seeing as how it stuck us off in one of the less fashionable suburbs of the blaze of wonder that is the universe.

It is such points of argument that have finally brought to a close the endless discourse on the existence of otherwise of God that my father and I have engaged in since I was old enough to start to use critical thinking to analyse my world. He points to the stars and says the equivalent of "How can you not believe in God when you look at that!". And I say to him "How can you look at that and still believe that God made all of that and considered us as his finest creation".

Same point of evidence, completely opposite conclusions :shrugs:.


----------



## Cirdan (Jan 14, 2011)

One thing I don`t quite get is why the wonders of the universe is supposed to be froof of this or that particular supreme being. "god" is no more likely to be the artist here that Kazaar Freem the great pink transdimensional hippo.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 14, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> On the subject of using the tides as a prop for belief in a creator deity, it befuddles me how someone can make such an association.
> 
> Here is a picture of one of the untold billions of galaxies that make up the (so far) observable univers):
> 
> ...


 
On the other hand, the Creator did all of that, and still had some time for 'lil ole *me*....just sayin'....:lol:


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 14, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Here is a picture of one of the untold billions of galaxies that make up the (so far) observable univers)



This picture to me is somehow even more telling:






That is the Earth, taken from the Voyager spacecraft 21 years ago.  Which has barely left our Solar System.  We are _tiny_.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 14, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> This picture to me is somehow even more telling:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Shouldn't that say, "You are here"?


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 14, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> :chuckles: Good lass!



:uhyeah:


----------



## cdunn (Jan 14, 2011)

elder999 said:


> On the other hand, the Creator did all of that, and still had some time for 'lil ole *me*....just sayin'....:lol:


 
I dunno, it seems to me like a body as half-assed as ours must have gotten subcontracted out to a committee, rather than being done by any kind of Great Artist. :idunno:


----------



## Nomad (Jan 14, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> People are not being told that they are inferior, immoral, or incapable of being good.



As an atheist, I have been told by multiple Christians multiple times that:

1. I'm going to hell since I don't believe in their god

2. I _*cannot*_ have a moral compass without religion

3. I am stupid for not agreeing with them that the wonders of the universe could only have bee created by God.

4.  I've also had children at school tell my kids they can't play with them because they don't go to church.

So in my experience, all of the above does happen quite regularly.  I absolutely agree that the central tenet of Christianity is to "love thy neighbor", but it seems that many have missed this lesson.


----------



## granfire (Jan 14, 2011)

Nomad said:


> As an atheist, I have been told by multiple Christians multiple times that:
> 
> 1. I'm going to hell since I don't believe in their god
> 
> ...




I have actually been told by one guy that tirades like that turned him atheist (dawd, that sounds like he caught homosexuality...)

But yeah, his own Mum told him he was a sinner and going to hell. So much for the message of love.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Jan 14, 2011)

It's strange, I was raised christian and by everyone involved I was never asked what I thought or felt, just that this was the way I had to think and what I had to believe.
There have been countless times that people have stopped me either on the street or came knocking on my door, never once was it to push their atheism on me but every time it was to push their religion or beliefs on me.

Think about this and wonder why there is a backlash of people pushing reason over belief.

It doesn't surprise me, as for arrogance, for every guy like the one on O'Reilly's show there are countless religious types pushing their religion on everyone they see, telling them they have to believe or else they are damned or lost or their life has no meaning.

What's more arrogant than that?


----------



## elder999 (Jan 14, 2011)

cdunn said:


> I dunno, it seems to me like a body as half-assed as ours must have gotten subcontracted out to a committee, rather than being done by any kind of Great Artist. :idunno:


 
From a design standpoint, mammals are meant to rear their offspring to the point where their offspring can breed for their own offspring. 

That means your body is meant to last to about 30, maybe 40. 

And knees were God's afterthought, I'm sure of it! (_That leg's gotta bend somehow.....eh, *that's* good enough; I'm gonna go take a nap!_ :lol: )


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 15, 2011)

I know this is going to get me into trouble, but...



Nomad said:


> As an atheist, I have been told by multiple Christians multiple times that:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 15, 2011)

Nomad said:


> As an atheist, I have been told by multiple Christians multiple times that:
> 
> 1. I'm going to hell since I don't believe in their god
> 
> ...



Of course on the flipside of this, I can't tell you how many times I have been told that

1) I'm a moron

2) Only a brainless idiot would believe this stuff

3) My beliefs are repressing and murdering people

4) I'm associating myself with radicals and child molesters

5)  an endless tirade of asshats trying to explain to me why I HAVE to be wrong and am still a moron for not believing in what they do.


The knife cuts both ways, kids.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 15, 2011)

When the religious people start treating the non religious people with respect, and not lip service hypocrisy, everybody will be much better off. There are of course idiots on both sides of the equation. 

Atheists are not well thought of by the general population, http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/09/19/research-finds-that-atheists-are-most-hated-and-distrusted-minority/
hence why many folks still proclaim a religion, when in fact they have thrown it all away. Its better for them socially just to go along with the masses.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 15, 2011)

If we didn't have 'religion' we'd come up with something else to separate us from each other,use as an excuse for treating others badly and that we can blame for going to war.
A lot of damage is done in the name of religion (either because you are the 'wrong religion, you don't have one or that you do) but is down to greed, lust for power, wealth and the need to be right. 
We could all be one religion or none at all and still have the problems we have today. Sad but it's human nature to blame.


----------



## billc (Jan 15, 2011)

Nice reply 5-0 Kenpo, it is interesting to me when some people get offended when someone, especially from a more fundamental christian denomination says that if you do not take Christ as your savior you are going to hell.  First, if they are atheists, this should have no meaning, since they do not believe in heaven or hell in the first place.  Second, the christian person will usually say, if you do accept christ, you will be saved.  They are trying to save the person from what they believe is eternal suffering.  They may be wrong, there may be nothing after this life, but they are actually trying to do a good thing here.  True, not everyone in religion is a trained diplomat, so it can sound rough when you here their pitch, but if you do not believe, why be offended?


----------



## billc (Jan 15, 2011)

Atheists have caused a few problems of their own Ken.  Also, think on this.  As an atheist, there is nothing after this life we have and no one is watching what you do and judging how you behave.  I have come up with the thought that as an atheist, you could reasonably expected to live by a code based on, "Don't get Caught."  By this I mean, as long as you are not caught by secular authoritities, there is nothing you could not do because there is no God watching, and no reason not to if you felt the urge, other than not getting caught by secular authoritties.  You can lie, cheat and steal, murder and other things and it doesn't count against you in the over all scheme of things. I AM NOT SAYING THAT ATHEISTS BELIEVE THIS, IN ANY WAY, SIMPLY STATING THAT YOU COULD FOLLOW THIS CODE.  A person who believes in God, always has someone watching, and judging their behavior.  THere is never "getting away with it" because he sees all.  Your thoughts.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 15, 2011)

There may be something in Humanism for those wanting an afterlife....

_"The tagline on the New Humanist website, advertising an article in 
the issue of January/February 2011, startled Steve Phelps with its 
implication of post-mortem activity: "Twenty-five years after his 
death, Michael Bywater revisits the sacred texts of the pulp 
science writer turned prophet L Ron Hubbard"._


thanks to World Wide Words.


----------



## granfire (Jan 15, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Nice reply 5-0 Kenpo, it is interesting to me when some people get offended when someone, especially from a more fundamental christian denomination says that if you do not take Christ as your savior you are going to hell.  First, if they are atheists, this should have no meaning, since they do not believe in heaven or hell in the first place.  Second, the christian person will usually say, if you do accept christ, you will be saved.  They are trying to save the person from what they believe is eternal suffering.  They may be wrong, there may be nothing after this life, but they are actually trying to do a good thing here.  True, not everyone in religion is a trained diplomat, so it can sound rough when you here their pitch, but if you do not believe, why be offended?



Because it is non of their business and they can keep the unwanted remarks to themselves. 
It is in the same category as offering unsolicited advice about child rearing, finanaces relationships etc or personal hygiene. A case of Nonya: Non of your busines, STFU.

And usually they corner the nice people with the type of upbringing that prohibits them to say where they should go and to have a nice trip.


----------



## Cirdan (Jan 15, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Nice reply 5-0 Kenpo, it is interesting to me when some people get offended when someone, especially from a more fundamental christian denomination says that if you do not take Christ as your savior you are going to hell. First, if they are atheists, this should have no meaning, since they do not believe in heaven or hell in the first place. Second, the christian person will usually say, if you do accept christ, you will be saved. They are trying to save the person from what they believe is eternal suffering. They may be wrong, there may be nothing after this life, but they are actually trying to do a good thing here. True, not everyone in religion is a trained diplomat, so it can sound rough when you here their pitch, but if you do not believe, why be offended?


 
"The people I distrust most are those who want to improve our lives but have only one course of action." 



> Atheists have caused a few problems of their own Ken. Also, think on this. As an atheist, there is nothing after this life we have and no one is watching what you do and judging how you behave. I have come up with the thought that as an atheist, you could reasonably expected to live by a code based on, "Don't get Caught." By this I mean, as long as you are not caught by secular authoritities, there is nothing you could not do because there is no God watching, and no reason not to if you felt the urge, other than not getting caught by secular authoritties. You can lie, cheat and steal, murder and other things and it doesn't count against you in the over all scheme of things. I AM NOT SAYING THAT ATHEISTS BELIEVE THIS, IN ANY WAY, SIMPLY STATING THAT YOU COULD FOLLOW THIS CODE. A person who believes in God, always has someone watching, and judging their behavior. THere is never "getting away with it" because he sees all. Your thoughts.


 
Because history shows us that religious people don`t lie, steal, cheat or murder...


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 15, 2011)

granfire said:


> Because it is non of their business and they can keep the unwanted remarks to themselves.
> It is in the same category as offering unsolicited advice about child rearing, finanaces relationships etc or personal hygiene. A case of Nonya: Non of your busines, STFU.
> 
> And usually they corner the nice people with the type of upbringing that prohibits them to say where they should go and to have a nice trip.



I agree.

Wait, why are we even having this discussion here?  Oh yeah... Cuz someone felt the need to say "Damn Christians, look how stupid they are in this video about tides." and started a thread.  Perhaps they should realize "it is non of their business and they can keep the unwanted remarks to themselves."


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 15, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> I agree.
> 
> Wait, why are we even having this discussion here? Oh yeah... Cuz someone felt the need to say "Damn Christians, look how stupid they are in this video about tides." and started a thread. Perhaps they should realize "it is non of their business and they can keep the unwanted remarks to themselves."


 
You've got a very good point, but O'Reilley is a public figure, and therefore subjects himself to this kind of scrutiny.


----------



## granfire (Jan 15, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> You've got a very good point, but O'Reilley is a public figure, and therefore subjects himself to this kind of scrutiny.



Not to mention, he invited the guy on the show....(and probably to poke fun at him)


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 15, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> You've got a very good point, but O'Reilley is a public figure, and therefore subjects himself to this kind of scrutiny.



I get that, and as a Christian, I don't even agree with him...

What I do find... _odd.._. about this thread is that it was started to mock at a Christian's beliefs and has then been contributed to by a bunch of folks talking about how that's what _*Christians*_ do.  

Like I said, that knife cuts both ways...


----------



## SensibleManiac (Jan 15, 2011)

There's so much to answer here and many flaws in logic so it's a little difficult to tackle everything.
I don't mean this do be condenscending or put anyone down, because we are hinking and discussing and thaS' what's important.


I don't think the original post was making fun of beliefs per se but more of O'Reilly's reasoning. Which was because something isn't understood then there must be a God to explain it.

I also don't think christians mock peoples' beliefs or anyone is accusing them of that, I think the problem people find is that , a) many of their beliefs are clearly false, and b) they are intolerant of others beliefs, and c) the worse one of all, they place their false beliefs ahead of the truth (that which is evident), which is always a recipe for disaster.



> Wait, why are we even having this discussion here? Oh yeah... Cuz someone felt the need to say "Damn Christians, look how stupid they are in this video about tides." and started a thread. Perhaps they should realize "it is non of their business and they can keep the unwanted remarks to themselves."



If you look back at my posts you'll understand why it is everyone's business to stop misinformation and help promote reason, (and compassion).

The argument that those who believe in God feel that they are being watched so will not do wrongdoing is false.
How many catholic priests have done evil to children? Weren't they being watched? How about Al Quaida aren't they being watched? Aren't they doing wrong?

It's completely false.
However, when someone accepts logic and wants to be a good person, then they can examine the reasoning behind their actions and desires. The point being though that they have to want to be a good person. If you feel that a deity will punish you if you aren't good then are you truly good? Is your heart in it? Or are you just being manipulated?
In order to truly be good don't we have to pursue a path of understansding?

Answer this question for yourself honestly.

Telling someone they are going to hell because they don't believe in something, is wrong and propogates superstitious thinking and fear, it is manipulative and people have the right to express the truth about it. 



> Sad but it's human nature to blame.



We have to be careful here, what is human nature?
Some say it's human nature to kill, others say it's human nature not to.
Some say it's human nature to be vindictive others say it's human nature to forgive.
Usually human nature is given when people don't understand so they use the term human nature to simplify and not have to further examine the situation.
Why are some people bad? It's human nature.
Why are some people good? It's human nature.
We get nowhere with this thinking.




> Of course on the flipside of this, I can't tell you how many times I have been told that
> 
> 1) I'm a moron
> 
> ...



That's not what we're doing here and that's not what the majority of books about this subject are written on, they are written on the premise that you aren't a moron and can be reasoned with, if you question the beliefs that have been pushed on you.

You are always free to believe what ever you want, and we are free to question that.



> Quote:
> 1. I'm going to hell since I don't believe in their god
> 
> This has nothing to do with saying that you are inferior, immoral, or capable of being good.
> ...



This of course is false reasoning.



> Anyone walking east in this country can reach the Atlantic Ocean, whether you have a reference or not.


How will you know you're walking east if you don't have a compass?
You won't therefore you most likely will never reach the atlantic, my moral compass is reason and compassion, the only compass you'll ever need. 

The only one that works.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 15, 2011)

SensibleManiac said:


> How will you know you're walking east if you don't have a compass?
> You won't therefore you most likely will never reach the atlantic,


 
Walk toward the place where the *sun *rises in the morning......




SensibleManiac said:


> my moral compass is reason and compassion, the only compass you'll ever need.
> 
> The only one that works.


 
For you, anyway-I hope it works better than your metaphors do....:lol:


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 15, 2011)

SensibleManiac said:


> This of course is false reasoning.


 
And what exactly is false about the reasoning?


----------



## billc (Jan 15, 2011)

I'm sorry, but for a group of people who cannot freely roam around their own solar system to make factual statements about who or what made the universe is a little, odd.  Maybe after we are moving around a couple more galaxies and roaming the cosmos freely, we might have better questions to ask.


----------



## granfire (Jan 15, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I'm sorry, but for a group of people who cannot freely roam around their own solar system to make factual statements about who or what made the universe is a little, odd.  Maybe after we are moving around a couple more galaxies and roaming the cosmos freely, we might have better questions to ask.



Lead the way!


----------



## billc (Jan 16, 2011)

From Prager University, some thoughts on God and creation.

http://prageru.com/6.htm


----------



## Carol (Jan 16, 2011)

Lacking a moral compass = you don't share their moral compass = you don't go to their church = you are a bad person

I am not Atheist, I am Christian, and I hear the same.  My John 3:16 reads the same as theirs, but I didn't pull my Bible out from the back of the correct pew


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 16, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Nice reply 5-0 Kenpo, it is interesting to me when some people get offended when someone, especially from a more fundamental christian denomination says that if you do not take Christ as your savior you are going to hell.  First, if they are atheists, this should have no meaning, since they do not believe in heaven or hell in the first place.  Second, the christian person will usually say, if you do accept christ, you will be saved.  They are trying to save the person from what they believe is eternal suffering.  They may be wrong, there may be nothing after this life, but they are actually trying to do a good thing here.  True, not everyone in religion is a trained diplomat, so it can sound rough when you here their pitch, but if you do not believe, why be offended?



Well how would you like it if someone said that you must be such and such because you do believe?  Thats what was said to me, the christian said I must have a bad life because i'm not a theist I'm an agnostic. Thats why I get offended.

The only question I asked of my friend who joined a seventh day adventist group was that as a bisexual guy, how can he join a group and join his beliefs with the seventh day adventists, a group that doesnt believe in homosexuality or bisexuality.  He said while it was true they oppose it they are not out trying to make it illegal or impose their beliefs on other like trying to use the law and stuff. I said well ok, if you say so. He's smart enough not to join a group that would oppress him.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 16, 2011)

billcihak said:


> From Prager University, some thoughts on God and creation.
> 
> http://prageru.com/6.htm


 

Actually, most Jewish thought, and early Christian thought like Origen, Iraneus of Lyon, Augustine of Hippo and the like, says that Genesis is _allegorical_, not literal. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians contains an allegorical interpretation of Genesis:



> For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and the other by a free woman. The child of the slave was born according to the flesh; the child of the free woman was born through the promise. Now this is being allegorized: for these women are two covenants. One, indeed, is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery. This is Hagar, for Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is a slave with her children. But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother. *Galatians 4:22-26*


 
Taking Genesis literally didn't really come about until the early middle ages, so it is literally *dark* age thinking that took hold with the rise of Prostetatinism, or pre-Reformation. 

Notionally, of course, that a Creator started all of this is an idea that I'm in complete agreement with, but the concept that it is *that* that underpines all meaning and morality in the universe is more than a little specious, especially given the numerous atheists who manage to behave morally, and the somewhat amoral-if not downright immoral and vinidictive-behavior of attributed to the Creator in the Old Testament.


----------



## Cirdan (Jan 16, 2011)

The leader of the religious party here was asked if he believed gay people go to hell. He declinded to awnser because it was a "purely theological question". Right.

Any other group of decent people who is doomed to eternal hellfire?


----------



## granfire (Jan 16, 2011)

Cirdan said:


> Any other group of decent people who is doomed to eternal hellfire?



name your group and somebody thinks they are going to hell


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 16, 2011)

granfire said:


> name your group and somebody thinks they are going to hell


 
The Thursday evening bridge club for spinsters at the seniors centre.....


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 16, 2011)

granfire said:


> name your group and somebody thinks they are going to hell



We're all going to hell  i bet we've all broken at least one of the ten commandments.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 16, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> We're all going to hell  i bet we've all broken at least one of the ten commandments.


 
Actually there are several hundred commandments, but we tend to not talk about them...


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 16, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> Actually there are several hundred commandments, but we tend to not talk about them...



true lol


----------



## granfire (Jan 16, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> The Thursday evening bridge club for spinsters at the seniors centre.....




Hellbound on the Inferno Express. Don't you know cards are the tool of the devil?!


----------



## Cirdan (Jan 16, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> Actually there are several hundred commandments, but we tend to not talk about them...


 
Moses must have been pretty strong to carry that huge pile of stone tablets down from the mountain.



granfire said:


> Hellbound on the Inferno Express. Don't you know cards are the tool of the devil?!


 
According to my grandma, "playing cards and throwing dice are the devil`s vice"


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 16, 2011)

ken morgan said:


> actually there are several hundred commandments, but we tend to not talk about them...


 

613


----------



## granfire (Jan 16, 2011)

Cirdan said:


> According to my grandma, "playing cards and throwing dice are the devil`s vice"




Smart Lady!

Got time for a game of Canasta and Yazee?


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 16, 2011)

Cirdan said:


> Any other group of decent people who is doomed to eternal hellfire?


 

My people are. Then again, with all the sacrifices in Torah, looks like we like a good BBQ, so hell sounds pretty good.

And that's where all the party people are going to be.


----------



## granfire (Jan 16, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> My people are. Then again, with all the sacrifices in Torah, looks like we like a good BBQ, so hell sounds pretty good.
> 
> And that's where all the party people are going to be.



Keep a seat for me, will ya?


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 16, 2011)

How much fun can i have before I go to hell?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 16, 2011)

Carol said:


> Lacking a moral compass = you don't share their moral compass = you don't go to their church = you are a bad person
> 
> I am not Atheist, I am Christian, and I hear the same. My John 3:16 reads the same as theirs, but I didn't pull my Bible out from the back of the correct pew


 
This is *a *line of reasoning, but not the only one.

I am only trying to provide alternatives for the overwhelemingly negative belifs towards what Christians do, that is all.  I have no doubt that there are those that think that if you don't go to their particular church then you are evil.  

However, you will be hard pressed to find those who educated me in the Christian faith to say such things.  Even when I brought this thread up to my wife, she was wondering what type of Christian would say these things.


----------



## Cirdan (Jan 16, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> How much fun can i have before I go to hell?


 
Since you are already going to hell, it is just a question about where exactly you end up. Try this test:

http://www.4degreez.com/misc/dante-inferno-test.mv


My destination is here:



> *Second Level of Hell*
> 
> _Y_ou have come to a place mute of all light, where the wind bellows as the sea does in a tempest. This is the realm where the lustful spend eternity. Here, sinners are blown around endlessly by the unforgiving winds of unquenchable desire as punishment for their transgressions. The infernal hurricane that never rests hurtles the spirits onward in its rapine, whirling them round, and smiting, it molests them. You have betrayed reason at the behest of your appetite for pleasure, and so here you are doomed to remain. Cleopatra and Helen of Troy are two that share in your fate.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 16, 2011)

Surely Cirdan, you will be going to Valhalla?


----------



## Cirdan (Jan 16, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Surely Cirdan, you will be going to Valhalla?


 
True, tho I now am a bit tempted by an eternity with Cleopatra and Helen of Troy too 

Since you must die in battle to get to Valhall I figure I would go to Hell if I die by accident or old age.
(norse Hel is cold and boring so I hope King Minos will make an exception and let me into Dante`s version)


----------



## granfire (Jan 16, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Surely Cirdan, you will be going to Valhalla?



I don't know, Helen of Troy, fighting and endless pork roast...seems 2nd lvl of hell and Valhalla look a lot a like!

(I will see if we can throw a cow on the spit as well)


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 16, 2011)

Cirdan said:


> Since you are already going to hell, it is just a question about where exactly you end up. Try this test:
> 
> http://www.4degreez.com/misc/dante-inferno-test.mv


 
I answered absolutely honestly.....Oh...this can't be good...
*Sixth Level of Hell - The City of Dis*

_Y_ou approach Satan's wretched city where you behold a wide plain surrounded by iron walls. Before you are fields full of distress and torment terrible. Burning tombs are littered about the landscape. Inside these flaming sepulchers suffer the heretics, failing to believe in God and the afterlife, who make themselves audible by doleful sighs. You will join the wicked that lie here, and will be offered no respite. The three infernal Furies stained with blood, with limbs of women and hair of serpents, dwell in this circle of Hell.



*Here is how you matched up against all the levels:*

*(*

*Level**Who are sent there?**Score**Purgatory* Repenting Believers Very Low*Level 1 - Limbo* Virtuous Non-Believers Very Low*Level 2* Lustful Very High*Level 3* Gluttonous High*Level 4* Prodigal and Avaricious High*Level 5* Wrathful and Gloomy Very High*Level 6 - The City of Dis* Heretics Extreme*Level 7* Violent High*Level 8- the Malebolge* Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers Very High*Level 9 - Cocytus* Treacherous Very High


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 16, 2011)

granfire said:


> I don't know, Helen of Troy, fighting and endless pork roast...seems 2nd lvl of hell and Valhalla look a lot a like!
> 
> (*I will see if we can throw a cow on the spit as well*)


 
Do we really want Sarah Palin there as well?


----------



## granfire (Jan 16, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Do we really want Sarah Palin there as well?



uhhhhhh........

got me there... I am sure there will somebody there to be her punishment tho...


----------



## Carol (Jan 16, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> I answered absolutely honestly.....Oh...this can't be good...
> *Sixth Level of Hell - The City of Dis*




You did better than I did, you were only a heretic.  I'm one of the violent ones so I'm going down to the 7th level of hell.  

Just walk quietly on my ceiling mmmkay?


----------



## granfire (Jan 16, 2011)

oh damn
5th level of hell...

<shrug> then again , I knew I was EVUL.....



> he river Styx runs through this level of Hell, and in it are punished the wrathful and the gloomy. The former are forever lashing out at each other in anger, furious and naked, tearing each other piecemeal with their teeth. The latter are gurgling in the black mud, slothful and sullen, withdrawn from the world. Their lamentations bubble to the surface as they try to repeat a doleful hymn, though with unbroken words they cannot say it. Because you lived a cruel, vindictive and hateful life, you meet your fate in the Styx.



(I bet checking 'female' knocks you down 3 level....)


----------



## SensibleManiac (Jan 16, 2011)

> Walk toward the place where the sun rises in the morning......



Then you are using THAT as your compass. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SensibleManiac  


> my moral compass is reason and compassion, the only compass you'll ever need.
> 
> The only one that works.


 



> For you, anyway-I hope it works better than your metaphors do....



At least there is proof behind it.

Actually the place I first was made deeply aware of the importance of compassion was in reading (I believe) it was Proverbs, in the healing of a leper. It was Jesus himself who was purported with saying that without it the laws don't matter. That the highest place a person could come from was from compassion.

This did deeply influence me and I studied on it further.

I never said there was nothing good about religion.

Just that reason and compassion were more important barometers for our morality than religion which is actualy quite limited.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Jan 16, 2011)

Oh yeah, and...



> name your group and somebody thinks they are going to hell
> 
> The Thursday evening bridge club for spinsters at the seniors centre.....



For sure they are going to hell, everyone knows that club it just an excuse for old folks to meet and get laid...:EG:


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2011)

SensibleManiac said:


> Oh yeah, and...
> 
> 
> 
> For sure they are going to hell, everyone knows that club it just an excuse for old folks to meet and get laid...:EG:


 
Don't be so sure that's a joke. It just gets better as you get older!


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 17, 2011)

Cirdan said:


> Since you are already going to hell, it is just a question about where exactly you end up. Try this test:
> 
> http://www.4degreez.com/misc/dante-inferno-test.mv
> 
> ...



mine is here:

*The wretched King Minos has decided your fate.  His tale wraps around his body 5 times.*

* The sweet light no longer strikes against your eyes.  Your shade has been banished to... the Fifth Level of Hell! *​ 
*Fifth Level of Hell*

_T_he river Styx runs through this level of Hell,  and in it are punished the wrathful and the gloomy.  The former are  forever lashing out at each other in anger, furious and naked, tearing  each other piecemeal with their teeth.  The latter are gurgling in the  black mud, slothful and sullen, withdrawn from the world.  Their  lamentations bubble to the surface as they try to repeat a doleful hymn,  though with unbroken words they cannot say it.  Because you lived a  cruel, vindictive and hateful life, you meet your fate in the Styx.


*Here is how you matched up against all the levels:*

*(Click on a level for more info)*

*Level**Who are sent there?**Score* *Purgatory*  Repenting Believers Very Low     *Level 1 - Limbo*  Virtuous Non-Believers Moderate     *Level 2*  Lustful High     *Level 3*  Gluttonous Low     *Level 4*  Prodigal and Avaricious Very Low     *Level 5*  Wrathful and Gloomy Extreme     *Level 6 - The City of Dis*  Heretics Very High     *Level 7*  Violent Extreme     *Level 8- the Malebolge*  Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers High     *Level 9 - Cocytus*  Treacherous Low


----------



## Cirdan (Jan 17, 2011)

Wow, all you girls are judged for your wrathful and violent natures.. is it that time of month?

Looks like we are going to have the party on the fifth too, travel distance considered. Carol bring some fire from the seventh so we can get the BBQ started please.

No gluttons, avaricious, frauds or traitors yet tho (souldn`t be suprised since this is MT).. and of course no repentant souls


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 17, 2011)

SensibleManiac said:


> Just that reason and compassion were more important barometers for our morality than religion which is actualy quite limited.


 
Interesting.

Reason has been used to commit some of the world's greatest attrocities.

Compassion is an arbitrary concept.  Is it more compassionate to spank a child to teach a lesson and prevent further wrongdoing or not?  You'll get vigorous debate on both sides of the issue here.  

Combining the two, who do we use our reasonable compassion to help?  Is it reasonable to hurt others who are further away from us in order to help those closer to us, whether emotionally or geographically, or by what ever other measure you would use.

Just trying to figure out how they are more important barometers then religion.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 17, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Just trying to figure out how they are more important barometers then religion.



Religion is not arbitrary?  Religion is not used to justify immoral behavior?

The root of all religion is subject to Socrates' incisive question:

"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

What is pious (moral) is either arbitrary based on the desires of a god or independent of divinity.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 17, 2011)

TEZ, did I miss it? What level of Hell are you going to? Inquiring minds wish to know... :angel:


----------



## granfire (Jan 17, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> TEZ, did I miss it? What level of Hell are you going to? Inquiring minds wish to know... :angel:




She'll rule from the bottom of the pit, making Satan wish she never crossed the threshhold!


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 17, 2011)

granfire said:


> She'll rule from the bottom of the pit, making Satan wish she never crossed the threshhold!


 
Satan will be TEZ's *****.


----------



## Cirdan (Jan 17, 2011)

granfire said:


> She'll rule from the bottom of the pit, making Satan wish she never crossed the threshhold!


 
She`ll be stuck in purgatory since neither side dare let her in. I think she should consider converting so she can join me in Valhalla instead.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> TEZ, did I miss it? What level of Hell are you going to? Inquiring minds wish to know... :angel:


 
Er actually it is Purgatory! I don't know what to say about the rest lol!


----------



## billc (Jan 17, 2011)

"Those who are merciful when they must be cruel, will, in the end, be cruel to those who deserve mercy."


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 17, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Religion is not arbitrary?


 
I never made a comment on the arbitrariness, or lack thereof, regarding religion.  I merely represented the fact that the reason coupled with compassion can be cruel and arbitrary itself.  Therefore, I questioned how it can be "better barometer".

However, religious rules are only arbitrary if they are not true.  Nothing of the kind can be said for reason coupled with compassion.  



> Religion is not used to justify immoral behavior?


 
I said no such thing.



> The root of all religion is subject to Socrates' incisive question:
> 
> "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"


 
Not really. 

For instance, Christianity answered the fact that God (of the Bible) loves all mankind, therefore that question is answered. 

Not all religions have gods, therefore this question would be irrelevant.



> What is pious (moral) is either arbitrary based on the desires of a god or independent of divinity.


 
This poses an interesting question, but ultimately irrelevant to our discussion.

If god is the ultimate creator of the existence and all that it entails, and nothing exist but by it's will, then god has the right to make up such rules as he sees fit.  Just like your job, you can choose not to obey the rules of the gods in terms of morallity, but then you suffer the consequences.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 17, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I never made a comment on the arbitrariness, or lack thereof, regarding religion.  I merely represented the fact that the reason coupled with compassion can be cruel and arbitrary itself.  Therefore, I questioned how it can be "better barometer".



Because a more meaningful and non-arbitrary set of guiding morality can be developed.  One that doesn't rely on Authority without justification.  Perhaps in any one instance, it will not be a better barometer.  Overall though, it has the potential to be much greater.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> However, religious rules are only arbitrary if they are not true.  Nothing of the kind can be said for reason coupled with compassion.



There are many non-arbitrary standards one could develop such a standard by.  Utilitarianism, for instance.  Of course, I suppose you could claim a desire to avoid harm, or to produce the greatest good is in itself arbitrary, but given the clear preferences of billions of people and the overwhelming evidence that pain, happiness, fear and the like are all real, it basically becomes solipsism.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> For instance, Christianity answered the fact that God (of the Bible) loves all mankind, therefore that question is answered.


 
That answers nothing.  God's love has nothing to do with whether his love as a moral good or moral guide is based on his own subjective desires, or if love is good independent of God's desires.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> Not all religions have gods, therefore this question would be irrelevant.



All religions offer proscriptions on behavior, and a claim as to what is moral behavior.  If those religions use the supernatural as an explanation for this morality, then the question is valid.  If those religions do not use the supernatural as an explanation for anything, then they probably aren't religions.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> This poses an interesting question, but ultimately irrelevant to our discussion.
> 
> If god is the ultimate creator of the existence and all that it entails, and nothing exist but by it's will, then god has the right to make up such rules as he sees fit.  Just like your job, you can choose not to obey the rules of the gods in terms of morallity, but then you suffer the consequences.



So certain behaviors are moral because and only because God will punish you if you do not obey?  What does morality even mean in such a context?  If certain Bibles are to be believed, God once commanded Abraham to kill his son in God's honor.  Murder thus becomes moral because God says so?  Genocide of the Canaanites becomes moral because God says so?  Wholesale rape of the Canaanite women becomes moral because God says so?

If so, then all of us here are more moral than God.

This is exactly what Socrates was getting at.  Arbitrary desires are one answer to the question, and not a very satisfying one.


----------



## billc (Jan 17, 2011)

the meaning of Abraham's story is that human sacrifice is no longer to be allowed, as part of worshiping God.  That is from the experts on the old testament.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 17, 2011)

billcihak said:


> That is from the experts on the old testament.



Name 2. :lol:


----------



## billc (Jan 17, 2011)

It's been a while and they were radio interviews.  But that is the reason for the Abraham story.


----------



## billc (Jan 17, 2011)

Not my original source, but it can be found.

"There is no reference to this  episode anywhere else in the Bible.  Nor does it feature very prominently in post-biblical Jewish literature until the third century CE.  Some biblical scholars, Jews included, have read the story as a protest against human sacrifice, the significant point being that the angel intervenes to prevent the murder as an obscene act that God, unlike the pagan deities, hates and could never really have intended. 

But in traditional Jewish thought, the Akedah is used as a paradigm for Jewish martyrdom; the Jewish people are ready at all times to give up life itself for the sake of the sanctification of the divine name (Kiddush Ha-Shem)."


----------



## granfire (Jan 17, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Name 2. :lol:



I settle for one....Other than Stossel...


----------



## billc (Jan 17, 2011)

From wikipedia:

But according to Rabbi J. H. Hertz (Chief Rabbi of the British Empire), child sacrifice was actually "rife among the Semitic peoples," and suggests that "in that age, it was astounding that Abraham's God should have interposed to prevent the sacrifice, not that He should have asked for it." Hertz interprets the Akedah as demonstrating to the Jews that human sacrifice is abhorrent. "Unlike the cruel heathen deities, it was the spiritual surrender alone that God required." In Jeremiah 32:35, God states that the later Israelite practice of child sacrifice to the deity Molech "had [never] entered My mind that they should do this abomination."

You were saying?


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 17, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Some biblical scholars, Jews included, have read the story as a protest against human sacrifice, the significant point being that the angel intervenes to prevent the murder as an obscene act that God, unlike the pagan deities, hates and could never really have intended.



And yet God honored Abraham for his willingness to sacrifice his son on God's word.  How much could He have hated the practice if He was willing to honor Abraham for being willing to go through with it?

Sounds like a little post-hoc rationalization to me.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 17, 2011)

billcihak said:


> You were saying?



So what about wholesale genocide and rape?

How about actually addressing the point instead of getting bogged down into the minutiae of one example used to illustrate the point?


----------



## billc (Jan 17, 2011)

I am not at bible study class, I have other posts to type to annoy you guys.


----------



## billc (Jan 17, 2011)

Last Bible study topic for me.  Dennis Prager has lectured on the old testament for about twenty years(?) and he relates the difference in the story of Noah's flood.  He points out that off all the cultures that have flood stories with god's involved, the Hebrew God is the only one who saves Noah because he is a good man.  The others save the various humans because they like them, with no emphasis on behavior.  Thank you and good night, I will be here all week, please let the hateful rhetoric begin.


----------



## granfire (Jan 17, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I am not at bible study class, I have other posts to type to annoy you guys.





billcihak said:


> Last Bible study topic for me.  Dennis Prager has lectured on the old testament for about twenty years(?) and he relates the difference in the story of Noah's flood.  He points out that off all the cultures that have flood stories with god's involved, the Hebrew God is the only one who saves Noah because he is a good man.  The others save the various humans because they like them, with no emphasis on behavior.  Thank you and good night, I will be here all week, please let the hateful rhetoric begin.



Yeah, Prager was the other 'expert' I am motion to exclude.

You really need to broaden your sources...you are too predictable...


----------



## billc (Jan 17, 2011)

Actually, Prager was the expert on Noah.  I used two other randomly found passages on Abraham using google.  So, two for Abraham, and one for noah.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 17, 2011)

G-d does not save Noah because he was a good man. Noah was 'righteous in his generation'. That phrase has been interpreted to mean that Noah was not righteous like say, Abrahem or Moses, but that he was the best available.


And the meaning of the Akedah is still being debated.

You do understand that the position of Chief Rabbi of the British Empire, is a ceremonial political appointment, right? That while the Rabbi chosen is indeed knowledgable, he does not represent the entire Jewish thought.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 18, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> G-d does not save Noah because he was a good man. Noah was 'righteous in his generation'. That phrase has been interpreted to mean that Noah was not righteous like say, Abrahem or Moses, but that he was the best available.
> 
> 
> And the meaning of the Akedah is still being debated.
> ...


 

Bill,The Chief Rabbi doesn't even represent all Jewish thought in the UK let alone anywhere else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Sacks

"As the spiritual head of the United Synagogue, the largest synagogue body in the UK, he is the Chief Rabbi of the mainstream British Orthodox synagogues, but not the religious authority for the Federation of Synagogues or the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations or the other movements, Masorti, Reform and Liberal Judaism"

The one we have now is lovely brilliant man but not the authority on everything Jewish, in fact I  find unimaginable that you could ever find such a person! 

Of course there's always Google or Fiddler on the Roof.

Prager isn't THE expert on Noah, any Jewish scholar can give you his expert opinion. I suggest you ask as many as you can find.


----------



## Carol (Jan 18, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Bill,The Chief Rabbi doesn't even represent all Jewish thought in the UK let alone anywhere else.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Sacks
> 
> "As the spiritual head of the United Synagogue, the largest synagogue body in the UK, he is the Chief Rabbi of the mainstream British Orthodox synagogues, but not the religious authority for the Federation of Synagogues or the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations or the other movements, Masorti, Reform and Liberal Judaism"
> ...



So WOULD it spoil some vast eternal plan if I were a wealthy man?  :lol2:


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 18, 2011)

Carol said:


> So WOULD it spoil some vast eternal plan if I were a wealthy man? :lol2:


 
I doubt it would spoil any plan if you were wealthy but the man thing, well maybe....


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 18, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I am not at bible study class, I have other posts to type to annoy you guys.



So you have no answer to the challenge, and can't defend your position.  Got it.

And yet, in some future thread I am sure you will repeat the same claims even though they have been challenged and shown to be false previously, to which you could not respond.  Why not, that's pretty much your MO.


----------



## billc (Jan 18, 2011)

I find a quick jewish biblical scholar, at least someone who has studied the old testament and he isn't good enough.  I find another source and that isn't good enough.  the sources I found point to their being at least one interpretation of the Abraham story that deals with the end of human sacrifice.  Obviously, there is some thought out there, among scholars, that this is an interpretation of the Abraham story.  As far as the rest, I didn't plan on going into a bible discussion, I just thought I would add one point of view on the Abraham story.  You got me.  I am not going to discuss every aspect of the old and new testament on this thread.  Not a big area of interest for me.  In my wandering on the radio, I heard about the Abraham idea, and I decided to share it.  The same for Noah.  I'll see you on the thread about "torture, is it so 2010?"

I never said Prager or the other Rabbi were anything other than people knowledgeable about the old testament.  I don't recall saying anything at all about the Rabbi to the british empire other than he was the first guy on google that talked about Abraham.  My original source was years ago on a radio interview.   You guys are really good.  Can't get anything past you lefties.  I am deeply impressed.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 18, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I am not at bible study class, I have other posts to type to annoy you guys.



lol


----------



## SensibleManiac (Jan 18, 2011)

> Reason has been used to commit some of the world's greatest attrocities.



This is not reason but rationalizing.

There is a big difference between rationalizing and being rational.

Quickly, rationalizing is trying to find reasons to back you up. Being rational is applying reason to the situation.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 18, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I find a quick jewish biblical scholar, at least someone who has studied the old testament and he isn't good enough. I find another source and that isn't good enough. the sources I found point to their being at least one interpretation of the Abraham story that deals with the end of human sacrifice. Obviously, there is some thought out there, among scholars, that this is an interpretation of the Abraham story. As far as the rest, I didn't plan on going into a bible discussion, I just thought I would add one point of view on the Abraham story. You got me. I am not going to discuss every aspect of the old and new testament on this thread. Not a big area of interest for me. In my wandering on the radio, I heard about the Abraham idea, and I decided to share it. The same for Noah. I'll see you on the thread about "torture, is it so 2010?"
> 
> I never said Prager or the other Rabbi were anything other than people knowledgeable about the old testament. I don't recall saying anything at all about the Rabbi to the british empire other than he was the first guy on google that talked about Abraham. My original source was years ago on a radio interview. You guys are really good. Can't get anything past you lefties. I am deeply impressed.


 
Actually you don't know which way I vote or who I vote for.

To get a good feel of Jewish thoughts you need to talk to a lot of Jewish scholars, honestly lots and lots.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 18, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I find a quick jewish biblical scholar, at least someone who has studied the old testament and he isn't good enough. I find another source and that isn't good enough. the sources I found point to their being at least one interpretation of the Abraham story that deals with the end of human sacrifice. Obviously, there is some thought out there, among scholars, that this is an interpretation of the Abraham story. As far as the rest, I didn't plan on going into a bible discussion, I just thought I would add one point of view on the Abraham story. You got me. I am not going to discuss every aspect of the old and new testament on this thread. Not a big area of interest for me. In my wandering on the radio, I heard about the Abraham idea, and I decided to share it. The same for Noah. I'll see you on the thread about "torture, is it so 2010?"
> 
> I never said Prager or the other Rabbi were anything other than people knowledgeable about the old testament. I don't recall saying anything at all about the Rabbi to the british empire other than he was the first guy on google that talked about Abraham. My original source was years ago on a radio interview. You guys are really good. Can't get anything past you lefties. I am deeply impressed.


 

A few things. Prager is no Torah scholar. Most of the members of my synagogue could run circles around him. And if you knew anything about Jewish Torah study, you would know that a lot of interpretations are bandied about. Some really far fetched. Some brought up just to generate an argument and to look at the text in a different light. 

Don't mind you bringing it up, but Tez and I are in a better position to let you know what the normative Jewish position is. We have no agenda. If you keep it civil, feel free to discuss. And what does we pointing out flaws in your argument have to do with 'the left'?


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 18, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> To get a good feel of Jewish thoughts you need to talk to a lot of Jewish scholars, honestly lots and lots.


 
Bill, ever heard the expression "2 Jews, 3 opinions"? 

I've heard Jewish scholars argue both sides of a debate. We argue and interpret Torah for fun. 

3 Jews, a Torah, bagels, cream cheese, some scmaltz herring, maybe a little schnaps and we'll be there all day. :ultracool


----------



## granfire (Jan 18, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> Bill, ever heard the expression "2 Jews, 3 opinions"?
> 
> I've heard Jewish scholars argue both sides of a debate. We argue and interpret Torah for fun.
> 
> 3 Jews, a Torah, bagels, cream cheese, some scmaltz herring, maybe a little schnaps and we'll be there all day. :ultracool




He should watch 'Yentl'


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 18, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> Bill, ever heard the expression "2 Jews, 3 opinions"?
> 
> I've heard Jewish scholars argue both sides of a debate. We argue and interpret Torah for fun.
> 
> 3 Jews, a Torah, bagels, cream cheese, some scmaltz herring, maybe a little schnaps and we'll be there all day. :ultracool


 
Exactly, that's why I suggested he talks to lot and lots of Jewish scholars lol, it'd keep him away from here for weeks! 

Bill's idea of finding a '_quick_ Jewish Biblical scholar' had me laughing loudly.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 18, 2011)

Here's an insight on how Torah study works.

On the day after the holiday of Simchat Torah, we restart the annual cycle of reading Torah. The study leader opens a copy of Torah at Genesis 1:1. He reads "B'reshit' and asks why does Torah starts with the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet? 4 hours later, we break for lunch...

There is no such thing as a "quick Jewish scholar".


----------



## granfire (Jan 18, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> Here's an insight on how Torah study works.
> 
> On the day after the holiday of Simchat Torah, we restart the annual cycle of reading Torah. The study leader opens a copy of Torah at Genesis 1:1. He reads "B'reshit' and asks why does Torah starts with the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet? 4 hours later, we break for lunch...
> 
> There is no such thing as a "quick Jewish scholar".




LOL!!!

( Igues bible study I so much easier...the preacher says so, done...)


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 18, 2011)

granfire said:


> LOL!!!
> 
> ( Igues bible study I so much easier...the preacher says so, done...)


 
We don't have preachers/priest/vicars whatever to tell us what things mean. There's no sitting down and being idle by letting others tell you, it has to be worked at.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 18, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> We don't have preachers/priest/vicars whatever to tell us what things mean. There's no sitting down and being idle by letting others tell you, it has to be worked at.


 
How can you be sitting down when you constently have to get up for another bagel? :uhyeah:


----------



## granfire (Jan 18, 2011)

I prefer Latkes...


----------



## elder999 (Jan 18, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> Bill, ever heard the expression "2 Jews, 3 opinions"?
> 
> I've heard Jewish scholars argue both sides of a debate. We argue and interpret Torah for fun.
> 
> 3 Jews, a Torah, bagels, cream cheese, some scmaltz herring, maybe a little schnaps and we'll be there all day. :ultracool


 

Hence the implied question in my post: _name two. _That, and it's about all I can type on a 'droid.....:lol:


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 18, 2011)

granfire said:


> I prefer Latkes...


 

Really?? I much prefered Elaine....


----------



## elder999 (Jan 18, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Last Bible study topic for me. Dennis Prager has lectured on the old testament for about twenty years(?) and he relates the difference in the story of Noah's flood. He points out that off all the cultures that have flood stories with god's involved, the Hebrew God is the only one who saves Noah because he is a good man. The others save the various humans because they like them, with no emphasis on behavior. Thank you and good night, I will be here all week, please let the hateful rhetoric begin.


 
And yet that same God continued to support King David, because he "loves" him, in spite of his being a drunken,deceitful, traitorous, injust, possibly bisexual, adulterous murderer......who really knew how to repent.:lol:


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 19, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Because a more meaningful and non-arbitrary set of guiding morality can be developed. One that doesn't rely on Authority without justification. *Perhaps in any one instance, it will not be a better barometer*. Overall though, it has the potential to be much greater.


 
Two things with this. 

One, we may have to disagree on whether reason would be a better barometer. I suppose that if you live in a vacuum wherein logic is the only thing that one uses to make decisions, then you may be right. But people *always *infuse certain aspects into their reasoning, such as cultural norms, emotions, etc. Having that understanding, perfect reasoning can never exist. It will always be biased. Until the point where we evolve into Vulcans, that is.

The bolded part is really what I was trying to emphasize, however. There are times when religion may be better, or reason may be better. It all depends on what you are trying to address. I love reasoning with people and showing them how much smarter I am then them. :boing2:



> There are many non-arbitrary standards one could develop such a standard by. Utilitarianism, for instance. Of course, I suppose you could claim a desire to avoid harm, or to produce the greatest good is in itself arbitrary, but given the clear preferences of billions of people and the overwhelming evidence that pain, happiness, fear and the like are all real, it basically becomes solipsism.


 
It's not just that. Even if the standard is avoiding harm, for instance, one would have to determine what harm is. As expressed by my previous example, is it more harmful to spank a child for their wrongdoing, or spare the rod, so to speak. 

What is the greatest good? Is it the greatest good that I illegally search a gangster's car that a reliable informant told me contains assault weapons which he is going to use to kill someone? Or is following the rule of law regarding search and seizures better? 

The fact of the matter is is that subject to interpretation, both can produce "good" results, and reasonable people can disagree over the sound logic and reasoning behind their approaches. 



> That answers nothing. God's love has nothing to do with whether his love as a moral good or moral guide is based on his own subjective desires, or if love is good independent of God's desires.


 
It addresses your comment. I wasn't arguing about god's love being moral or not. I was addressing the comment regarding Socrates' central question to be asked of all religions. The question does not apply to all religions.

Or perhaps I misunderstood your intent in posting it. 




> All religions offer proscriptions on behavior, and a claim as to what is moral behavior. If those religions use the supernatural as an explanation for this morality, then the question is valid.


 
That would be to make the argument that it is the primary intent of the gods of various religious is to be loved by man or to love man. That's just not true. For instance, Shintoism does not demand the love of an all-powerful god. Therefore the question is invalid.



> If those religions do not use the supernatural as an explanation for anything, then they probably aren't religions.


 
Yes, but supernatural does not have to necessarily include a god. Therefore, you can have a religion without a god, and therefore, once again, Socrates' question is irrelevant. Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism. These are all non-theistic religions that do not depend on love to or from a god.



> So certain behaviors are moral because and only because God will punish you if you do not obey?


 
If that is how you frame the debate, then so be it. But I don't.

If you are refering to the Christian religion (as this is the only theistic religion that I can claim to have any detailed knowledge of), you can engage is behavior that is moral by God's standards and still not be "saved". Not only that, but God recognizes that all men are sinful, and fall short of God's demands, but are still "rewarded" with heaven.

Hence, it is not moral behavior which is the issue, but one's belief in God. One will choose to behave in a moral fashion if one believes in God, but nothing says that only those who believe in God can act morally. 



> What does morality even mean in such a context?


 
If you mean the context of "I make the rules of the universe and all things exist based on my will alone, even you," then it means everything.



> If certain Bibles are to be believed, God once commanded Abraham to kill his son in God's honor. Murder thus becomes moral because God says so?


 
If God, the objective ruler of all existance, tells you to kill someone, then is it murder, which is a legal definition.



> Genocide of the Canaanites becomes moral because God says so? Wholesale rape of the Canaanite women becomes moral because God says so?


 
If God, the objective ruler of all existance, tells you to kill someone, then is it murder, which is a legal definition? As one Christian apologist has said: "Does not the potter have the right over the clay, to make some vessels for noble uses and some for profane uses? Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?

And where do you get your information regarding the rape of Canaanite women? It's certainly not in the Bibles I have read.




> If so, then all of us here are more moral than God.


 
That is a matter of perspective. If God is indeed real and makes up all the rules, then no, we are not. 



> This is exactly what Socrates was getting at. Arbitrary desires are one answer to the question, and not a very satisfying one.


 
I don't get how asking about the nature of the relationship between love and god reflects an arbitrary desire, but then I have not read the entire context of the text.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 19, 2011)

SensibleManiac said:


> This is not reason but rationalizing.
> 
> There is a big difference between rationalizing and being rational.
> 
> Quickly, rationalizing is trying to find reasons to back you up. Being rational is applying reason to the situation.


 
Not so much.  From the DSM-IV, rationalization occurs "when the individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by concealing the true motivations for his or her own thoughts, actions, or feelings throught the elaboration of reassuring or self-serving but incorrect explanations."

What you are forgetting is the factors included in reason in regards to moral questions include societal norms, ignorance of information, or even moral factors being raised. 

As the famous question is posed, which is more moral:  steal a drug to save a life, or refrain from theft and let the person die.  These are moral questions, not just reasoned questions.  How does one make a reasoned decision on which to base their behavior in this context?  Both will have reasoned thoughts, none of which will be satisfactorily answer the moral dilema.

The same thing goes with larger issues.  I need "X" from this group of people for my country to survive, however, they are refusing to trade in a manner that allows me to do so.  Do I do nothing, causing my people to suffer, or kill them in order to secure what I need.  Was the "coup" of the English colonies against Great Britain moral or immoral based on "reasoning".  You will get several answers, depending on who you talk to, few of whom would call it "rationalizing".  

It wouldn't be true in the definitive sense.  We can argue wheter the reasons are valid or sound (as some people are wrong, not intentionally, but through lack of information), but to call it rationalization would be incorrect.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 19, 2011)

elder999 said:


> And yet that same God continued to support King David, because he "loves" him, in spite of his being a drunken,deceitful, traitorous, injust, possibly bisexual, adulterous murderer......who really knew how to repent.:lol:


 

Let me not to the marriage of true minds

[FONT=arial,helvetica]	Admit impediments. Love is not love[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Which alters when it alteration finds,[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]	Or bends with the remover to remove:[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]O no! it is an ever-fixed mark[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]	That looks on tempests and is never shaken;[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]It is the star to every wandering bark,[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]	Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]	Within his bending sickle's compass come:[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]	But bears it out even to the edge of doom.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]If this be error and upon me proved,[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]	I never writ, nor no man ever loved.[/FONT]



[FONT=arial,helvetica]			 William Shakespeare   [/FONT]


the only type of love worth having is unconditional love, goes for religion as well as life.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Jan 20, 2011)

> That is a matter of perspective. If God is indeed real and makes up all the rules, then no, we are not.



So then I could kill someone and say that God told me to and I would be right?
Let's add that I was on LSD and hallucinating that god told me to kill, is that your idea of morality?
According to your post, that's morality.





> Not so much. From the DSM-IV, rationalization occurs "when the individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by concealing the true motivations for his or her own thoughts, actions, or feelings throught the elaboration of reassuring or self-serving but incorrect explanations."
> 
> What you are forgetting is the factors included in reason in regards to moral questions include societal norms, ignorance of information, or even moral factors being raised.



Your post proves that what you are saying is wrong.

Emotion, societal norms, and ignorance can not be used as excuses for a crime in a court of law, what are you saying that God would approve of what we know is wrong in a court of law.
If someone was a rapist, then claims he was brought up in a culture that has no respect for women, is that an excuse for his immoral behaviour?
If someone claimed he didn't know it was wrong to rape and murder because his mother taught him it was right since he was a child, does that mean it's moral for him to behave that way?

This is rationalization, (I didn't know any better,) it won't hold up in a court of law and definitely can't be confused as being moral.

Many criminals rationalize after the fact that they were right, they're just trying to find reasons to justify their actions, which BTW has absolutely nothing to do with being rational, and using reason. If they were using reason they would not have commited those crimes to begin with.
And that my friends is why I am a huge proponent of reason.

We don't need to become vulcans, we can still have emotion and especially love and compassion, we just don't need to be enslaved by our emotions.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 22, 2011)

SensibleManiac said:


> So then I could kill someone and say that God told me to and I would be right?
> Let's add that I was on LSD and hallucinating that god told me to kill, is that your idea of morality?
> According to your post, that's morality.


 
You know, when I read this I wasn't sure if you were making a joke or not.  But I'll take you at your word.

No, I did not say that just because you *said* or even believed that God told you to kill someone then it would be all right.  Neither did I say that ingesting a hallucinagenic drug would make the act of killing someone moral because they believed God spoke to them.

What I said was that if the *actual God* of the universe, arbiter of all that is right and wrong, orders you to kill someone, then by it's very nature the act is the right one.  




> Your post proves that what you are saying is wrong.
> 
> Emotion, societal norms, and ignorance can not be used as excuses for a crime in a court of law, what are you saying that God would approve of what we know is wrong in a court of law.


 
Since when did we begin to speak about the law?  Not only that, but what does the law have to do with morality?  Are you telling me that if I don't wear a motorcycle helmet in a state that requres it that I am then an immoral person.  Not only that, but since some states require motorcycle helmets and some do not, does that mean that one state's law are moral and the other's are not? 

But to continue on your irrelevant tangent, what if it is perfectly all right in a country to commit what we in the U.S. would call spousal rape, as they do in some Middle Eastern countries?  Are they moral or immoral people?  According to your argument, they are moral because they haven't violated any laws.

We don't allow stoning in this country because it would be against the Constitution's Eighth Amendment.  But some countries do.  Which country is the moral one?  On what basis do you make the claim that one is more moral then the other.

By the way, laws are often based on societal norms.



> If someone was a rapist, then claims he was brought up in a culture that has no respect for women, is that an excuse for his immoral behaviour?
> If someone claimed he didn't know it was wrong to rape and murder because his mother taught him it was right since he was a child, does that mean it's moral for him to behave that way?


 
Who says that it's immoral?  Is it based on your personal beliefs?  Mine?  The collective moral belief of the United States?  Morality is a culturally based concept.  

It's funny, because unless you believe in an over-arching power which controls the universe, there can be no reasoned hypothesis that something is objectively immoral, only subjectively so.  You can base it on some type of Utilitarianism philosophy, but even then what is most utilitarian will be subject to debate depending on your goal.

Besides, even in your argument, one's actions still would not negate the laws of this country just because one thinks one's actions are moral.  





> This is rationalization, (I didn't know any better,) it won't hold up in a court of law and definitely can't be confused as being moral.


 
Once again, you are equating morallity with the law, or even more precise, you are advocating that violating the law is immoral.  To that end, you are saying that all laws are moral.  So I guess Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was an immoral man.



> Many criminals rationalize after the fact that they were right, they're just trying to find reasons to justify their actions, which BTW has absolutely nothing to do with being rational, and using reason. If they were using reason they would not have commited those crimes to begin with.
> And that my friends is why I am a huge proponent of reason.


 
Rationalization occurs when there is an inner emotional conflict, as I said before and you conveinently disregarded.  If a person truely believes that what they did was correct action, then there is no need for rationalization because there is not internal emotional conflict.

Once again, seeing as how you have come to equate the law with morallity, I can easily show how slavery, segregation, and the lynching of free black men are moral, because it was legal.  



> We don't need to become vulcans, we can still have emotion and especially love and compassion, we just don't need to be enslaved by our emotions.


 
This is actually a point that I can agree with you.  We shouldn't be slaves to our emotions, and we should use reason.  My point, though, is that reason is not the objective standard that you seem to say that it is, and can be flawed / limited based on limited knowledge / understanding and cultural standards.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Jan 22, 2011)

Ok, believe it or not I agree with you about the law and morality, the two are separate on most levels.
That is not my point.
My point is that the law is loosely based around morality AND many other factors. However a COURT of law depends on evidence and not loose ideas that people have, which I will get to in a second.

BTW the argument you make about morality being subjective is crazy,lol.

Ok, it's very true that what people regard as moral is subjective and culturally dependant but that doesn't make morality on a level that we can develop truly subjective.

It's completely idiotic, (and many would argue a liberal viewpoint) that the law is subjective. Which I'm not sure if you are arguing, (I understand that you are arguing that morality is subjective.

So if my culture thinks it's right to kill infidels then you believe that morally I'm right?

That's ridiculous.
It's immoral and just becauee some cultures have rididulous views of morality then that doesn't make them right (ours included.)

Now on to my point, 


> What I said was that if the actual God of the universe, arbiter of all that is right and wrong, orders you to kill someone, then by it's very nature the act is the right one.



So since the (actual) God of the universe, BTW does this refer to only our universe or others as well, do they have other gods? Where is your proof, Oh I forgot, you for some reason don't need any, because accordng to billcihak's argument, god is above and beyond nature. 
So my simple question is, if we have no way of relating to God, because he is completely above nature, then how are we ever to understand that he's ordering us to do anything?
How would he order us and how are we supposed to know, BTW most people who are hallucinating be it because of madness or drugs aren't able to tell the difference between their hallucination and reality.
So how would they know, according to your thinking, they are right to think anything and do anything sfter all according to your above sentence they are right because they believe the are doing gods will, just like terrorists, right???

Wrong, in reality we can base our morality on logic, does this mean we'll have all the answers, probably not, but we're way better off than subjective cultural norms.
When based on logic and well being, we get alot further in terms of progress and sanity than anything else seems to be able to bring us

BTW if there are many typos, sorry I'm typing as fast as possible because I'm pressed for time.


----------



## billc (Jan 22, 2011)

I would say that he makes himself known when he has to.  You'll know it when he wants you to know it.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 23, 2011)

SensibleManiac said:


> Ok, believe it or not I agree with you about the law and morality, the two are separate on most levels.
> That is not my point.


 
I had no other way to address it.  You said that criminals rationalize their behavior in order to justify it, but that the breaking of the law was morally wrong.  I simply posted examples of where violating the law was actually more moral the following it.



> My point is that the law is loosely based around morality AND many other factors. However a COURT of law depends on evidence and not loose ideas that people have, which I will get to in a second.


 
Some law is based around morality.  It depends on where you are, and what era you are in.  Tell me how the massive legislation regarding slavery, segragation, lynching, etc. were "loosely based around morality."

And have you ever been on a jury, or testified in a case?  I have done both.  In terms of evidence in a court, it is up to the jury to decide the credibility of the witness giving testimony, which is a completely subjective viewpoint.  

Not only that, but we have in court something called "expert *opinion".  *It is someone's opinion, which may or may not be related to actual objective fact, but merely facts as they know them.  Once again, it's subjective.  Arguably the best system, but still mostly subjective.  



> BTW the argument you make about morality being subjective is crazy,lol.


 
This statement shows the fundamental lack of understanding of what I am saying.  I never once intimated that morality was subjective.  What I said was that basing morality on logic and reason can allow morality to be based on a subjective plane.



> Ok, it's very true that what people regard as moral is subjective and culturally dependant but that doesn't make morality on a level that we can develop truly subjective.


 
Yes it does, because you cannot separate people from their culture.  Even reasoning is based on a subjective cultural perspective.  

Look at it this way.  Logical and reason-based moral decisions have to have "inputs", kind of like a computer.  Information is imputed into the moral dilema to make a decision.  Those inputs include information based on the cultural mores and subjective experiences of the individual.  There is no way around it.  And if the inputed information is "bad", "bad" decisions will result.

Morality does not subject itself to strict a logical or reasoning basis.  For instance, let's ask the question of whether it is moral to spank your child.  Some would say no, some would say yes based on personal experience.  Even if you tried a "scientific" study, you could show that there are people who get spanked who turn out to be fully functioning individuals, and people who are not spanked can be the same.  The opposite can also be true, that those same individuals can turn out rotten.  So what is the proper "moral" position in this matter?

Here is an example of logic and reasoning when it comes to murder.  You have something that I want, but will not part with it.  Murder is a reasoned (differentiated from reasonable, a cultural understanding) way to attain what I want that you have, especially if I consider that the odds of being caught violating the law are slim.  It is a matter of deduction.

We are at war, and I have a nuclear weapon.  Is it logical and reasonable to drop it on you in order to save the lives of my own countrymen?  What about catapulting plague suffering rats into your midst during a seige?  The use of painful chemical weapons?



> It's completely idiotic, (and many would argue a liberal viewpoint) that the law is subjective. Which I'm not sure if you are arguing, (I understand that you are arguing that morality is subjective.


 
Again, you are misunderstanding what I am saying.  I never said that morality is subjective.  How can the guy who is arguing that there is a god who gives us rules to follow saying that morality is subjective?

And I think it is idiotic to say that the law is not subjective.  Look at all the issues regarding law that are discussed here.  Look at the arguments in politics and in the courts over the meaning of the Constitution.  I know what I think it means, and what I believe the Founders meant it to mean, but can I ever be 100% sure, absolutely not, ie., subjective, but based on some evidence.



> So if my culture thinks it's right to kill infidels then you believe that morally I'm right?
> That's ridiculous.


 
I never made such an argument.  



> It's immoral and just becauee some cultures have rididulous views of morality then that doesn't make them right (ours included.)


 
So you are saying that there is some objective moral standard.  Ok.  Where does it come from?  How is it deduced?  If we are all limited in our understanding, how do we determine that which is moral and that which is not?

Even  if we don't have all of the information, and act as we see best, isn't that in itself a subjective moral decision?



> So since the (actual) God of the universe, BTW does this refer to only our universe or others as well, do they have other gods? Where is your proof, Oh I forgot, you for some reason don't need any, because accordng to billcihak's argument, god is above and beyond nature.


 
I was never arguing that nature of god, so whether you consider a single universe or multiple universes is irrelevant for the purpose of my argument.

And I don't need proof as this is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.  You are arguing that reason and logic provide a better barometer with which to judge moral behavior.  I have suggested that reason and logic for moral behavior can be just as easily subjective as religion, as evidenced by that fact that many logical and reasoned positions can be, and have been, made for atrocities.  You have done nothing to refute that.

You call it rationalization, but, based on the DSM definition of rationalization, it denotes that there must be some type of emotional conflict within an individual.  Using reason, one can destroy the emotional conflict.  But it depends on the subjective inputs one uses to solve the dilema.



> So my simple question is, if we have no way of relating to God, because he is completely above nature, then how are we ever to understand that he's ordering us to do anything?
> How would he order us and how are we supposed to know, BTW most people who are hallucinating be it because of madness or drugs aren't able to tell the difference between their hallucination and reality.


 
You are making assumptions about which neither you nor I can prove.  Who said that we have no way of relating to God, or more importantly, God relating to us?

And I can't answer your question, only to say that it is a matter of faith.  But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.



> So how would they know, according to your thinking, they are right to think anything and do anything sfter all according to your above sentence they are right because they believe the are doing gods will, just like terrorists, right???


 
I never said they were morally right.  I can only judge based on my subjective beliefs in an objective morality.

More importantly, you tell me, objectively, why they are morally wrong.



> Wrong, in reality we can base our morality on logic, does this mean we'll have all the answers, probably not, but we're way better off than subjective cultural norms.


 
No we don't.  Most people base their morallity on what is convienent for them at the time.  Most people don't like theft, and think it's morally repugnant.  But how many of them have stolen from their jobs, minor though it may be.  And that includes misappropriation of material, ie., using the copy machine for personal rather then professional use.

Or, objectively, is that ok, too?

As to whether we are better off, it kinda depends on whether you are one who has been subject to the mistreatment of logical morality.



> When based on logic and well being, we get alot further in terms of progress and sanity than anything else seems to be able to bring us


 
Alot further in terms of what?  If reason and logic can lead us down a bad road, and we will make allowances for that, then why so not religion. 

Of course, you are throwing something else into the mix, "wel being".  What does that have to do with logic and reason?  Why should I, logically speaking, care about your well-being if it causes a detriment to me?  Well-being in what way.  

Is it morally better to give you a fish and feed you for a day, or teach you to fish so that you can feed yourself for a lifetime without my help.  

It would be for my well-being if everyone in the country gave me $1, then I would have $350 Million.  I call you all immoral for not doing so.

The point is, you throw a subjective measure into something while making an argument over reason and logic and call it a better morality.  Come on now.

Religion has been used quite often to bring people together in harmonious ways.  But we will ignore all the good it has done because we don't agree with it, and only emphasize the negative?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 23, 2011)

I think perhaps that this is getting needlessly complex in terms of argumentation.

'Morality' is the set of social rules that come about as a consequence of the need to live together in groups in relative harmony.

They are not laid down by God (or any other fantastical being) nor are they entirely logical from an individual perspective, as they sometimes require you to do what is not best for yourself.

What morality is, is necessary if you are to have a society.  If you don't develop a coherent morality, then you don't have a coherent society and it fails.

It is the societal equivalent of evolution - the systems that don't work die out.  What is left is what works.  It might not work perfectly and it might not be in total balance but the society survives - and that is good enough.

These rules didn't just pop out of nowhere (nor did they get delivered on stone tablets writ by the hand of the divine).  They are the consequence, like all life, of pain, suffering and death from which was wrung a rough set of tenets that allow most of us to go about our daily business confident that a particular morality holds sway.

Addendum: As a historical note, religion was adopted by the ruling classes of many societies as the most effective way to enforce these rules as, whilst people might revolt against a King, it is hard to kill an etherial being who, you are told, has the power to torture you eternally if you don't do as you are told.


----------



## granfire (Jan 23, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Addendum: As a historical note, religion was adopted by the ruling classes of many societies as the most effective way to enforce these rules as, whilst people might revolt against a King, it is hard to kill an etherial being who, you are told, has the power to torture you eternally if you don't do as you are told.



:nod:


----------



## SensibleManiac (Jan 23, 2011)

> Morality does not subject itself to strict a logical or reasoning basis. For instance, let's ask the question of whether it is moral to spank your child. Some would say no, some would say yes based on personal experience. Even if you tried a "scientific" study, you could show that there are people who get spanked who turn out to be fully functioning individuals, and people who are not spanked can be the same. The opposite can also be true, that those same individuals can turn out rotten. So what is the proper "moral" position in this matter?
> 
> Here is an example of logic and reasoning when it comes to murder. You have something that I want, but will not part with it. Murder is a reasoned (differentiated from reasonable, a cultural understanding) way to attain what I want that you have, especially if I consider that the odds of being caught violating the law are slim. It is a matter of deduction.



I myself was spanked and worse and yet I became a better person "despite" that.

It has been proven that spanking a child generally has a negative effect on that child.
They will have to work to get past that. The truth is that it doesn't teach the child anything other than might makes right.
This doesn't mean we should let our children do whatever they please and not punish them, sometimes we need to, but that teaching our children why they are doing something wrong is the right thing to do and will actually teach them something. Which isn't always easy.

The second example is a matter of deduction, the problem is a very limited scope is involved in the reasoning and so the person is reaching that conclusion based on very limited understanding of getting what they want. The more difficult task is making available the critical thinking skills necessary to get beyond limited reasoning which led the person to the conclusion that murder will get them what they want.

I'm not saying that religion is all wrong, their are some very positive aspects to it, the problem I'm pointing out is that there are far more negative points that make so tht it is time to move beyond it. Or at the very least to point out the majority of what's wrong so that we can put an end to the negative aspects and move beyond them.
Again it's not my place to tell you what to believe, but it is my place to point out what I see as wrong.

Religion does bring people together to share in a positive experience, unfortunately it is limited to a tribal experience and not truly a global one for many (although not all) involved in a given religion.

I think we can all contribute to making the world  better place. 
And the promotion of logic and compassion is the surest way of implemeting that.
I base this on fact, nothing else.


----------



## Cirdan (Jan 24, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Addendum: As a historical note, religion was adopted by the ruling classes of many societies as the most effective way to enforce these rules as, whilst people might revolt against a King, it is hard to kill an etherial being who, you are told, has the power to torture you eternally if you don't do as you are told.


 
mmmh. Population control by pushing mental opium on the masses from birth. Very very effective tho. Somewhat replaced by political correctness and mass media today.


----------



## Mark Jordan (Jan 24, 2011)

Horrible editing but I give O'reilly 10/10 for believing in God.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 24, 2011)

Mark Jordan said:


> Horrible editing but I give O'reilly 10/10 for believing in God.


 
To be frank, I have no problem with anyone believing in "God," but I have to take issue with O'reilly insisting that _"the tide goes out, the tide comes in, you can't explain it,"_ because, well, *I can.*

Of course, he was educated by Jesuits-not that there's generally anything wrong with that, but it explains his  "debating" style.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 24, 2011)

SensibleManiac said:


> I myself was spanked and worse and yet I became a better person "despite" that.
> 
> It has been proven that spanking a child generally has a negative effect on that child.
> They will have to work to get past that. The truth is that it doesn't teach the child anything other than might makes right.
> This doesn't mean we should let our children do whatever they please and not punish them, sometimes we need to, but that teaching our children why they are doing something wrong is the right thing to do and will actually teach them something. Which isn't always easy.


 
Proven by whom. I did a quick google search for studies relating to spankings. They were evenly split between positive and negative effects of spaking. What you are doing is being selective of the reasearch that you use to prove your point, or using your personal experiences as proof. Besides, you admit to being given "worse" punishment then spanking.



> The second example is a matter of deduction, the problem is a very limited scope is involved in the reasoning and so the person is reaching that conclusion based on very limited understanding of getting what they want. The more difficult task is making available the critical thinking skills necessary to get beyond limited reasoning which led the person to the conclusion that murder will get them what they want.


 
Deduction is a logical and reasoned approach to solvings one's problems. Hence, it goes to show that it can be, and has been, used to have negative consequenses. You argue that critical thinking skills are required. You are subjecting a personal judgement onto the issue because you don't agree with murder, not that a person can use critical thinking skills and still come to the same conclusion, that the best way to accomplish the task is by murder.

It's not a matter of limited reasoning, it's a matter of limited or imperfect knowledge. As humans, we can never have perfect knowledge, so as a matter of course, our "reasoning", as you call it, will always be imperfect. Once again, if a person weighs all the factors known to them, murder, genocide, theft, etc., are all perfectly logical and reasoned approaches to solving particular problems.



> I'm not saying that religion is all wrong, their are some very positive aspects to it, the problem I'm pointing out is that there are far more negative points that make so tht it is time to move beyond it. Or at the very least to point out the majority of what's wrong so that we can put an end to the negative aspects and move beyond them.


 
That is your personal, subjective experience. There is no way that you can prove any such thing.



> Again it's not my place to tell you what to believe, but it is my place to point out what I see as wrong.


 
A subjective, and not necessarily logical viewpoint.



> Religion does bring people together to share in a positive experience, unfortunately it is limited to a tribal experience and not truly a global one for many (although not all) involved in a given religion.


 
Everything is tribal. Nationalism, socialism, communism, capitalism, religion. Why do you subject religion to a special category for your derision?



> I think we can all contribute to making the world better place.
> And the promotion of logic and compassion is the surest way of implemeting that.
> I base this on fact, nothing else.


 
See, you keep throwing compassion into this. What is compassionate is subjective, and can even be based on a tribal perspective.

You are not basing this on fact, as you have shown no facts, just stated opinions. Once again, I have given you a multitude of issues where in logic has shortcomings to live up to your perception of what is moral. Murder, spanking, etc. Then you throw compassion into the mix. Well, compassion can be illogical.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 24, 2011)

By the way, you have yet to elucidate from whence this "objective measure of morality" comes from?


----------



## SensibleManiac (Jan 24, 2011)

> Proven by whom. I did a quick google search for studies relating to spankings. They were evenly split between positive and negative effects of spaking. What you are doing is being selective of the reasearch that you use to prove your point, or using your personal experiences as proof. Besides, you admit to being given "worse" punishment then spanking.



Yes everyone here knows that there is worse punishment than spanking, as for evenly split?
There are positive effects to spanking, (ex; the child behaves) and negative effects (ex; the child develops self esteem issues and becomes a bully.) No one is arguing that all these effects happen to every child but that doesn't take away from the FACT that spanking is generally bad for children because it has negative consequences and does nothing to truly develop a child.

You are merely deviating from the discussion by using poor reasoning skills.



> Deduction is a logical and reasoned approach to solvings one's problems.


What does this even mean?
In the context you are using it? The murderer is not using logic and critical thinking only trying to justify himself this is not the same.

As for perfect knowledge???

As for you other argument against my "subjective view of religion" the molestation of children is subjective?
I won't even argue against that nonsense.
Do I actually have to prove to you that is wrong???



> Everything is tribal. Nationalism, socialism, communism, capitalism, religion. Why do you subject religion to a special category for your derision?



Those are 5 things, hardly everything... 




> By the way, you have yet to elucidate from whence this "objective measure of morality" comes from?


It comes from critical thinking and logic. And not something imagined as real. I never said a fairy told me or an ogre under a bridge told me or some perceived authority, I reached this conclusion through the reasoning and examining of the facts.
If you don't think that examining the facts will get you anywhere, then that's completely up to you but don't be surprised if others tell you you're spouting nonsense.

BTW I never said that logic and compassion are the same things. Here you are only trying to put words in my mouth and confuse things, is this your idea of an argument?

Your arguments are boiling down to nonsense and taking everything out of context. I too can take everything out of context and then this whole discussion would become nonsense.

Think about it, so far you've said, God told you through never actually telling you that something is moral and something isn't because you might have read it in a book or did a google search...  right?

See what I mean?

Nonsense, this is what your posts are sounding like.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 26, 2011)

SensibleManiac said:


> Yes everyone here knows that there is worse punishment than spanking, as for evenly split?


 
I can only tell you what the results of the google search that I did shows.  I am not a psychologist who studies the effects of spanking.



> There are positive effects to spanking, (ex; the child behaves) and negative effects (ex; the child develops self esteem issues and becomes a bully.) No one is arguing that all these effects happen to every child but that doesn't take away from the FACT that spanking is generally bad for children because it has negative consequences and does nothing to truly develop a child.


 
Where do you get this "fact" from.  You show me your study and I'll show you mine.  The fact of the matter is that you will get studies that show both.  You only agree with the fact that it is generally bad because it suits your world view, but you have yet to cite one study or source proving it to be so.

Where are you facts other then you saying they are facts.  And you want to talk about having a logical discussion???



> You are merely deviating from the discussion by using poor reasoning skills.


 
No, just not going to simply agree with what you have to say, especially considering that you have shown no evidence to support your assertions. 



> What does this even mean?


 
If you don't know what deduction is, then to further continue a discussion regarding logic is useless.



> In the context you are using it? The murderer is not using logic and critical thinking only trying to justify himself this is not the same.


 
So there is no logical, deductive reasoning which can be used to, yes, justify murder?  BTW, justification is not a bad word.  We use evidence to justify all types of things, even why murder is wrong, or why we should change pollution policy due to global warming, etc.



> As for perfect knowledge???


 
Yeah, what about it?



> As for you other argument against my "subjective view of religion" the molestation of children is subjective?
> I won't even argue against that nonsense.


 
What does that have to do with what I said? You made the statement that religion has more negative then positive conotations.  What does child molestation have to do with that? I was saying that your statement is a personal and subjective viewpoint.  Prove to me that what you said is true.

BTW, I know of no religion that condones child molestation, even though it has occurred, even by the clergy of a church.  



> Do I actually have to prove to you that is wrong???


 
Yes.  Prove to me in a logical way that child molestation is wrong.  Use pure logic now, and not emotional or cultural based arguments.   

BTW, before you go off on a rant telling me things like "if you don't know, then your crazy", or some other such hyperbole.  What I am trying to do is to have you use pure logic and reasoning as to why such activity is immoral for every *individual *being on earth using that.  It is your form of argumentation that I am looking for, not the ultimate moral conclusion.



> It comes from critical thinking and logic. And not something imagined as real. I never said a fairy told me or an ogre under a bridge told me or some perceived authority, I reached this conclusion through the reasoning and examining of the facts.


 
What you refuse to accept is that logic can dictate many things, even those that have what you perceive to be negative repurcussions.  That shows a lack of critical thinking on your part.

I have used many examples to prove my point.  You have used none, and merely state "facts" not in evidence.  You showed not one shred of proof for even your spanking position.  You simply call a logical, deductive argument for murder based on a specific example ridiculous without even trying to use a logical argument against it.  

Stop using your emotional connection to your position to justify it and start using logic.  Hell, I can make a logical reason why murder is immoral, and it's not even the position I'm arguing in this debate.



> If you don't think that examining the facts will get you anywhere, then that's completely up to you but don't be surprised if others tell you you're spouting nonsense.


 
What's funny is that I have been using fact to support my examples, and you have used none.  Then you say that I am using nonsense.  Pot, meet kettle.  



> BTW I never said that logic and compassion are the same things. Here you are only trying to put words in my mouth and confuse things, is this your idea of an argument?


 
And I never said that you did say that either.  You are obviously not reading what I said.  Your original premise was that logic and reasoning are a better barometer for judging moral behavior that religion is.  Logic and reasoning, not compassion.  Then, later in your argument, you throw in compassion, which had nothing to do with your original premise.  Not only that, but reasonable people can disagree on whether a particular act is compassionate or not.  You give him a fish, I will teach the person how to fish, which one is the compassionate position.  

If you are going to try to make a coherent argument with someone, it is best you understand what you are trying to say first before spouting off.  



> Your arguments are boiling down to nonsense and taking everything out of context. I too can take everything out of context and then this whole discussion would become nonsense.


 
Nope, you are the one *changing* the context, and then trying to pin my original counter-argument to your new one.  When I adjust my argument to your new context, then you tell me that I'm taking things out of context.



> Think about it, so far you've said, God told you through never actually telling you that something is moral and something isn't because you might have read it in a book or did a google search...  right?
> 
> See what I mean?


 
Not right at all.  Once again you have totally misunderstood the logical argument that I am making.  And, by the way, I never said that God told me anything.  

You're premise is also making the assumption that there is no God, nor does he speak to individuals on a personal level.  And you have no facts to back up that assertion, only a lack of evidence to prove that it actually occurs.  



> Nonsense, this is what your posts are sounding like.


 
That's because you can't understand a complex logical argument.  

I provide evidence, you provide none.

I give context and meaning, you change it constantly.

I have to agree that there is no further point in arguing, as you are too emotionally connected to your position to see what I am trying to say here.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Jan 26, 2011)

You are only attacking me because you know you are wrong.

Instead of taking what I'm saying out of context, putting words in my mouth and misconstruing what I have said to sound like nonsense, how about you provide some evidence for your poorly reasoned views instead of:

A) Putting words in my mouth and saying things that I never said then asking for proof.

B) Making no sense and having me try to prove you wrong.

If you need some proof:


> BTW, justification is not a bad word.



I never said it was. This is just your attempt to take what I have said out of context to discredit me.




> No, just not going to simply agree with what you have to say, especially considering that you have shown no evidence to support your assertions.



No one has asked you to simply agree with me, (again putting words in my mouth, I never said you needed to agree with me, just that I wouldn't argue the facts with you.) My evidence is in the facts, you can easily look these up for yourself, are you afraid of what you might find if you do the research? 
The beauty of the proof I'm offering is that it isn't dependent on me. You can research the facts, and this way you can't say that I'm making them up to support my argument, which has been your argument that I'm twisting the facts. Why don't you go research the facts, besides learning something, you'll see that I'm not the one making things up.
And no, saying you found (equal?) studies showing both doesn't work, you'll find that the many findings for both the pros and cons of a topic like spanking will lead you to one conclusion when looking at the bigger picture.
Which again has nothhing to do with my world view. 





> What does that have to do with what I said? You made the statement that religion has more negative then positive conotations. What does child molestation have to do with that? I was saying that your statement is a personal and subjective viewpoint. Prove to me that what you said is true.
> 
> BTW, I know of no religion that condones child molestation, even though it has occurred, even by the clergy of a church.



By them having the power to stop it and letting it go on for quite possibly and probably thousands of years, just to protect their image, the catholic church up to it's highest order is responsible for allowing it to continue and go on, while this may not be exactly the same as condoning it, it is enabling it to go on and helps make it possible. 
Which is effectively worse than condoning it. It is making it possible.

Child molestation is destructive to the mental, emotional, and even physical well being of the most innocent and vulnerable members of society. 
This isn't subjective opinion, it is fact.
That's what makes it wrong. 

Do I need to offer proof of that? It exists, but do I actually have to go digging it up? 
Will that only serve to help you take this out of context so you can attempt to discredit me because you have no proof for your assertions?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 27, 2011)

SensibleManiac said:


> You are only attacking me because you know you are wrong.



Wow.  



> Instead of taking what I'm saying out of context, putting words in my mouth and misconstruing what I have said to sound like nonsense, how about you provide some evidence for your poorly reasoned views instead of:
> 
> A) Putting words in my mouth and saying things that I never said then asking for proof.
> 
> B) Making no sense and having me try to prove you wrong.



Oh, so you are going to accuse me of the same thing that you are doing to me.  How ironic.

If you need some proof:




> I never said it was. This is just your attempt to take what I have said out of context to discredit me.



I never said that you said it was.  




> No one has asked you to simply agree with me, (again putting words in my mouth, I never said you needed to agree with me, just that I wouldn't argue the facts with you.) My evidence is in the facts, you can easily look these up for yourself, are you afraid of what you might find if you do the research?



I never said that you said that I should agree with you just because you made a statement.  I said that I was not going to simply agree with you because you say it.  It was a statement of what I was going to do or not do, not a statement about what you wanted me to do.

So much for logical reasoning.

What I find interesting is that you make an assertion in a debate, refuse to provide evidence, and then tell me that I am supposed to find the evidence supporting your assertion.

Well here is my evidence.



> &#8220;The claims made for not spanking children fail to hold up. They are not consistent with the data,&#8221; said Gunnoe. {professor of psychology, Calvin College] &#8220;I think of spanking as a dangerous tool, but there are times when there is a job big enough for a dangerous tool. You just don&#8217;t use it for all your jobs.&#8221;



In his Family Psychologist John Rosemond's book "To Spank or Not to Spank", he does not believe parents should spank their children, and instead says there are more effective ways to discipline a child than to inflict pain. *However, spanking a child, if it is done correctly, is not harmful to a child and actually is helpful.*

According to Drs. Jennifer Lansford and Ken Dodge, their study suggests that  if a culture views spanking as the normal consequence for bad behavior, kids aren&#8217;t damaged by its occasional use.  To explain this shocker, the scholars suggested that in cultures or communities where spanking is common, parents are less agitated when administering spankings. Spanking almost never&#8212;when combined with losing your temper&#8212;can be worse than spanking frequently.  

So there.  You have evidence based on scientific studies which show that spanking does not cause damage.  And you have shown....... what evidence.



> The beauty of the proof I'm offering is that it isn't dependent on me. You can research the facts, and this way you can't say that I'm making them up to support my argument, which has been your argument that I'm twisting the facts.



I never said that you were twisting the facts.  What I said was that you were offering no proof of your statements.  You merely stated something as fact, but provided no evidence to support your conclusion.  Not only that, but you are now telling me that I should find your proof for you.



> Why don't you go research the facts, besides learning something, you'll see that I'm not the one making things up.



I did.  I showed it.  You're wrong.



> And no, saying you found (equal?) studies showing both doesn't work, you'll find that the many findings for both the pros and cons of a topic like spanking will lead you to one conclusion when looking at the bigger picture.
> Which again has nothhing to do with my world view.



So, once again, I'm just supposed to believe your "bigger picture", even when researchers _who are against corporal punishment for children_ state that when done properly, no damage occurs.  



> By them them having the power to stop it and letting it go on for quite possibly and probably thousands of years, just to protect their image, the catholic church up to it's highest order is responsible for allowing it to continue and go on, while this may not be exactly the same as condoning it, it is enabling it to go on and helps make it possible.
> Which is effectively worse than condoning it. It is making it possible.



So you take one act, done by one particular church and are going to make broad assumptions about every religion in the world that has ever existed in order to make them have more negative then positive effects.  None of which goes to oppose the fact that people who have thought logically and reasonably in context have caused just as many negative effects.



> Child molestation is destructive to the mental, emotional, and even physical well being of the most innocent and vulnerable members of society.
> This isn't subjective opinion, it is fact.
> That's what makes it wrong.



Now bringing it back full circle to the topic of morality the question becomes: why should I, as an individual, care?  By what rational or logical basis does this effect me that I should consider such behavior wrong?  



> Do I need to offer proof of that? It exists, but do I actually have to go digging it up?
> Will that only serve to help you take this out of context so you can attempt to discredit me because you have no proof for your assertions?



You should really look at your own attempts to take what others take out of context, rather then simply looking at how others, supposedly, take yours out of context.

To make things simple for you, I actually agree with your position on child molestation, but probably for entirely different reasons.  You think that it is wrong based on some "logical" method of thinking.  I do so because of emotion, and having personally seen the effects.

The difference is, I can admit it.


----------



## Cirdan (Jan 27, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Now bringing it back full circle to the topic of morality the question becomes: why should I, as an individual, care? By what rational or logical basis does this effect me that I should consider such behavior wrong?


 
Because as an _induvidual_ with the benefits of logic and reason you accept responsibility for your actions. You do not lie to yourself about who and what you are or seek justification in fictional realities. Living a life of extreme selfishness is; a) contuary to dicipline which logic relies on, b) wholy destructive keeping one from understanding the world around you which is also a requirement for logic, and c) another fiction since there are other beings around you and there is no reason they should matter less than you do either. 

Being a person of reason and logic does not in any way mean you are completely given over to your desires. 

"When law and duty are one, united by religion, you never become fully conscious, fully aware of yourself. You are always a little less than an individual."


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 27, 2011)

Cirdan said:


> Because as an _induvidual_ with the benefits of logic and reason you accept responsibility for your actions.


 
A person can accept responsibilty for their actions without using logic.  One can see the pain one has caused and have an emotional sense of responsibility, ie., guilt.  One can say that a person, having caused pain, can see the negative results, a logical deduction.  But that is to assume that the person made a cognitive connection in the first place.

In this instance, it is difficult for me to use child molestation for an example.  As I said, I don't agree that it is a moral act, so therefore find it impossible to defend.

For instance, as a police officer, if I stop a man who matches the description of a man with a gun, I go to stop him, and he begins to reach into his back pocket, I can logically and reasonably infer that he is reaching for a weapon, and if I don't stop him, he will kill me.  So I shoot.  But in reality, he was pulling out his ID.  

Now, I just killed a man who was no real threat to me.  I can take responsibility for my actions and justify it, but what is the moral outcome?  More importantly, why is that the moral one?



> You do not lie to yourself about who and what you are or seek justification in fictional realities.


 
Fictional realities.  Define that for me.  I only ask because if I weigh the odds, such as the one above where I believe a person may be attacking me _but in reality was not_, am I trying to justify a fictional reality?

If I believe that a country was on the verge of attacking me based on information that I have available to me at the time, am I justified logically speaking in defending myself in attacking first to gain the initiative and advantage?

If I believe, based upon information available to me, that a country is manipulating it's currency to cause an unfair balance of trade, couldn't I logically commit an action to counteract that, even though it may cause people in that country to lose jobs and become poor and destitute?



> Living a life of extreme selfishness is; a) contuary to dicipline which logic relies on,


 
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.  As an individual, it can be my goal to acquire certain things in life.  If, in order to accomplish those goals, I have logically deduced that I would need to do something that mainstream morallity would call immoral, then why would I not do it?  This is considering that one has weighed the odds and could reasonably survive / accept any social repercussions.



> b) wholy destructive keeping one from understanding the world around you which is also a requirement for logic,


 
Once again, it depends on what you are trying to accomplish.  Remember, we are talking about acts being moral or immoral.  I can certainly commit an act which is logically deduced and still understand the world around me.  

I'll use Jack Bauer as a fictional example.  He is a counter-terrorist agent who does things that are considered by many to be immoral.  Yet, he does them anyway knowing the full consequences of his behavior, including imprisonment, death, or emotional self-destruction.  But, he believes, based upon his knowledge, cultural understanding, and experience, that they are the only reasonable things to do based upon the scenario presented to him.  He has deduced that these immoral acts are logically justified.



> and c) another fiction since there are other beings around you and there is no reason they should matter less than you do either.


 
That's one way to frame it.  The other way to frame it is there is no reason that they should matter equally or more then me, from an individual perspective.  Why should I starve while they are fed?  Why should I die while they live?  Should I do everything in my power to make sure that we are exactly the same, after all he deserves no less then me?

On a grander scale, why should they have oil and live prosporous, and I should eke out a third world existance.  Why should they have perfect soil for growing crops and have an abundance of them (if you consider other factors, such as they are refusing trade, or the trade is grossly one-sided) while my country is living a ground to mouth lifestyle.



> Being a person of reason and logic does not in any way mean you are completely given over to your desires.


 
I agree.  However, one can come to logical and reasonable conclusions as to what actions to take that are to the detriment of others.  That is my singular point in this whole ridiculous argument.  It is perfectly reasonable to come to a _logical _conclusion that in order to accomplish certain goals, hurting or hindering others may be necessary, not just for one's own selfish goals, but in order to help others.

So when a person says that logic and reason are a better barometer for moral acts then religion, I have to protest.  I would actually argue that it depends on the inputed information.



> "When law and duty are one, united by religion, you never become fully conscious, fully aware of yourself. You are always a little less than an individual."


 
A quote from "Dune"?


----------



## Cirdan (Jan 27, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> So when a person says that logic and reason are a better barometer for moral acts then religion, I have to protest. I would actually argue that it depends on the inputed information.


 
Moral is just a word for what is acceptable. Logic and reason allows you to understand why you make a choise rather than just follow tradition or norms. Religion should encourage you to think for yourself too, but unfortunately are more often than not concerned with the authorative "because it is so" and "or else". In other words robbing you of your individuality. And without induviduals what you have is an easily manipulated mob that will do anything given the right opportunity or nudge. This is why you have so many atrocities and mass suicides in religious cults, not to mention why religion has been used for population control everywhere in the world down trough the ages.

As for all the "imputed information" scenarios you took the trouble of making up, I believe you can awnser them perfectly well by yourself.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 27, 2011)

Cirdan said:


> Moral is just a word for what is acceptable. Logic and reason allows you to understand why you make a choise rather than just follow tradition or norms. Religion should encourage you to think for yourself too, but unfortunately are more often than not concerned with the authorative "because it is so" and "or else". In other words robbing you of your individuality. And without induviduals what you have is an easily manipulated mob that will do anything given the right opportunity or nudge. This is why you have so many atrocities and mass suicides in religious cults, not to mention why religion has been used for population control everywhere in the world down trough the ages.


 
Absolutely. But one can understand why you made a choice even if that choice has profoundly negative consequences for others.

But this also goes to show that there is no _objective _view of morality.
In my circumstances, I know that my pastors (when I was younger) always encouraged me to question things, even my religious beliefs. In fact, as I had belonged to the Lutheran Church, some of them said that I epitomized the questioning aspect of religion that Martin Luther inspired.

Of course, I am no longer a "Christian", though by logical deduction I have a belief in God. 



> As for all the "imputed information" scenarios you took the trouble of making up, I believe you can awnser them perfectly well by yourself.


 
I can. As someone said in another thread (although in a different context): One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I have my own subjective beliefs based on logical deduction of the inputed information.


----------



## Cirdan (Jan 27, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Of course, I am no longer a "Christian", though by logical deduction I have a belief in God.


 
Many do. This of course, raises a whole new range of personal questions.

I just wonder, how do you view the existence of all the other hundreds of gods and supernatural beings in human religion and belief? Feel free to not awnser if it is too personal.

(edit) As for there being no "objective view on morality" the world is of course not black and white.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 27, 2011)

Cirdan said:


> Many do. This of course, raises a whole new range of personal questions.
> 
> I just wonder, how do you view the existence of all the other hundreds of gods and supernatural beings in human religion and belief? Feel free to not awnser if it is too personal.
> 
> (edit) As for there being no "objective view on morality" the world is of course not black and white.



My position right now is that I believe in God, however have no explanation for the nature of God, nor whether it has, in fact, decided to communicate with us on a level that we can understand it.

So there could be one or many, or all.  I lean towards the idea that if God does indeed communicate with man, he needs to do so in a way that they can understand him.  And since we all have different cultural attributes, he must address us in differing manners.  Hence, the many religions all express their understanding of God as filtered through their cultural experiences and understanding.


----------



## Cirdan (Jan 27, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> So there could be one or many, or all. I lean towards the idea that if God does indeed communicate with man, he needs to do so in a way that they can understand him. And since we all have different cultural attributes, he must address us in differing manners. Hence, the many religions all express their understanding of God as filtered through their cultural experiences and understanding.


 
Good ol` Odin at least knows how to communicate


----------



## SensibleManiac (Jan 27, 2011)

Kenpo 5-0 I don't want to turn this into a flame war and I'm not trying to be hostile. 
I knowit's easier to misunderstand each other when people aren't speaking face to face (even then it's not easy)

Your study "suggests", and there is a difference between direct and indirect links and what a study may "suggest".

Your "proof" only further proves my point.

One researcher described it as a dangerous tool, Personally I don't like keeping dangerous tools around my kids and especially using those tools on them, and would doubt that any intelligent person who cares about their children would either, the exception being in the hands of someone who really knows what they are doing and even then it's not easy but because there is a CERTAIN benefit. And they would never use it when a better tool exists, that isn't dangerous. 
Yes much of this is my OPINION (not all) but logic would dictate using the tool that isn't dangerous and that is more effective. Especially in the long run.




> My position right now is that I believe in God, however have no explanation for the nature of God, nor whether it has, in fact, decided to communicate with us on a level that we can understand it.
> 
> So there could be one or many, or all. I lean towards the idea that if God does indeed communicate with man, he needs to do so in a way that they can understand him. And since we all have different cultural attributes, he must address us in differing manners. Hence, the many religions all express their understanding of God as filtered through their cultural experiences and understanding.



You can believe what ever you want, however being clear on your motives for believing will reveal much.

I can say I WANT God to exist as well, (as I know that God would be nothing like what people percieve,) I can want and believe all I want, that doesn't make it true though.

Believing in God if involving faith, doesn't mean that one knows God exists, it's important to make this distinction, that by having faith, one doesn't know.

And if all these religious believers don't know but rather have faith and believe.

Why are they so sure of their positions and beliefs?


----------



## billc (Jan 27, 2011)

they are sure of their position because they have faith.


----------



## Cirdan (Jan 27, 2011)

SensibleManiac said:


> Why are they so sure of their positions and beliefs?


 
Because doubt earns you a one way ticked on the coal wagon to the BBQ place?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 27, 2011)

SensibleManiac said:


> Kenpo 5-0 I don't want to turn this into a flame war and I'm not trying to be hostile.
> I knowit's easier to misunderstand each other when people aren't speaking face to face (even then it's not easy)
> 
> Your study "suggests", and there is a difference between direct and indirect links and what a study may "suggest".
> ...


 
And every study that I've seen that says that spanking is bad for you also "suggests" that it is bad for you.  So your "proof" is as good as mine.

One researcher described it as a dangerous tool, Personally I don't like keeping dangerous tools around my kids and especially using those tools on them, and would doubt that any intelligent person who cares about their children would either, the exception being in the hands of someone who really knows what they are doing and even then it's not easy but because there is a CERTAIN benefit. And they would never use it when a better tool exists, that isn't dangerous. 
Yes much of this is my OPINION (not all) but logic would dictate using the tool that isn't dangerous and that is more effective. Especially in the long run.
[/quote]

So, when a study shows that children are better off when they have been spanked properly as opposed to children who haven't been spanked, what "better" tool is there.  

Any tool can be misapplied and cause damage.  Or not work at all.  But even some of these researchers suggest the children are better off when they are spanked.  They weigh the risks and make their judgements based on that.  But, I would suggest that it is because their is a wide disparity between people about the amount and conditions in which spanking is appropriate, and when making blanket suggestions to such a diverse group of people, it is easier to say "don't do it", then to suggest a conditional policy as to when it is appropriate.



> You can believe what ever you want, however being clear on your motives for believing will reveal much.


 
I agree.



> I can say I WANT God to exist as well, (as I know that God would be nothing like what people percieve,) I can want and believe all I want, that doesn't make it true though.


 
You can also WANT God not to exist, and believe it, but that doesn't mean that He doesn't exist.



> Believing in God if involving faith, doesn't mean that one knows God exists, it's important to make this distinction, that by having faith, one doesn't know.


 
Yes, and having faith in my belief that a person is about to shoot me (as per my above example) means that I don't KNOW that he's reaching for a weapon, but utilizing the information available to me at the time.  

Why is faith in God so different?



> And if all these religious believers don't know but rather have faith and believe.
> 
> Why are they so sure of their positions and beliefs?


 
As Bill said, because of faith.  How do you know that your spouse won't cheat on you?  How do you know that your friend isn't talking negatively about you behind your back?

Faith is not a bad thing, but like all things, can be misapplied.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 11, 2011)

And here ya go.....:lfao:


----------



## granfire (Feb 11, 2011)

elder999 said:


> And here ya go.....:lfao:



:lfao:


just waht I needed!


----------

