The Atheist Delusion

[will]

Heh. (http://atheistdelusion.cf.huffingtonpost.com/)

[Too-DAMN-Much]

god is not a delusion, he's a farsical entity conjured up to corral the people of his time and give them one common belief and therefore some sort of unity.

[will]

No dude. Atheists are deluded.

God -> bible -> God.

Checkmate!

[Widdykats]

^ Very witty bit, will!:D

[Too-DAMN-Much]

the bible is nothing but lies...

furthermore, i challenge you to prove your "god" hypothesis, if you cannot all religions must denounce him at once ;)

see where that kind of one sided reasoning leads to?

[Widdykats]

I like being a "pick and choose" non-religous, Catholic(sorta) Works for me! :D

[Too-DAMN-Much]

ok here ya go, if you really wanna prove god simply and easily follow these steps :

1. wait for a lightning storm
2. go outside and bring a hose along (you'll need it later)
3. find the nearest tree (preferably a really large one, ones with cell phone antennas work especially well)
4. make as large of a puddle as you can with the hose (this must be done AROUND THE TREE, so that the TREE IS IN THE STANDING WATER)
5. jump into the puddle of water that should be now surrounding your tree
6. YELL as loud as you can : "IF GOD EXISTS I WILL NOT BE STRUCK BY LIGHTNING!"

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

hahaha Good find, Will.

[ScorLibran]

Indeed. Hilarious. :blah:

Originally posted by Too-DAMN-Much
ok here ya go, if you really wanna prove god simply and easily follow these steps :

...

6. YELL as loud as you can : "IF GOD EXISTS I WILL NOT BE STRUCK BY LIGHTNING!"
You're assuming God will follow your instructions. ;)


One of my favorite parts of any such discussion is that the Earth is some 6000 years old. :D

I personally think the Earth is 39 years old.

How do I know anything existed before I was born? What can I trust?

I better come up with a way to explain it all for myself. And then put it all into a book. And then that it's in the book will make it true.

[mikm]

:blah: That was well done.

[Vie]

Except that anybody born after it was published could not believe it...


Personally I hope there's a god, because otherwise I spent a fair part of my childhood talking to myself.

[rainintheface5]

the video was okay, i am a christian, but i don't believe everything in it

remember, the bible was not directly written by God, but his followers

for example, the time the earth has ben around, my theory is that the 6000 years is from after the earth cooled, the "days" described in Genisis could theorecticaly be longer periods of time, the first couple being enlongated because of the smoldering surface's light

also, it is not delusional to believe in no God, there are several scientifid works that have been proven while the bible stays unproved in a logical and understandable way

the God --> Bible --> God thing doesn't work for me, more like God --> followers --> Bible --> God, any kind of distortion could happen in the followers stage, the bible states that we, as humans, are imperfect beings, so how could we write the perfect testimony to the almighty God?

the Bible may have some flaws in it, but so does atheism

[ScorLibran]

Originally posted by rainintheface5
the video was okay, i am a christian, but i don't believe everything in it
You *do* know that the whole thing is a joke, don't you? :igor:

Originally posted by rainintheface5
the God --> Bible --> God thing doesn't work for me, more like God --> followers --> Bible --> God
So you're saying the logic is perfectly circular? Very interesting.

Originally posted by rainintheface5
the Bible may have some flaws in it, but so does atheism
I agree. In an infinite context (i.e., the universe), it's scientifically impossible to prove that something (i.e., God) does not exist.

And actually, the Bible *is* perfect. For it to be imperfect, it would have to be based in known fact and then stray from it.

All fictional works are perfect, so to speak, as they are exactly whatever the author intended them to be (barring errors in spelling or grammar). With fiction there are no rules of content, and no limits except the human imagination.

The Bible is certainly one of the finest works of mankind ever created.

[Too-DAMN-Much]

i just cannot, nay will not believe a book written about the afterlife by someone who has never experienced it, it's just a stupid thing to do....

i'm no rocket scientist, so if i told you carrots will make your rocket reach pluto, that means you'd believe me?!?!?

[skryingbreath]

While scor makes a logical argument with a strong base, TDM just shouts out retarded shit. Kinda like some Christians, amirite?

Originally posted by Too-DAMN-Much
i challenge you to prove your "god" hypothesis,
(The act of aquiring) Proof denies faith, and without faith God is nothing.

The video makes me laugh, even if I'm a Christian. Well put together and humorous.

[deeder7001]

Without faith in something, you believe in nothing.

[S-uper_T-oast]

And what's wrong with that?

[deeder7001]

I don't know. I do know that everybody believes in something.

[will]

I believe that the square of the hypotenuse is the sum of the squares of the other two sides of a right triangle.

That's what I believe in. Because I can prove it.

(ok, so I do believe some things are very highly likely, such as evolution and the big bang. But it would be possible for additional evidence to change this opinion. Could any evidence change your opinion on the origin of the universe? If the answer is "no" then (IMO) you have no hope of getting anywhere near the right answer.)

[Widdykats]

Originally posted by deeder7001
I don't know. I do know that everybody believes in something.
Well, most people believe in something !
And even the most non-religous person has prayed that their car would start in cold weather!:D

[deeder7001]

I'm kind of skeptic on the "Big Bang Theory". Always have been. Never quite made sense to me. God also boggles my mind. Where did God come from? How did God get here? Why? How does God not have a beginning? Just because I believe in it doesn't mean that I don't have questions about it. I also like looking for answers to things. Even if only a few tolerate my methods.

[will]

You raise an important point.

If you answer the question "How were we created" with "God did it", then this does raise a lot of problems. Such as "How was God created?"

In general, I think that God as an explanation creates more questions that answers.

"God did it" is not a simple answer, but one that (for me) requires an awful lot of justification. Justification that is never provided by God-based religions.

And that's one of the reasons why I think God is very highly unlikely.

[Widdykats]

Well, I believe in the possibility of The Big Bang Theory!
And, I like having faith in my own version of God!
Lots of very devout people have questioned their faith, deeder

[deeder7001]

Without questions, there are no answers.

[ScorLibran]

Originally posted by Widdykats
And even the most non-religous person has prayed that their car would start in cold weather!
I've never prayed for anything inanimate, or for an event to occur. But I pray for friends when they ask for it.

If prayer without belief makes me a blasphemer, then so be it.

[zootm]

Originally posted by deeder7001
I'm kind of skeptic on the "Big Bang Theory". Always have been. Never quite made sense to me.
Obviously it's incomplete. It's just the most logical conclusion from the data that we currently have, which makes it the accepted theory. When we get more information, it'll be amended.

There's certainly not enough evidence to explain why it happened, at present. There may never be enough. But that doesn't discredit the theory; it simply states that, given the evidence and understanding we have, the logical conclusion is that all these things were once close together, and has been expanding since then.

The problem that science-type people tend to have with religion is that it's not disprovable. It's based upon simple assertion ("God exists") which can never be proven incorrect, whereas scientific theories always can.

[Widdykats]

Originally posted by ScorLibran
I've never prayed for anything inanimate, or for an event to occur. But I pray for friends when they ask for it.

If prayer without belief makes me a blasphemer, then so be it.
Nah! You're just kind! But you never prayed you wouldn't bust a zipper on your jeans?:eek:

[Mattress]

Originally posted by Too-DAMN-Much
i just cannot, nay will not believe a book written about the afterlife by someone who has never experienced it, it's just a stupid thing to do....

i'm no rocket scientist, so if i told you carrots will make your rocket reach pluto, that means you'd believe me?!?!? Actually the bible has very little to say about the afterlife. Maybe you should try reading the bible before you criticize it?

if one were to criticize a scientific theory such as evolution or the big bang theory would you accept their criticisms when it was fairly obvious they knew very little about those theories?

As far as young earth, and old earth arguments, things like the big bang, and even evolution have very little to do with Christianity and salvation through Jesus Christ

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by will
In general, I think that God as an explanation creates more questions that answers. I don't know. I mean, it basically creates one question: Who is God? Because once you know who he is, everything else kinda falls into place. Of course, you never know the entire answer, but as long as you are seeking to find the answer, you're well on your way of doing what he expects of you. (e. g. David was a man after God's own heart)

[fwgx]

Originally posted by ScorLibran
I personally think the Earth is 39 years old.
Personally I believe in Last Thursdayism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism)

[jheriko]

Funny stuff.

Religion is great. So long as people don't take it seriously enough that we end up with Dark Ages or Crusades then its harmless.

[Warrior of the Light]

Funny how people still are trying to prove that God does/does not exist.
If that were possible, then don't you think that the people in the time before us (no matter if that's 6000 or some millions of years) would've been able to do that and get this discussion over with?

It ends up with faith, without evidence other than your own experiences.
All I mean is don't judge others by your own point of view because your knowledge is incomplete.

About the 'Where does God come from' question, I'll answer with: Where did the stuff that caused the Big Bang come from? First there was nothing, then that nothing exploded and formed everything?! Christianity offers an answer here, but in the end it all comes down to what you choose to believe.

[will]

Originally posted by shakey_snake
I don't know. I mean, it basically creates one question: Who is God? Ok, I'll expand this question somewhat:
Where did God come from?
When did God come into existence?
Why did God create us?
How does God exert his power?
How many Gods are there?
Is God as described the Christian mythology, the Muslim mythology, the Ancient Greek/Roman mythology, the Viking mythology, the Hindu mythology, or the Ancient Egyptian mythology or Flying Spaghetti monster or <continue unto infinity> ?

I could go on.

"Who is God?" is probably the most complicated question you could possibly ask.

Each religion gives a different set of answers to some of these questions and doesn't have an answer for the rest of them. And there is no way to know which religions answers are right!

And all this is after we make the assumption that God even exists!

My point is this: "God did it!" is the most incomplete, unsatisfying, and unprovable answer to any question.

God is such a poor explanation that I don't think it can be the answer to any question.

I became an atheist the day I realised this.

[S-uper_T-oast]

Originally posted by Warrior of the Light
About the 'Where does God come from' question, I'll answer with: Where did the stuff that caused the Big Bang come from? First there was nothing, then that nothing exploded and formed everything?! Christianity offers an answer here, but in the end it all comes down to what you choose to believe.
Actually, the big bang can be explained through an application of quantum mechanics. Given that there is a chance for a universe to be created (this must be true since we exist in the universe), due to quantum mechanics it is then 100% certain that sooner or latter a universe will form out of complete nothingness. The caveat to this though is that for every positive universe that gets created, you need to create one negative universe to keep the total energy zero. With that you can have a universe with infinite energy as long as another universe is created with equally infinite but opposite energy.

This principle can be illustrated on the micro scale through particle interactions. In some sub-atomic particle interactions you need to calculate your results to include virtual particles. Virtual particles are particles that appear out of nothing and disappear immediately after they appear, but they occur in pairs, one positive one negative, so that the total energy is zero.

[skryingbreath]

Albeit that's a structured theory, it reminds me of this, which makes me laugh.
http://xs110.xs.to/xs110/06494/1161146036400.jpg (http://xs.to)

[Jay]

Every theory I have ever heard (religious or scientific) is based on assumptions.

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by will
"Who is God?" is probably the most complicated question you could possibly ask. And that very fact has to count for something. What could be more noble than seeking after the most complicated question one could ask?

Originally posted by zootm
The problem that science-type people tend to have with religion is that it's not disprovable. It's based upon simple assertion ("God exists") which can never be proven incorrect, whereas scientific theories always can.Who are you ultimately trying to prove or disprove "god exists" to? Because the answer is always "myself" when a scientific type asks that question. The "leap of faith" required to believe that God exists removes the self from this process. Experiencing something "bigger" than yourself requires passiveness. It's not you observing the answers or you rationalizing any observation, its allowing yourself to be observed and rationalized.

Originally posted by will
Each religion gives a different set of answers to some of these questions and doesn't have an answer for the rest of them. And there is no way to know which religions answers are right!You can see what each one tells you about yourself and about God.
Atheism always seems to tell me that I'm the center of the universe.
I find that unsatisfying and unfair to everyone else.

[will]

Quite the contrary, Atheism tells you that you are quite insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe, which is unfathomably old and large.

Religions tells you that you are "Gods chosen people" and are special and the universe was made for you. Isn't that unfair to everyone else?

[mikm]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v284/brokenheartedlaminar/doestoo.gif

[Mattress]

nothing is fair.

Where does this notion of fairness come from anyway?

[Martyr]

I love Atheism because it doesn't tell you anything at all.

It doesn't get more flexible than that.

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by will
Quite the contrary, Atheism tells you that you are quite insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe, which is unfathomably old and large. If current scientific theories are true, which we cannot know unless it is proven to each of us individually, which is the purpose of all knowledge, to verify facts for us.

Originally posted by will
Religions tells you that you are "Gods chosen people" and are special and the universe was made for you. Isn't that unfair to everyone else? Religion tells me that things outside of me actually exist and have a purpose which God understands.

[Schmeet]

Everything has a purpose, just not a supernatural one.

By Will
Quite the contrary, Atheism tells you that you are quite insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe, which is unfathomably old and large.


I wouldn't say it tells you as such, it's more of a realisation on your half.

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by will
Religions tells you that you are "Gods chosen people" and are special and the universe was made for you. Isn't that unfair to everyone else?

If you are talking about Jesus, (and not the Old Testament which gives that designation to the Hebrews exclusively), we are all Gods chosen people.

This is the proper interpretation of dogma, the 700 Club not withstanding.

In fact, this is the very problem we are fighting with the way that Islam interprets the same book.

[Widdykats]

Another Dogma..with an outclause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Christ) :D

[skryingbreath]

Originally posted by Mattress
Where does this notion of fairness come from anyway?
Fair is what you expect to happen for the good of yourself. The initial conception of this construct means nothing. As Humpty Dumpty once said - as I butcher Through The Looking Glass - "When I use a word, I use it as what I want it to mean, not what you think it means."

As a side note, fuck existentialism.

[Warrior of the Light]

S_T: the theory is cool and all.
But still something must've caused that nothingness to seperate into a positive and a negative.
And what (in time) was going on before that?
Was that nothingness always there before that or has there been another 'something' that somehow balanced back to the nothingness before us?

All questions with no answer that could be known to us.
A more realistic question is: Why do we care? We are now trying to prove that God is real or not, just by trying to find the answer to this one question. And even if we could get an answer, there is no proof that that will give us the answer about God.
Besides, what kind of a god would that be if we, with our limited knowledge, could comprehend him/her/it?

So indeed: fuck existentialism.

(Another sidenote: Believing that God exists alone won't get you in heaven; the devil believes that as well.)

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by Martyr
I love Atheism because it doesn't tell you anything at all.

It doesn't get more flexible than that.

How so?. Morality is still morality. You might learn that stealing is wrong from the bible or you might learn it from being thrown in jail.

Abortion is legal, but I'm failing to see anyone say that this is a good thing.

If you ask a Christian and an atheist a secular question, 99% of the time you are going to get the same answer.

So, you get rid of Christians and George Bush. All the problems of the world would dissappear?.

Not hardly.

When you put yourself at odds with Christian morality, you are more than likely putting yourself at odds with the secular morality as well.

So where's your imagined flexibility or freedom?. And how did Christians affect your ability to have this "flexibility" you don't have.

They didn't.

So you can listen to the cleric at church on Sunday, or I can quote a former crip drug counselor I know.

"Fly straight or the world will kick your ass".

[Phyltre]

You've all pushed me to it, I'm going to write a book on Christian religion.

So there.

[S-uper_T-oast]

Originally posted by skryingbreath
Albeit that's a structured theory, it reminds me of this, which makes me laugh.
[Image] (http://xs110.xs.to/xs110/06494/1161146036400.jpg)

qft

my fav is still:
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b106/SuperToasted/Misc/Schroedingerscatwanted.jpg


Originally posted by Warrior of the Light
S_T: the theory is cool and all.
But still something must've caused that nothingness to seperate into a positive and a negative.
And what (in time) was going on before that?
Was that nothingness always there before that or has there been another 'something' that somehow balanced back to the nothingness before us?

Since our understanding of time is intimately related with the space we inhabit during it (space-time), completely nothing existed before the universe began. Now while it may be possible we are just one blip in a multi-dimensional bulk, and there are further space-times outside our own; it is still impossible for anything to have existed based on our current understanding of space-time. And by nothing there, I do mean nothing; without space-time there is no matter, no entropy, no god; nothing. The something that caused it to happen is quantum mechanics, again since our current understanding of space-time is not compatible with quantum mechanics (hence the problem with quantum gravity), we can't really postulate what that something actually is. The thing is, directly out of the laws of quantum mechanics, it is entirely possible to create the universe.

Originally posted by Warrior of the Light
All questions with no answer that could be known to us.
A more realistic question is: Why do we care? We are now trying to prove that God is real or not, just by trying to find the answer to this one question. And even if we could get an answer, there is no proof that that will give us the answer about God.
Besides, what kind of a god would that be if we, with our limited knowledge, could comprehend him/her/it?

The reason I care is because it is a purpose to live. I can never begin to imagine how a religious person can go to sleep at night simply thinking "God did it." I almost take that as a personal insult. To think that some of the smartest people in history are simply written off as spouting bullshit; because of a god. I see that answer as a cop-out and literally a mental surrender on multiple levels. Now I'm certainly not trying to solve the mysteries of the universe to get attention, I do it because I believe there is an answer, and it's worth looking for. You can't disprove god, and you can't really conclusive prove or disprove anything: it's simply the amount of uncertainty you are willing to accept; and that another problem with theists, how can they accept such a wide margin of uncertainty, and for that matter how can they take such pride in it? Theists tout there faith as if it is there greatest attribute; in my eyes, they are basically trumpeting their own ignorance as there top trait. That then is my current summary of theism.

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by S-uper_T-oast
Theists tout there faith as if it is there greatest attribute; in my eyes, they are basically trumpeting their own ignorance as there top trait. That then is my current summary of theism.

Atheists tout there cynicism as if it is their .....

[skryingbreath]

Forum members tout their mispellings as if it is their...

I'm Christian, I'm cynical. OMFG PARADOX? LOL GUYS ONLY ATHIESTS CAN BE CYNICAL LOL.

[S-uper_T-oast]

Originally posted by rockouthippie
Atheists tout there cynicism as if it is their .....

Would you care to elaborate on your witty phrase?

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by S-uper_T-oast
I can never begin to imagine how a religious person can go to sleep at night simply thinking "God did it." I almost take that as a personal insult. I cannot imagine how you can go to sleep thinking that you've accurately described what any theist believes.
Your reason is assuming that
theist = Bumpkin
and I find that to be a very personal insult.

[deeder7001]

The only reason I think that we never accomplish anything in a debate is because we are all caught up in our "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude. I think it would be good for all sides to look at the subject from an opposing side. Try to understand each other's point of views. Stop insulting each other as it's annoying and gets nothing accomplished.

[S-uper_T-oast]

I agree. I'm right your wrong.

Why waste time understanding all the sides when I can be ignorant and obnoxious!

You'll never know every side, at what point of uncertainty should you make judgments? Religion in my view is an acceptance of a greater level of uncertainty then many other options.

[ScorLibran]

Originally posted by S-uper_T-oast
Religion in my view is an acceptance of a greater level of uncertainty then many other options.
But religion doesn't have it's own uncertainty principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle). :)

Ironically, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle can even be used to relate why the existence of God can never be scientifically disproven - and in fact, why the existence of anything cannot be disproven.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by S-uper_T-oast
Would you care to elaborate on your witty phrase? the end is "religion".

"Athiests tout their cynicism as if it were their religion."

At least, I presume that's what he meant.

Anyway. Nice link, Will.

[S-uper_T-oast]

Originally posted by ScorLibran
But religion doesn't have it's own uncertainty principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle). :)

Ironically, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle can even be used to relate why the existence of God can never be scientifically disproven - and in fact, why the existence of anything cannot be disproven.


shhhhhhhhhhhhhh ;)

we aren't usually dealing with the values associated with subatomic and atomic particles... ;):D

[Warrior of the Light]

Originally posted by S-uper_T-oast
Religion in my view is an acceptance of a greater level of uncertainty then many other options. So is atheism in my view.
Theories are and always will be theories. It's about trying to understand something that we just can't understand.
I have experienced God in my life, which makes it real to me. I choose real experience over uncertain theories any day.

[S-uper_T-oast]

I've experienced god in my life. Now granted it took the form of something called candy flipping, what's the difference?

Real experiences are just as uncertain and subjective as any theories. Theories can change though; theories can mutate to incorporate new data. Our real experiences can never change. No matter what I say, I will never be able to influence your subjective ideas about your real experiences that god worked in your life. Which still then brings me to my original point, what level of uncertainty are you willing to accept? I see the theories as constantly changing and morphing, and thus over time become less and less uncertain.

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

Theories can change into facts with the proper scientific proof.

[Phyltre]

If I were going to make an argument against an "atheist delusion", it would be about delusions concerning self, morality, good and evil, survivability, emotion/feeling, love, or our impression of self.

Because factually, in an atheist point of reference, there can be no good/evil or "self." Or rather, none of it is remotely external. A self would be nothing more than the haphazard accretion of social experiences and incredibly stilted introspection. Since there is no actual personality separable from the body, we will never know if our five senses are little more than a parody of a universe unfathomably different from reality--if it's in part or all just biofeedback peculiar to humans.

Because there is no good or evil, beyond the inherently selfish wellbeing of current humans, you can't accomplish anything past appeasing your own sense of good. There's no lasting goal, because a goal is merely an artifact of survival. There's no such thing as progress, because surviving and not surviving have no positive or negative values. If we are here solely because we happened to be tenable life forms that reproduced without self-destructing or being driven into extinction (yet), as evolutionary atheism suggests, any or all of us could die and nothing external would change. There's no reason for the species to exist beyond the fact that it can.

Looking at this, I can't help but thinking that an atheist who has a traditional sense of morality is self-deluding in much the sense that atheists think religious people are self-deluding. (Atheists tend to think that) a religious person subscribes to a false or unprovable doctrine in order to gain personal or social comfort rather than thinking independently...but wouldn't an atheist disillusioned of the artificial constructs of good/evil--or rather, pleasure/pain as it actually exists to our senses--be doing something similar? That is, allowing themselves to be guided by a transparent biofeedback system that evolved solely because it made us capable of perpetuating?



I'd really like your opinions on that last paragraph. It's this part of the atheist psyche (which I realize differs between people) that I can't muddle through.

[fwgx]

Originally posted by Phyltre
If we are here solely because we happened to be tenable life forms that reproduced without self-destructing or being driven into extinction (yet), as evolutionary atheism suggests, any or all of us could die and nothing external would change. There's no reason for the species to exist beyond the fact that it can.
Yeah, and? So what? so we exist, whoopy doo! That's not an argument againt anything, it's just true. The question of why we exist is the biggest factor in this whole debate that constantly gets in the way. As if without some purpose life is pointless and nothing can be explained. I can quite enjoy life without a purpose, infact I can probably enjoy it more because I don't have the threat of eternal damnation hanging over my head for doing something wrong. The question "how did we come to exist?", now that's a question that's worth answering, the answer to which answers the first question, even if some people don't like the "just because we evolved" answer it gives.


Looking at this, I can't help but thinking that an atheist who has a traditional sense of morality is self-deluding in much the sense that atheists think religious people are self-deluding. (Atheists tend to think that) a religious person subscribes to a false or unprovable doctrine in order to gain personal or social comfort rather than thinking independently...but wouldn't an atheist disillusioned of the artificial constructs of good/evil--or rather, pleasure/pain as it actually exists to our senses--be doing something similar? That is, allowing themselves to be guided by a transparent biofeedback system that evolved solely because it made us capable of perpetuating?

But to hold morals and be altruistic is part of survival in society and always has been. Virtue is created out of the selfish genes we are made of because it is ultimatly better for us to do so. Noone has been truely self sufficiet their entire lives, ever. We survive thanks only to the actions of others and we harbour that to our advantage through virtue, morals etc. Just because I don't believe in the metaphysical entitities of good and evil doesn't mean I can't see the advantage of knowing what they are in society and abiding by them. It's better for me and I happen to agree with most anyway. Because virtue can be reciprocated the saying "do unto others as you would have them do onto you" does hold truth for atheists and creationists alike.

Sure you could go through life being a self serving asshole but I don't think you'd be happy. You wont have any friends and ultimatly life will suck for you because you're human and not built to like being alone all the time. You won't have the virtue of others bestowed upon you because you have not reciprocated that favour. And we are all only able to survive due to the actions of others.

[Wildrose-Wally]

Everybody believes something. :o
I believe I'll have another beer. :D

[Phyltre]

As if without some purpose life is pointless and nothing can be explained.

This is where we're disagreeing, I suppose. Without a purpose life is, indeed, by every measure I can think of, pointless. Obviously lacking a supernatural force we are not lacking explanations, but the explanations don't take us anywhere because the knowledge is moot.

Maybe this would help me: what is the point of a purposeless life?

[skryingbreath]

Nothing, let's all kill ourselves! Who has the Kool-aid?

[S-uper_T-oast]

I'm fresh out of kool-aide, but I did just stock up on polonium 210 if that could be of any assistance.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by Phyltre
This is where we're disagreeing, I suppose. Without a purpose life is, indeed, by every measure I can think of, pointless. Obviously lacking a supernatural force we are not lacking explanations, but the explanations don't take us anywhere because the knowledge is moot.

Maybe this would help me: what is the point of a purposeless life? Metaphysical questions such as that do not become any more answerable when you add God, because all it does is restate the question; unless you simply consider that it is not your place to know the overall point/purpose &mdash; in which case, you're no better off than before, except now you think you have a master to answer to. If you want that, you can come live with me so I may give you a purpose as my slave.

Please don't respond to the above paragraph without carefully considering what I said.

And as far as an external motivator &mdash; not only it is not required, indeed, it demeans humanity. I am a good person, and I need no threat of hell to be that way. I need no God. To suggest that I do is, in fact, quite offensive.

[Phyltre]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
I am a good person

No you're not, there's no such thing.

(for the sake of argument)

[S-uper_T-oast]

I'm good at making shitty posts, does that count?

[tuckerm]

I like looking at this thread for some pictures, does that count? :p

[and1k]

Originally posted by ScorLibran
I personally think the Earth is 39 years old.


When I was a kid, I believed that the world had been made yesterday, and we'd all had false memories implanted.

[ScorLibran]

That might actually be true. How can we really be sure it's not?

:confused:

Each of us can be living in our own universe and - in turn - our own instance of reality (ref: multi-verse theory), and are overlapping with each other's reality so that we can see/touch/communicate with each other online, in real life, etc.

Maybe my universe was created a moment before I was born in 1967, which explains why no one could see or interact with me before that moment.

;) :p :weird:

[S-uper_T-oast]

<insert noodley appendage in any orifice>

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by Phyltre
No you're not, there's no such thing.

(for the sake of argument) Why not?

Give me a reason why "good" has to be from an external (Godly) source.

In particular, when I say "good", and this is for the sake of argument, let us presume I maintain that there is no spiritual aspect to life (I don't, but this argument would be needlessly complicated).

Goodness consists of increased likelihood of survival of my genes, my consciousness, and my knowledge/memes, on one side. Next would include my associated beings (friends, etc). Next would include, say, the rest of humanity, and then animal and plant life. You can argue seniority or grouping all you want, but it's not relevant.

As an addition, non-defective (in terms of survival of the species) humans want to avoid suffering, and have, in general, a built-in sense of "fairness" and reciprocity.

All "morals" can be pretty much universally grouped into four categories in this system:


Good ones. These are morals which, overall, do good. Say, "don't kill random people".
Evil ones, implemented for their creators benefit with the false message that these are for the overall good. Perhaps, "don't question The Church".
Evil or neutral or ones which are based on something false, or are no longer valid. (Examples in the Bible include the whole "dietary restrictions" thing, which supposedly, at the time, increased food safety&mdash;but supposedly this was because God commanded it, right?)
Part of a system designed to support one of the above categories. For example, following the rules of marriage. It doesn't help your genes survive as well as sleeping with thousands of women, not directly. It does provide many other benefits, however, in particular to your children and your ability to give them your knowledge and memes.


I'd like you to find something that you would consider "good", which does not align to the principles of survival of genes, consciousness, or knowledge, keeping in mind a sense of fairness, reciprocity, and avoidance of suffering which is built-in to humans. That would provide a good launchpad for a discussion. If you can't, then I don't see how my idea&mdash;and therefore sense&mdash;of "good" is inferior to any other.

[shakey_snake]

martyrdom

[fwgx]

Surely you could have also been a martyr for the ideals of the Third Reich. Is that a better kind of good than just being nice?

[Mattress]

From a "propagation of genes = good" stand point, genocide is good so long as you're genociding a race other than your own...

less competition for your own future genes = better chance of your future propagated genes survival = good

Even better would be to kill everyone except for your own family.

Of course I'm taking it to an extreme, but then martyrdom for the Third Reich is also an extreme case.

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by Phily Baby
Surely you could have also been a martyr for the ideals of the Third Reich. Martyrdom for your nation, or perceived race would fit xz's scheme.
Martyrdom for something you only hold religious faith in (like Christians in the roman empire, or Abraham's sacrifice of Issac( probably better example)) would not.

I thought that such a distinction would be assumed given the nature of this topic when I simply said "martyrdom".

[Phyltre]

Well, on the first count, I suspect we're coming at this from very different angles mentally. My first postulate was not that there is no good without God, but rather that a human's sense of good is a cobbled-together series of contradictions by most accounts. Your concept of good is dependent on where you live, how you were raised, what time you were born into, etc, but this effect is shrinking as cultures butte up against each other. But as far as I can tell, a rational account of "good" is merely the artifact of pleasure versus pain, death versus survival.

It's an artifact of living, as you argue. In fact, I've already (bordering on explicitly) agreed with almost everything you've written. My misunderstanding here is not with where our concept of good comes from, but why we should listen to it when we know its origins.

Sure, the concept of good exists, but so does the concept of a perfect souffle. There's no good or bad in souffles, but people will eat one and declare it good or bad. Is there any objective truth there? No, it's all opinion based on tastebuds, eating habits, comfort with regional foods, and even social restrictions...don't offend the cook!

I suppose that in the end, I can't look at a system as contrived, self-centered, and haphazard as biological good and give it any credit at all. To make the inevitable extreme example, Hitler caused lots of suffering and pain. But what are the lasting effects? Some people died painfully, but everyone dies eventually. And what positive effect do people have, anyway, that we shouldn't be killing them? Because it offends our sensibilities that evolved from the basest of self-interests? Because we might get killed, too? Heck, overpopulation could be considered a greater evil. According to evolutionary principle, we are no better than our ancestors. A unique mix of long-term genetic mutations merely made us more viable in Earth-specific environments and ecosystems.

It's almost certain that on other planets (assuming that Earth isn't some kind of a one-in-a-trillion fluke), there are species of incomprehensible killing machines with a complex but completely contrary morality to ours. In our eyes, they would be considered evil because they'd get here and just wipe us out, then take over. Maybe they'd even eat us (unlikely of course, given different biology) children first, starting with the youngest, making deaths excruciatingly long and agonizing. Maybe they'd just ignore us and destroy our planet by mining it out for resources, leaving us to all die a slow death due to pollution, starvation, and global imbalance--something worse than any human, no matter how "evil", has yet done. But they wouldn't be evil, because they were following their evolutionary prerogatives to the letter, just like our concept of good tells us to.



question: Do you believe that the US is more successful entrepreneurially than other countries because most of the people who first came here were the ones willing to make the jump here, and were therefore more likely to be risk-takers, the kind of people that make good businesspeople? Because that would indicate a very interesting possibility in discussion.

[xzxzzx]

Hey Phyltre. :D I'm trying to keep my posts as short as possible while still expressing everything, so excuse me as I snip your quotes mercilessly&mdash;it's done for brevity's sake.

Originally posted by Phyltre
My first postulate was not that there is no good without God, ... Your concept of good is dependent on where you live, how you were raised, what time you were born into, etc... Not entirely true. There are many morals of mine that are dependent on what you mention&mdash;they fit into category #4.

My concept of "good" is as metaphysical as it gets. I value life.

The point of life is life.

Originally posted by Phyltre
My misunderstanding here is not with where our concept of good comes from, but why we should listen to it when we know its origins.Well, if the metaphsyical idea of "good" doesn't appeal to you, then how about unhappiness, pain, and suffering? (The typical results of "evil".)

If we're comparing, how is, say, the Christian "good" any better?

Originally posted by Phyltre
There's no good or bad in souffles, but people will eat one and declare it good or bad. Is there any objective truth there? No... Unless I totally missed your point, you're simply using another definition of good. "Appealing" would be a more appropriate word.

Originally posted by Phyltre
I can't ... give any credit at all. Hitler caused lots of suffering and pain. But what are the lasting effects? ... [W]hat positive effect do people have, anyway, that we shouldn't be killing them? ... Heck, overpopulation could be considered a greater evil."Suffering and pain" are evil. Overpopulation a greater evil than what? My "goodness framework" has no problem considering overpopulation evil. Nor does is have a problem considering killing millions of people evil.

Originally posted by Phyltre
[There is probably a] species of incomprehensible killing machines with a complex but completely contrary morality to ours. In our eyes, they would be considered evil because they'd get here and just wipe us out, then take over. ... [b]But they wouldn't be evil, because they were following their evolutionary prerogatives to the letter, just like our concept of good tells us to. Let us say that we encounter another concious, self-aware, sentient type of life on another planet. Would we not consider ourselves evil if we destroyed it?

Of course that would be evil. Both to us, and to them. What makes you assume that your aliens would not also consider killing us evil?

Suffering and pain are, perhaps, not universal&mdash;but preservation of conciousness and knowledge surely would be in any species which evolved enough to leave their world.






And the bonus round:
Originally posted by Phyltre
question: Do you believe that the US is more successful entrepreneurially than other countries because most of the people who first came here were the ones willing to make the jump here, and were therefore more likely to be risk-takers, the kind of people that make good businesspeople? Because that would indicate a very interesting possibility in discussion.I think that's a plausible theory. I don't really have enough information to consider it true or not. Just very plausible.

[Mattress]

I don't think that pain and suffering are inherently evil. For example, you have gangrene in your leg. A doctor saws your leg off to save your life. You went through pain having your leg sawed off and you suffer from being crippled for the rest of your life. If being alive is better than being dead (also up for debate), then pain and suffering led to a good outcome.

Not to say that all pain and suffering is good, or will lead to good, but I don't think they are singly evil in and of themselves. More likely they are often the result of evil, but not necessarily evil themselves. They are just things.

[Phyltre]

Hmmm. Leaving the first thousand points for a later date when I have time to organize my thoughts better, as I see that I need a better presentation framework--that last bit makes me very curious about the possibility of an end-justifying-means sort of situation. For instance, it stands to reason (at least to some science fiction authors) that we could start up a breeding program meant to increase life spans. We would accomplish this by enforcing a minimum age limit for having children, and then slowly raise the minimum age over the course of a few centuries. Eventually, our artificial selection would weed out early-mortality cases, and eventually we'd be extending the lifespan with a modicum of reliability.

Of course, in order to do this, you have to keep people from procreating, you have to place artificial restraints on people's natural lives, and hey--you might end up with a failed experiment and thousands of dead people. But does the end justify the means? If our definition of good is preservation of life, should that be a short term or a long term thing? Because that would make for two very different kinds of "good."

[oldman58]

God desires to have a relationship with men and women. If you have not tried to have an intimate relationship with God that is because you have not accepted Jesus Christ into your heart, asked forgiveness for your sins, believe he is the son of God and receive the Holy Spirit of God. Once you have made this decision, you will see God working in your life and everyone and everything around you. People do not have the faith to believe in God the Father, The Son Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit (Trinity), and therefore can not enjoy the spiritual peace and love of God.

[Vie]

You forgot to add: In my Opinion.

[ScorLibran]

Originally posted by oldman58
God desires to have a relationship with men and women.
So does Hari Seldon and Neo. What's your point?

Originally posted by oldman58
People do not have the faith to believe in God the Father, The Son Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit (Trinity), and therefore can not enjoy the spiritual peace and love of God.
I get the exact same effect from narcotic medications.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by Mattress
I don't think that pain and suffering are inherently evil. For example ... [a] doctor saws your leg off to save your life. ... pain and suffering led to a good outcome.The pain and suffering are not what led to a good outcome; the removal of the leg is.

Killing another human being (say, a child) would be evil. Killing a child who is going to press a button and set off a nuclear weapon is not, overall, evil, even if the child didn't know what it was doing. Evil and good are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to do evil and good at the same time. What you must be concerned about is the overall.

Originally posted by Mattress
More likely [pain and suffering] are often the result of evil, but not necessarily evil themselves. They are just things. If I had a button that somehow froze time and caused agony in every human on the planet for what seemed like 10 minutes, would it be evil to push it, ignoring any indirect consequences?

---

Originally posted by Phyltre
[lots of snip] ... If our definition of good is preservation of life, should that be a short term or a long term thing? Because that would make for two very different kinds of "good." Why take that example? Why not eugenics? We'll just sterilize everyone who isn't good enough. I'll probably be fine, I'm healthy, intelligent, and my genetic flaws are minimal and easily correctible by the correct pairing (though I'm admittedly not a woman, which may or may not help my genes in a eugenics scheme&mdash;it depends). Why would I have a problem with that?

Truth be told, the age bumping thing might not be a bad idea. However, you'd need a community where everyone would agree to the idea in the first place, because people are not going to like it, in general. But therein lies a problem: the only people likely (in my estimation) to agree to it are the people who would be at the very highest end of the intelligence spectrum anyway, the very people you'd want to keep the gene lines of.

Here's the two big problems: A free society has many more benefits than the fascist one which your scheme effectively requires. Also, many examples which are constructed like yours are evil simply because they do not work (in this case, people would almost certainly find ways around child prohibitions). A scheme like yours might actually be considered good in my mind; presuming it would actually be feasible, but it's not either of those things.

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
It is possible to do evil and good at the same time. What you must be concerned about is the overall. If you're subscribing to a Consequential system of ethics, which I personally find to be much less satisfying than ethical systems based on Virtue.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by shakey_snake
If you're subscribing to a Consequential system of ethics, which I personally find to be much less satisfying than ethical systems based on Virtue. So, then, you would let the child press the button and kill millions of others? Is that your implication? Or is it that killing the child has no evil in it?

Like it or not, there are situations where a limited amount of evil must be employed for the greater good.

At the same time, it would not be ethical, according to me, to go around extracting magic-cure-all brain-juice from people in order to save others (for example), even though "consequencially", it would be "good". It would not, however, be fair. I don't know if I was clear in my last post. Perhaps you and I are not so different in our ethical views?

[shakey_snake]

Is killing the child the only way to stop them from pressing the button? Who is killing this child? Why are they killing the child?
These are the questions that need to be asked to determined if the action is ethical or not. The virtue of the doer is at question, not the result.
and that is a very different takes on ethics from what you've explained.

"killing the child" isn't a isolated, unconscience or anonymous act, as consequentialism would have you believe.

If, Dr. Evil is sniping the child to stop him form pressing the button so that he can use the button to take the world hostage, then killing the child is evil.
If a county deputy finds himself thrown into a situation where he is forced to make a split-second decision to use lethal force, then the situation is much more forgivable.

[ScorLibran]

There seems to be confusion between evil and tragedy.

Killing anyone of any age to clearly prevent the deaths of thousands is not at all evil. It's tragic. Therefore it's possible to kill a child and remain completely virtuous - albeit under very strict circumstances.

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by ScorLibran
Killing anyone of any age to clearly prevent the deaths of thousands is not at all evil. I disagree.
That is not a blanket statement.
That is an precise example of Utilitarian logic, but it is not an axiom, and not a statement I would always agree with.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by shakey_snake
Is killing the child the only way to stop them from pressing the button? Who is killing this child? Why are they killing the child?
These are the questions that need to be asked to determined if the action is ethical or not. The virtue of the doer is at question, not the result.
and that is a very different takes on ethics from what you've explained.And how do you determine what is virtuous without considering consequences?

I'm still failing to see the difference. It seems like two sides of the same coin&mdash;that the ethical decisions would be the same, if the perspective is slightly different.

Originally posted by shakey_snake
If, Dr. Evil is sniping the child to stop him form pressing the button so that he can use the button to take the world hostage, then killing the child is evil.Is it? Think about this for a moment. In a world of perfectly ethics (by your ethical system, except that the child is going to press the button if he isn't killed, and Dr. Evil wants to hold the world hostage), you'd prefer the child presses the button rather than Dr. Evil killing the child? You consider the button being pressed less evil than Dr. Evil trying to hold the world hostage with it (and incidentally killing the child)?

I use "child" for the obvious emotion-reaction which will often challenge a poorly thought-out ethics system (and to simplify matters&mdash;it's far more plausible that a child would not know what it was doing).

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
And how do you determine what is virtuous without considering consequences? There are decent introductory explainations on wikipedia (here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics)) if different ethical systems are really this foreign of an idea to you. Any ethics textbook will typically divide into these three sections.

Originally posted by xzxzzx
I'm still failing to see the difference. It seems like two sides of the same coin&mdash;that the ethical decisions would be the same, if the perspective is slightly different. Maybe that's because you're test case isn't definative.

Originally posted by xzxzzx
Is it? Think about this for a moment. In a world of perfectly ethics (by your ethical system, except that the child is going to press the button if he isn't killed, and Dr. Evil wants to hold the world hostage), you'd prefer the child presses the button rather than Dr. Evil killing the child? You consider the button being pressed less evil than Dr. Evil trying to hold the world hostage with it (and incidentally killing the child)? I don't think there is a preferable outcome in this situation. You are still assuming consequentialism by trying to link "preferable outcome" with "most correct".

The whole situation is unfortunate. However, the innocent child pressing the button is much less an evil person than a maniac taking the world hostage.

[ScorLibran]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
I use "child" for the obvious emotion-reaction which will often challenge a poorly thought-out ethics system (and to simplify matters&mdash;it's far more plausible that a child would not know what it was doing).
Well done. :)

And I don't think anyone would question whether or not the child is "evil", as it's irrelevant. More central to the argument is whether a person would be evil for killing the child to save "the world" (or even just a considerable number of people). And as pointed out, it would be tragic but not evil. Cause determines whether an act is or is not evil. Killing someone for no cause is naturally evil. Killing someone for a very legitimate cause to save many other lives is not. How many other lives would define the threshold? That's subjective, and dependent on the situation.

Also, the "value" of those lives comes into question, and relates entirely to the nature of a person's own definition of virtue and ethics. Killing one innocent person to save the lives of 100 prisoners? That's in a gray area - some people may consider that evil, while others may not. Killing a prisoner to save the lives of 100 innocent people? Most people would probably not consider that evil at all. Thought it would still be tragic.

Then there's the matter of what defines "innocent". A million criteria lie within this ethical parable. Only the seeming absolutes would be easy to answer. The rest is muddled in discreet subjectivity and belief structures.

Therefore, for most models that can fall within this topic, there is no "right" or "wrong"; only different opinions.

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by ScorLibran
Well done. :)

And I don't think anyone would question whether or not the child is "evil", as it's irrelevant. More central to the argument is whether a person would be evil for killing the child to save "the world" (or even just a considerable number of people). And as pointed out, it would be tragic but not evil. Cause determines whether an act is or is not evil. Killing someone for no cause is naturally evil. Killing someone for a very legitimate cause to save many other lives is not. How many other lives would define the threshold? That's subjective, and dependent on the situation.

Also, the "value" of those lives comes into question, and relates entirely to the nature of a person's own definition of virtue and ethics. Killing one innocent person to save the lives of 100 prisoners? That's in a gray area - some people may consider that evil, while others may not. Killing a prisoner to save the lives of 100 innocent people? Most people would probably not consider that evil at all. Thought it would still be tragic.
Again, (and I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall with the two of you) you continue to talk as though the ends always justify the means.
Consider this: It is possible for someone to do the morally right thing, even though it could end up doing lots of harm to a lot of people.
Originally posted by ScorLibran
Therefore, for most models that can fall within this topic, there is no "right" or "wrong"; only different opinions. Yet these opinions can be systematically evaluated for consistency. That's why people study Ethics, and that's why it is important to understand ethical systems outside of what you may personally prescribe to.

[ScorLibran]

Experience and knowledge will come with age. :)

[shakey_snake]

Tomarrow's not promised.

[ScorLibran]

Very good point.

Just a general statement, though. For each day/month/year a person lives, the more experience - and in turn, knowledge - he or she gains. Especially on subjective matters like morality.

Wisdom comes in time. That's why old people make most of the really important decisions in the world. And we haven't all killed each other just yet, so things could certainly be worse.

[shakey_snake]

Are you seriously going to use this ad hominem everytime I have a point you want to ignore?
If you can't (or can't be bothered to) logically expand your agruments, then please don't involve yourself in these sorts of conversations.

[ScorLibran]

Calm down, there. ;) As I said, the statement was general in nature. Don't take it so personally.


Back to the topic (again)...


How many people here think that ethics MUST be tied to religion?

And if you're religious, do ALL of your own ethics come from your faith?

The definition of the word "ethics" does not even include religion in any explicit way. It's simply "moral principles" or "rules of conduct recognized by a particular group of people". Nor does the definition of "morality", which is "conformity to the rules of right conduct", "moral or virtuous conduct", or essentially, "conformity to a system of ethics".

It's understandable that a religion would define ethics for its followers. But why should religion have a monopoly on ethics and morality?

[Phyltre]

Because scientifically speaking we're just animals with overgrown brains. "Morality" is nothing more than a positive-reinforcement impulse.

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by ScorLibran
Calm down, there. ;) As I said, the statement was general in nature. Don't take it so personally.
It is a personal attack (and therefore a logical inconsistency), and I will point that out everytime you wish to use it.

[ScorLibran]

That's a cop out, and it's still false, but believe what you like. :)

Anyway, there are more relevant and interesting points in this topic...

Originally posted by Phyltre
Because scientifically speaking we're just animals with overgrown brains. "Morality" is nothing more than a positive-reinforcement impulse.
I agree that morality is a function of positive reinforcement. But I also think there's more to it than that.

We're pretty smart animals. We have logic, emotions, and huge capacities of memory. We crave a sense of belonging. And most of us want to be a part of something more than ourselves, in a much more complex way than a simple "pack instinct".

For many people these attributes lead to a pursuit of religion in order to "fill the gaps". It provides a place to belong, and a comforting explanation of things for which we don't yet have real explanations. Although for people with faith, the religious explanations are plenty real. Belief is a powerful thing. People live and die for it.

And religious belief gains its power from the ethical values it engenders. For many people I've talked to in my life, their religion provides most or all of the morality by which they live. It's a roadmap. A pre-defined instruction manual they use to define and direct themselves - and, in many cases, everyone around them. (The latter is problematic, but that's another topic.)

People without religious faith have no such roadmap. Most are taught virtue by others - usually parents, friends and/or teachers. The rest have to figure out their own sense of morality. This begs the question, "Are humans naturally good, or naturally evil?"

If never taught any ethics, and without any outside influence, would a person live by what would be perceived as a good moral code? Or would they automatically become mass murderers?

I personally believe it's a balance between the two. We're not "born" purely good or purely evil. We naturally have compassion and a tendency towards empathy. But we also have a sense of self-preservation which may override our ethics.

In the example of killing the child to save thousands of other lives, most people with what I'd call "natural ethics" would fiercely resist in their mind any hostile motion towards the child. Only if provided with clear evidence that there's a societal need to do so would the person take the child's life. And afterwards, regardless of the factors involved, the person would feel overwhelming regret for the rest of his or her life.

"Societal need" could mean "in order to save a thousand other lives", or it could mean "ritual sacrifice as dictated by the laws of my tribe". And either scenario would not require any presence of evil in the person's action.

Religious dogma - varying by each religion - has its own mandates regarding what's "evil" and what's morally justified. To a Christian, abortion is evil. To an Islamic extremist, performing a suicide bombing in a hospital may not at all be evil to the relevant extremist group. Although most other people in the world would be in concensus that the act is quite evil.

Morality is a moving target, and "evil" is a subjective concept measured by perception and by ethics defined either by your group or within yourself - or by some combination of both. Very few scenarios fall under the category of "absolute evil" upon which every human being would agree.

[zootm]

Originally posted by ScorLibran
How many people here think that ethics MUST be tied to religion?
I (strongly) do not, for what it's worth.

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by ScorLibran
That's a cop out, and it's still false, but believe what you like. :) :weird: It's a cop out to think that just because you're older than someone, you can use that as some sort of trump card whenever you feel too lazy to provide an explaination for your position.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by shakey_snake
Again, (and I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall with the two of you) you continue to talk as though the ends always justify the means. *sigh*

No, actually, I don't. You know, you might consider that if you feel like we're not getting it (and since, frankly, neither Scor nor I am stupid), maybe you're just not making your point clearly.

Originally posted by shakey_snake
Consider this: It is possible for someone to do the morally right thing, even though it could end up doing lots of harm to a lot of people.Sure. But that "harm" you speak of is, effectively, "evil", insomuch as that you would avoid it if you could. Necessary and good are not the same.

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
Sure. But that "harm" you speak of is, effectively, "evil", insomuch as that you would avoid it if you could. Necessary and good are not the same. The "harm" would be the "unfortunate" or "tragic" element of the equation, not the "evil".


Lets say that you are a whistle bower at a major corporation. Your boss (and all his colleagues) are some how involved in the money laundering of corporate funds. If you report your boss to the authorities, the business will go bankrupt, and 600 people will be out of work. If you allow the practice to continue, it is intrinsically a victumless crime.

Is it right or wrong to blow the whistle? Why?

[ScorLibran]

Originally posted by shakey_snake
It's a cop out to think that just because you're older than someone, you can use that as some sort of trump card whenever you feel too lazy to provide an explaination for your position.
Eleven paragraphs in one post. Would you prefer a 300-page novel? Dream on. I've provided very detailed explanations for my position. You've got plenty. :p

Again...
Originally posted by ScorLibran
Calm down, there. ;) As I said, the statement was general in nature. Don't take it so personally.
Refer to the definition of the word "general". My own age is irrelevant. Do you really think that as a person ages, they do not gain experience? You're smarter than that. And more knowledge will come to you. It comes to all of us as we go through life. Be patient. And move past your pain.

Hey, see that topic? The one in this thread? Run to it. Run! :)

Originally posted by zootm
I (strongly) do not, for what it's worth.
Nor do I. It seems very natural for me - and I think it does for others, as well - to decide upon my own sense of morality, based on a combination of what I learn from outside myself and what just "seems right" within myself.

I'm curious to know how someone with strong religious faith would answer that question. Someone who does not define any of their own morality - at least the high-level stuff - outside of that set by religious edict. It seems like it would be a very different approach. I'd like to learn how it comes about. I've never been religious, but I've always had an interest in theology, and on this topic, I have an interest in how thoroughly religious ethics can define a person's life.

I'm also curious as to how a very religious person would address the "nature vs. nurture" effect upon morality which I described in a previous post. Do they believe people are naturally "good" or naturally "evil"? Within their group, does each of them even feel the same way about it?

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by ScorLibran
How many people here think that ethics MUST be tied to religion?

And if you're religious, do ALL of your own ethics come from your faith?


An ethical man knows it's wrong to cheat on his wife. A moral man doesn't cheat.

No one opposes Christianity because it isn't moral or ethical enough. It's because it's ethics are too strict and the morality is too difficult.

Did they want to modify ethics to be more lax or did they not want to abide morality?.

So, when people oppose Christians, which is it?.

What sin did you need to commit?. What ethics did you need to modify to suit yourself?. What morality did you need to ignore?.

There is no other reason to oppose Christians or the bible.

For me, it's hard enough to stay moral. I didn't need to figure out what my ethics were. Luckily, Jesus figured that out for me.

How many times have I thought "What would Jesus do?". If I practice the morality that these ethics teach me, I am never wrong. At least not so far. My experience with relativism isn't nearly as successful.

Here's an old guys opinion. You will lead your life exactly according to Christian ethics and morality or you will be screwed.

Christian or not, every sin will come back to haunt you like some evil picture of Dorian Gray.

Trust me.

[Schmeet]

Originally posted by rockouthippie
"What would Jesus do?".
Who cares what Jesus would do? (http://mwillett.org/atheism/WWJD.htm)

[rockouthippie]

You should care what Jesus would do, because if you don't do what Jesus would do, you'll be fucked.

With or without the bible, right is right and wrong is wrong. When you figure out the difference by yourself, you'll get the same answer as what the bible says.

And if you think something besides what the bible says, you'll find out you were wrong.

You also don't have to wait around for God to send you to hell. Your life will bear the full brunt of your stupidity.

If you don't believe in God, maybe you should believe in hundreds of generations of humans that found out this was a beneficial way to lead a life.

The invention of plastic did not change basic truth, ethics or what people really are.

[ScorLibran]

Originally posted by rockouthippie
No one opposes Christianity because it isn't moral or ethical enough. It's because it's ethics are too strict and the morality is too difficult.

Did they want to modify ethics to be more lax or did they not want to abide morality?.

So, when people oppose Christians, which is it?
Neither. I oppose Christianity for two reasons, neither of which are related to its ethics or morality (which I generally support). (1) Christianity, like every other religion, is based entirely on a model of belief without any meaningful evidence. It requires absolute faith. I see no logic in faith. In my opinion, it's not a smart way to live. (2) Nothing has harmed humanity throughout history more than religion, and Christianity is one of the most egregious perpetrators.

Originally posted by rockouthippie
What sin did you need to commit?. What ethics did you need to modify to suit yourself?. What morality did you need to ignore?.
None. I'm not a Christian. ;)

Originally posted by rockouthippie
You will lead your life exactly according to Christian ethics and morality or you will be screwed.
Wow. That's......a very interesting statement. The kind I like to show other people just to see their response.

Just now, even two devout Christian friends of mine responded to your statement with surprise. They're convinced you're kidding. I have to say, I suspect the same thing.

:weird:

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by ScorLibran
(1) Christianity, like every other religion, is based entirely on a model of belief without any meaningful evidence. It requires absolute faith. I see no logic in faith. In my opinion, it's not a smart way to live. (2) Nothing has harmed humanity throughout history more than religion, and Christianity is one of the most egregious perpetrators.


People can be immoral. There is a difference between morality and ethics. The ethics of Christianity haven't changed for centuries. Neither has the fact that men can be immoral.



Wow. That's......a very interesting statement. The kind I like to show other people just to see their response.

Just now, even two devout Christian friends of mine responded to your statement with surprise. They're convinced you're kidding. I have to say, I suspect the same thing.



I'm not kidding at all. I think that we all pay for our sins. Divorces hurt. Unwanted children hurt. Abortions hurt. The drugs, drink, promiscuity ..... etc .... it all catches up.

If you adopt the morality of the bible, shit will still happen, but you won't be looking in the mirror wondering how you got to be such a poke.

You don't need Christian terms for this. Secular sayings will do..... What goes around, comes around..... You play, you pay ...... bad karma.....

People can try to create ethical ambiguity to support a lack of morality. Right is right and wrong is wrong. That doesn't really change much. No matter what a guy believes.

You've read me arguing the "christian" side of a lot of arguments, but you never heard me say "Because God says so".

My experience teaches me the bible is a correct ethics set. If I can live up to that morality, it saves confusion.

Everytime I decided to make up my own ethics, I was wrong and I paid. Now I just struggle with morality. That's easier when you've decided what your ethics are.

[ScorLibran]

Interesting points. :up:

Originally posted by rockouthippie
You don't need Christian terms for this. Secular sayings will do..... What goes around, comes around..... You play, you pay ...... bad karma.....
I'm not religious, and I don't believe in karma. So my account balance is zero! :D (Also, abiding by a good ethical code helps out a bit.)

Originally posted by rockouthippie
Everytime I decided to make up my own ethics, I was wrong and I paid.
As with any other area of expertise, different people are sure to have different "ethical skill levels".

Not referring to anyone in particular here... Some people create a good ethical code on their first try. Some people take longer. And some people never figure one out for themselves, and would therefore need an instruction manual. Like the one religion provides.

That doesn't mean that everyone of faith cannot create their own good ethical code. But I DO hope that everyone who can't create their own good ethical code would embrace religion.

[skryingbreath]

All vehement arguments aside; you have to admit, Jesus is pretty fucking cool.

[ScorLibran]

Originally posted by skryingbreath
All vehement arguments aside; you have to admit, Jesus is pretty fucking cool.
I never argue. People just vehemently disagree with me from time to time. ;)

And I agree, Jesus is certainly cool.

[CraigF]

If he existed at all.

[Mattress]

Did Alexander the Great exist?

There's much less evidence of his existence than of Jesus'.

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by ScorLibran
Not referring to anyone in particular here... Some people create a good ethical code on their first try. Some people take longer. And some people never figure one out for themselves, and would therefore need an instruction manual. Like the one religion provides.

That doesn't mean that everyone of faith cannot create their own good ethical code. But I DO hope that everyone who can't create their own good ethical code would embrace religion.

If you point at shortcomings of Christians, it's pointing at their morality, not at the ethics. People aren't always moral.

If you ignore the religious significance of the bible, it still contains ethical information gathered from hundreds of generations of humans.

We didn't need to re-invent the wheel. The round one rolls. Christian ethics have proven to be a beneficial way to live. That's regardless of whether you think the bible was inspired by God or just written by men.

You didn't need Christianity exclusively to find these ethics. They are almost universal in the worlds major religions.

Even in Islam. The ethics of Islam would not allow terrorism. The morality of some of the people that practice Islam is in question.

The idea that you don't kill, lie, steal etc. aren't exclusive to Christianity. Atheists mostly believe these same truths.

Everyone knows what right and wrong are. When you start to argue these ethics, I think it brings your moral purpose into question. That's because when you find your own ethics, and they are proper, they will look just like the bible.

It's hard enough to deal with moral ambiguity without eroding ethics.

When Islam 100 years from now looks at it's moral standing, they'll know they didn't follow their ethics.

That's because ethics are universal and constant. Basically human ethics haven't changed for centuries. Neither has our inability to live up to them by being moral people. Neither has the tendency for people to justify immorality by trying to change ethics.

Ethics don't change for long. The truth wins.

Look at 20th century American history. We've had swings toward liberalism, and finding it was screwed, we recanted.

We are in the process of recanting it now.

[ScorLibran]

Originally posted by rockouthippie
Look at 20th century American history. We've had swings toward liberalism, and finding it was screwed, we recanted.

We are in the process of recanting it now.
Wow. That's also very interesting.

My Christian friends aren't here right now to review it. I'll show it to them when they're here later.

[shakey_snake]

Since no one seems willing to respond to my questions, I'll pick up here:
Originally posted by ScorLibran
How many people here think that ethics MUST be tied to religion?It is possible for an atheist to establish a system of ethics based on Consequentialism.

General revelation of God is integral to ethical systems based on virtue and deontology at the very least.
Originally posted by ScorLibran
And if you're religious, do ALL of your own ethics come from your faith?By the very nature of ethics, most are cultural. However, the core of my ethical system is independent of culture and rooted directly in my relationship with God through Christ.

Originally posted by ScorLibran
Just now, even two devout Christian friends of mine responded to your statement with surprise. They're convinced you're kidding. I have to say, I suspect the same thing.I suspect ROH treats this topic about the same as he treats any other: haphazardly.

[ScorLibran]

Please don't insult people. It's tantamount to flaming.

[Phyltre]

Please don't mount any tants. It burns.

[ScorLibran]

:blah: Quite true.

Originally posted by rockouthippie
Look at 20th century American history. We've had swings toward liberalism, and finding it was screwed, we recanted.

We are in the process of recanting it now.
Wanting to know the opinion of one of my Christian friends in particular regarding this topic, I showed this to her this evening. She told me that this is a pretty radical statement if referring to Christian morality, a bit too "Christian-centric" for her taste, and also unlikely that we (as a society) are recanting anything. She made a good point that we're not nearly that well organized.

I'd say that when measured by other cults or religious groups, we might even be too conservative right now. Belief systems vary widely, so it's difficult to be centric to any one in particular when gauging society. Christianity is one - albeit a large one - among hundreds.

The common argument is "who gets to say which one's right?" Will a Hindu burn in hell for sins (i.e., moral violations) according to Christianity? And what happens to a Christian in the afterlife when his morality is reviewed by the god(s) of each other religion in existence? Lots of punishments to be endured. Could take.....an eternity.

:p

[Jay]

Originally posted by rockouthippie
Look at 20th century American history. We've had swings toward liberalism, and finding it was screwed, we recanted.

We are in the process of recanting it now. Yea I tend to be a moderate conservative and statements like this essential renew that reality. I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. Moderate tends to be more or less the feeling I believe helps us all get along, being this strict in the belief that one side of a political spectrum is all right while the other is wrong is quite close minded.

Liberalism in what I believe is your context is not scary nor all wrong. It can be disagreed with as it is a subjective way of life or ideology. To say this statement means that there has been no benefit to freedom or artistic, vocal and written expression, free flow of thoughts and ideas without persecution to it's defiance of established societal views and standards.

Look, change is a scary thing, but not all things scary are all wrong and without true benefit. I am sure Puritan Christians would consider the way you live to be a liberal life style, however I doubt you'll agree.

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by ScorLibran
She told me that this is a pretty radical statement if referring to Christian morality, a bit too "Christian-centric" for her taste, and also unlikely that we (as a society) are recanting anything. She made a good point that we're not nearly that well organized.

Other beliefs have the same values. Buddhism believes that the purpose of life is to make yourself beautiful. For them "sin" destroys beauty.

Jay, I think I live a liberal lifestyle too. And I do. That doesn't mean I'm trying to modify ethics to suit me. I'm not holier than thou. Hell, I can be a ripe bastard sometimes.

"Christian-centric" is not exactly correct. "Tradition-centric" is closer. I think humans find proud traditions, if they remember them.

I do think we are moving back toward traditional values, mainly because I think we couldn't get more decadent.

People are trying to make the government into God. That won't work long term.

[ScorLibran]

Originally posted by rockouthippie
"Christian-centric" is not exactly correct. "Tradition-centric" is closer. I think humans find proud traditions, if they remember them.
This is all subjective, so there can't be a "right" or "wrong". These are all opinions. She's got a point, and you've got a point. And I had a point, but I must have left it in my other pants.

:p

Originally posted by rockouthippie
I do think we are moving back toward traditional values, mainly because I think we couldn't get more decadent
I personally hope we're evolving intellectually as a species and moving towards an intelligent society with values that are a balance of logic and compassion.

[rockouthippie]

Nothing evolves that quick. I've read literature from 3000 years ago. They are the same humans we are, they just didn't have a Wii or a cell phone.

[skryingbreath]

What literature, exactly?

I'd love to hear something from that time period equivocated to modern times.

I'd better brush up on my Elamite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_first_written_accounts), right?

[shakey_snake]

*wonders if skyingbreath knows what "equivocate" means*

[skryingbreath]

I'm well aware of the linguistic contructs I use. It's used in the correct context, I assure you. kthx.

[shakey_snake]

I'd love to hear something from that time period "told in half-truths in order to decieve" to modern times

So, you doubt the monomyth?

[skryingbreath]

*sigh*

I really have to spell shit out, don't I?


Equivocate:
"To use ambiguous or unclear expressions, usually to avoid commitment or in order to mislead; prevaricate or hedge"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equivocate


Originally posted by skryingbreath
I'd love to hear something from that time period equivocated to modern times.
In this context, it is used to imply that the only way to compare the aforementioned literature to modern times is to use ambiguous or unclear expressions to avoid commitment. Therefore, the only comparisons would be those of ambiguity and uncertainty.


Take - hah, in this thread - The Bible for example. It was, supposedly, written thousands of years ago; perhaps over the course of many thousands of years. The only reason it could still exist and be relevant is its ambiguity.

Now, can I have my fucking word, or do I have to cite the Humpty Dumpty quote from Through The Looking Glass? :p

[shakey_snake]

So, you doubt Monomyth?

You don't think the Bible follows the pattern of the Hero's Journey?

[skryingbreath]

Originally posted by shakey_snake
So, you doubt Monomyth?
http://xs210.xs.to/xs210/06510/1165030513426.jpg (http://xs.to)

I regress:
Originally posted by skryingbreath
ambiguity.



Originally posted by shakey_snake
You don't think the Bible follows the pattern of the Hero's Journey?
Funny, I never actually remember saying this.

Regardless, anything, in ambiguity, can follow the monomyth.

"There's a character. He has trials. Some of which he has assistance."

HOLY FUCK! That's the plot of every story out there!

[shakey_snake]

Then what exact explicitness is needed to make a ancient text relevent?

[skryingbreath]

Enough to support this claim (which my original response was to) :
Originally posted by rockouthippie
They are the same humans we are, they just didn't have a Wii or a cell phone.

With that, I'm off to bed. Merry Christmas Eve. :)

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by skryingbreath
What literature, exactly?

I'd love to hear something from that time period equivocated to modern times.

I'd better brush up on my Elamite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_first_written_accounts), right?

For a quick example that is translated into English and online, try the poetry of Catullus from 50 BC. Reading Catullus in original latin was probably the first time I noticed that humans before the year zero had about the same feelings and intellect we do. Written in coloquial latin, 2050 years ago.

http://www.negenborn.net/catullus/

Catullus had his ups and downs with his girlfriend, Lesbia. He thought his gay friend Gellius was a freak..... etc...

You'll find roman literature dating back to about 500 BC, for older examples, you need to find greek classical literature, and for very old examples, literature from Persia and China should be examined.

This really isn't surprising. It takes hundreds of thousands of years for animals to change much. You might also think the romans were backwards. Really, in 50 BC, they had a technology level that is probably about the same as our 18th century.

Humans were missing a few technologies we've found useful, but they were basically the same people we are.

[ScorLibran]

I wouldn't speculate as to the duration of forthcoming evolution. Evolution is not a linear process, but rather occurs with millenia of no apparent change divided by increments of significant leaps.

I only hope that - in terms of direction - we're evolving into a more intelligent species. I have patience, and an understanding that (unfortunately) I will not see such a dramatic change in my lifetime, but that my distant descendants will.

Science will teach you that a few thousand years is a tiny duration in the scope of human evolution.

Right now, some 95% of the world's population believes in a "higher power". Even if it takes millions of years, I hope we evolve past such a level. And, as an optimist, I feel sure that we will.

We currently live in a relatively depressing era of religious delusion. Relating to the thread title (and taking it seriously for a moment), atheists generally do not suffer delusion, but rather are simply missing one important scientific concept that renders their perspective unsubstantiated. It's impossible to prove that there is no God.

But that does not conclude that I must, therefore, believe in God. An inability to prove that God doesn't exist does not mandate a belief in Him any more than an inability to prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist mandates a belief in him.

The Bible teachs great morals, but so does Chicken Soup for the Soul. I respect both equally. Although it should be considered that the latter book does not have a brutally repugnant predecessor.

;)

[Pie Man]

Happy holidays all fellow winamp users, and fellow shoutcasters - AOL it is the BEST Media Player in the world.

Let's all respect each other's views, religions, politics and science on this "Pale Blue Dot". There are no national boundaries, no divisions, no man-made "hells on earth" viewable from space.

I'm pretty unsure about religion - probably what you would call an "agnostic", although a confirmed Christian. But if Christianity, Judaism, and Islam mean anything, if all the different Gods people believe in mean anything, it is peace, compassion and respect for fellow human beings. While we argue about theology, there are thousands starving in Africa this Christmas.

I personally put my faith in science, and I know some of you don't believe in evolution, and I respect that, but I don't want to see six billion years of evolution wiped out on our planet on some lazy summer afternoon in this millenia, just because we couldn't control our passions, or let them co-exist with our technology.

Peace and respect to you all my friends, enjoy Christmas or your festive season in its true meaning, and have a great New Year 2007. From the UK...

[Pie Man]

Meant to add, away from the theological controversy - chill out and listen to the wonderfully inspiring notes of composers such as Mozart on INSPIRATION-FM -the world's best internet classical radio station (well we believe so, but we're modest!!!). All our music is personally introduced, and share with us in some special programmes and documentaries over the festive season.

Our address is

http://freewebs.com/inspiration-fm

Give us an e-mail and tell us what you think. Our air date was March 2006, and we'd love to say "Merry Xmas in person".

Visit the website and listen in a variety of formats (mp3, aacPlus, Streamer P2P internet radio FREE CD quality premier stream). Learn from the website about the lives and loves of the great composers, orchestral instruments, and listen over Christmas to carol concerts and the full unabridged superb Handel's Messiah. Whether you are a Christian or not (and I'm agnostic) there is no doubt this sort of stuff moves you.

Music brings the world together and classical music is timeless. Discovering it is like a blind man being able to see again. Take some time out and listen and enjoy!

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by ScorLibran
Right now, some 95% of the world's population believes in a "higher power". Even if it takes millions of years, I hope we evolve past such a level.............

The Bible teachs great morals, but so does Chicken Soup for the Soul. I respect both equally. Although it should be considered that the latter book does not have a brutally repugnant predecessor.



I don't think removing a belief in a higher power is evolution. Since we would replace God with brutally repugnant humanism, I'm not seeing your point.

Chicken Soup is about Christmas, so again, I'm not following you.

Man doesn't make a good God. The impetus here is to replace God with the government. I don't see an advantage.

Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, because I have Hillary, the ACLU and my welfare check to save me. Thy Rod Stewart and thy staff at the STD clinic shall guide me, and I shall dwell in the graybar hotel forever.

It's even possible that human evolution could take the radical change you mentioned. Hitler was in favor of that. He didn't have genetic engineering though. We do.

In order for government to take total control of our lives they have to destroy families, religion and our intellect.

We return you to this game, in progress.......

[ScorLibran]

Pretty wild stuff, there, RoH. :)

Originally posted by Pie Man
I personally put my faith in science
Science doesn't require faith.

Faith is belief that does not require logical proof or material evidence.


For Christmas I want a spurt in the evolution of average human intelligence. That's a selfless, humanitarian desire, because as the population of intelligent people grows, the less money I'll make each year. I'm more than happy to sacrifice income to benefit the human race.


But I'm also starting another company within a few weeks, so if the evolution boost doesn't work out, I'll still have had a Merry Christmas. :)

[Pie Man]

Originally posted by ScorLibran
Science doesn't require faith.

Faith is belief that does not require logical proof or material evidence.

You are, of course, quite correct, science does not indeed require faith. A slip of the tongue into old ways of thinking! Perhaps I should have said, I have faith in our species evolving from our long childhood, and adolescence into fully rational adults.

I am convinced that if we are to avoid self-destruction, and the destruction of all living things with whom we share this planet, we must ensure the progress of science continues, and with it, the search for the "real truth" about how the cosmos came to be, our place in it, and what our fate may be. It is also paramount that the benefits and products of science, and our knowledge of science, is spread throughout the human race. Through a combination of economic greed, political and religious extremism, millions of people around the globe face a daily prospect of starvation.

All ambassadors of science (I'm not a scientist by the way - I'm a van driver), including you ScorLibran, must spread our considerable knowledge far and wide with our fellow humans (alright I'm a sort of self-taught scientist and astronomer, quite au fait, with for example Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity etc.). We must ensure institutions and economies are changed to include the needs of ALL our fellow humans.

With this, and hence, through the defeat of ignorance, and the continued secular teaching of science in places of learning will we avoid the fate of the Ionian civilisation and the Great Library of Alexandria. That loss of knowledge cost mankind and science 2,000 years! We must build our lives and make our decisions on rigorously verified evidence in our search for the truth. All of us, from van driver to President or Prime Minister!

In so doing we will avoid a new Dark Age, or even worse our own Armageddon, caused when superstition, religious fanaticism and racial bigotry and hatred again reign supreme, and totally unproven beliefs become more important than scientifically verified facts.

Let's ensure that Keppler, Copernicus, Galileo et al. of the Renaissance and Enlightenment were not persecuted by religious zealots in vain. Let's also make sure such prejudice and bigotry never plagues mankind again.

[ScorLibran]

Originally posted by Pie Man
All ambassadors of science (I'm not a scientist by the way - I'm a van driver), including you ScorLibran, must spread our considerable knowledge far and wide with our fellow humans (alright I'm a sort of self-taught scientist and astronomer, quite au fait, with for example Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity etc.). We must ensure institutions and economies are changed to include the needs of ALL our fellow humans.
Not to worry. I pay a lot of people to do that. I spend a significant portion of my time interviewing new candidates. ;)

But also know that to learn, a person has to be open to new ideas. Don't waste time teaching those who are set in their ways. I seek not to help those who will not try to help themselves. It's not from a lack of interest, but rather an from an interest in efficiency. I can effect more change with "concentration of fire", so to speak, focusing on areas that are receptive to change. Apply economics, and think in terms of maximum value for finite resources. If half the people in the world were smart, then it'd be easy. A 1:1 ratio. But since we're not so lucky, we have to economize.

As long as there are enough intelligent people in this world to keep inventing solutions to problems, we'll be fine, and we'll move forward as a species.

We don't need everyone to be smart, just enough people to manage and take care of everyone. We have that now, but the balance is tenuous.

[Pie Man]

Originally posted by ScorLibran

But also know that to learn, a person has to be open to new ideas. Don't waste time teaching those who are set in their ways. I seek not to help those who will not try to help themselves. It's not from a lack of interest, but rather an from an interest in efficiency. I can effect more change with "concentration of fire", so to speak, focusing on areas that are receptive to change. Apply economics, and think in terms of maximum value for finite resources. If half the people in the world were smart, then it'd be easy. A 1:1 ratio. But since we're not so lucky, we have to economize.

As long as there are enough intelligent people in this world to keep inventing solutions to problems, we'll be fine, and we'll move forward as a species.

We don't need everyone to be smart, just enough people to manage and take care of everyone. We have that now, but the balance is tenuous.

How very eloquently said. We were discussing all of this over our holiday dinner. We were discussing radio astronomy, exo-biology, and a new Newtonian Reflector we have just bought.

To cut a long story short, my 10 year old son asked me, "why do some people laugh at us when we talk about stars dad?". I replied that it is because they don't want to understand. My 84 year old mother, a stroke victim, an amputee, and wheelchair bound, and herself a life-long Christian, chipped in and said, "don't waste your time on them Andy, your time is too precious - pass on your knowledge to those with a yearning for knowledge. For it is they who will pass it on to future generations..."

I immediately thought about your above post, that I read 12 hours previously! But you are correct, of course, with your analogy from the fields of business and economics. You are also correct about the tenuous balance at the moment regarding science and religion.

My mission and role in 2007 (while I deliver those newspapers!), is to continue to explore the cosmos for myself, my son, and my wife, and to pass on my knowledge to as many people "open to new (scientific) ideas" that I meet, as possible - from whatever walk of life.

I'm not even bothered if I'm left "out of pocket" in this role. The continued supremacy of the "scientific enterprise" - that candle in the dark - for my son's future will be reward enough.

[ertmann|CPH]

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

~ Albert Einstein

[Pie Man]

Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

~ Albert Einstein

Many thanks ertmann, superb timely intervention! Don't worry, I have made a copy of this fantastc quotation - it is now in my repertoire of knowledge, which I gather for pure joy in itself!

[rockouthippie]

Except Einstein finally believed in God. And I agree "no religious basis is necessary", but it doesn't hurt.

Although I am a typical loner in daily life, my consciousness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice has preserved me from feeling isolated. The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that is there.

-Albert Einstein

When asked:

"You accept the historical Jesus?"

"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

Einsteins contemporaries described him as a "disguised theologian". History describes him as a pantheist and that's probably stretching his actual attitude. Atheists want to equate pantheism as being the same as atheism and it isn't the same thing at all.

I perhaps lean toward a pantheistic attitude myself.

[ScorLibran]

That's indeed a great quote. It really hits home.

The mandate of "fearing a vengeful god" is something with which I've always had a problem. No benevolent ruler demands - or would even accept - widepread fear in his subjects. And an omniscient one would know better. Perhaps as he grows older, he'll learn this.

;)

(Just kidding with that last sentence. :p )

[shakey_snake]

"fearing" God isn't really meaning "to be scared of God". It more of a "reverence" thing. It's more like saying "God is my King", since that is how loyal subjects in the Ancient Near East would describe their relationship to the King of their land (or other authorities). Power relationships in the ANE is a wonderfully in-depth topic to study.

Of course when the Bible was first being translated to English, it was probably in the Catholic Church's best interest to present the idea as we thnk of in english: fear.

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by ScorLibran
That's indeed a great quote. It really hits home.

The mandate of "fearing a vengeful god" is something with which I've always had a problem. No benevolent ruler demands - or would even accept - widepread fear in his subjects. And an omniscient one would know better. Perhaps as he grows older, he'll learn this.

;)

(Just kidding with that last sentence. :p )

The God of the New Testament isn't a vengeful God. Einstein was a jew, so I'm not sure where to place his comments in context.

He seemed to like Jesus. He read the bible almost every day.

Einstein was a man that explored extensively his own spirituality and his relationship to a higher power.

Quoting Einstein to support atheism is stupid. You might be able to support an argument against organized religion, but I think that would even be a weak argument.

Man would be in a poor way IF he had to be restrained by fear of punishment.......

IF is the important word. Evidently Einstein thought that men weren't restrained exclusively by a vengeful God. I agree.

[germain47]

It serves The Church's interest to be the only pathway to salvation. Listen to us, do as we say, believe what we tell you and your ticket to heaven is punched. A vengeful god was necessary to propagate the lies and distortions, to keep control and keep the money flowing in.

Ok a little quiz here. What does the word "sin" mean.

>>>>>>> DON"T LOOK THINK ABOUT IT FIRST <<<<<<<<

It was a middle English term in common use at the time the Bible was first translated into English. Sin is an archery term meaning to be "off the mark", ie. "Your arrow sinned six inches to the right."

The New Testement was first translated from Aramaic to Greek. Many if not most Aromaic words have multiple possible translations to Greek. While contectual clues narrowed the choices, Aramaic meanings also shift with they manner words are intoned. No manner how good the intent, there was simply no way to know a century or two later the aboslute meaning of the speaker. I have copy of the direct Aramaic translations possible for each verse of the Lord's Prayer. Reading it is a Holy Shit! experience.

I tend to think most religious people and atheists alike tend to view God is something outside of themsleves, like a King sitting on his throne passing judgment. The believer just mindlessly accepts what he is told, the atheist rejects, saying "I don't buy into any of that bullshit". What kind of GOD would create a soul, send it to earth, saying get it right or spend an eternity in hell?

Another alternative is to view everything in creation and outside creation as God. That we experience ourselves as seperate, just an illusion so that God can experience creation through us. Consider these almost quotes attributed to Jesus: "The kingdom of heaven lies within", "That which you do to the least amongst you, you also do to me", and "You will do that which I do and more for you are all gods".

It doesn't take too many out-of-body experiences and the like to send one searching for alternative answers. They are there, you just have to dig.

[Pie Man]

Originally posted by germain47

Ok a little quiz here. What does the word "sin" mean.

>>>>>>> DON"T LOOK THINK ABOUT IT FIRST <<<<<<<<

It was a middle English term in common use at the time the Bible was first translated into English. Sin is an archery term meaning to be "off the mark", ie. "Your arrow sinned six inches to the right."

The New Testement was first translated from Aramaic to Greek. Many if not most Aromaic words have multiple possible translations to Greek. While contectual clues narrowed the choices, Aramaic meanings also shift with they manner words are intoned. No manner how good the intent, there was simply no way to know a century or two later the aboslute meaning of the speaker. I have copy of the direct Aramaic translations possible for each verse of the Lord's Prayer. Reading it is a Holy Shit! experience.

This thread is just soooo interesting and worth "getting in" for!

A monologue to ponder:

Q. What/who created the universe?
A. God
Q. What/who created God?
A. God was not created - he/she/it was the divine creator and has always been there.
Q. Why not just cut out the middle man, - the universe was not created - it has always been there - even as an infinitesimily small singularity of energy before the "Big Bang" - why the need to bring a God into it?
A. Because there has to be a reason for a non-chaotic universe to exist - the cosmos, rather than chaos has to be part of a grand design, by a supreme being.
Q. These answers do not answer my initial question, as the same natural laws govern the behaviour of matter and energy throughout the cosmos - hence the lack of chaos. Newton's Laws of Motion and Inertia for example hold true on Mars as well as the Earth - there is no need for a supreme being or entity. The cosmos is predictable.
A. God created the universe as we need a reason for our existence.

etc etc etc

These "monologues" I have with myself all distill down to one over-riding apparent (almost selfish) individualistic, competitive human emotional psychological need in many individuals. To have a reason for our lives, and the existence of the Cosmos - and to have a better chance of the next man of getting theough the Golden Gates.

But why does the reason have to be in the form a deity, be it Ra, Zeus, Apollo, Saturn, the Pantheon (it's a hell of a tribute to the architects of Roman Emperor Hadrian) of so-called "Pagan Gods", Allah, the Christian God or the God of Judaism from the Old Testament? Every generation, epoch and civilisation has adamantly and zealously taken part in adding to this plethora of "Gods", all believing, as has been their right, that their God is THE GOD. It HAS NOT been their right, in the process, to create a "hell on earth" for the heretics and disbelievers of these extraordinary claims, all founded on no extraordinary evidence.

Why can't we just accept that we exist for our lifespan and then die? And that's it - nothing else. Why the greed in the need for an afterlife? Why can't we just enjoy what we have got now? Why, with the deepest respect, waste our brief lives (in cosmic terms), trying to make one or another God happy so that we can go to heaven in the afterlife, when we can create a "heaven on earth", right here, right now. If I can lead a happy, moral, and caring life without a God, why can't others? Is it due to guilt or greed?

I no longer "hedge my bets" either, because if I am wrong, and there is a "Caring God", I too will enter heaven, as an aetheist, because by definition, if he is caring, he will let everyone in - all his subjects. If he created everything, he created my self-will and its products including my sin of atheism.

Why waste time worshipping and preaching in rituals, when you will get in anyway if he exists? Gain knowledge of science and use it as a tool to help your fellow man. The need is urgent. Change our institutions, get involved in politics to prevent greedy people from running our society for their own selfish ends whether it is for oil money, armaments or whatever. Their smokescreens of being devout Christians/Muslims or whatever and their Holy Wars hold no water with me.

There is no need for human suffering. As my son would say, "there is enough on earth for everyone's need - there is not enough for everyone's greed". The words of a ten year old child...

[ScorLibran]

Originally posted by germain47
It serves The Church's interest to be the only pathway to salvation. Listen to us, do as we say, believe what we tell you and your ticket to heaven is punched. A vengeful god was necessary to propagate the lies and distortions, to keep control and keep the money flowing in.
True.

Like any other political organization, a church needs "handles of control" over its constituents. Organized religion is older than the bible. The bible provides a means of control. A manifesto of ignorance.

Religion benefits from the propagation of ignorance. Faith is ignorance by choice. Science seeks to rationally explain the universe. It will, therefore, always have "holes". Science does not presume to explain everything, nor will it ever. So, the holes that remain provide the basis for religious faith. "See? Science can't explain what God created."

As scientific discoveries are made throughout time, these holes are filled in, one by one. This leaves less and less room for religious faith to thrive. Less room for ignorance.

So religion then has to extend ignorance beyond just the empty holes, and apply it to the holes that have been filled in with knowledge. A prime example of this is evolution vs. creation. Evidence is ignored in the interest of maintaining control by ignorance. Ignorance by choice. Faith.

Religion couples a requirement of faith with a fear of divine retribution and a reward of a plentiful afterlife to make its control mechanism as strong as possible.

Those of us who seek actual knowledge do not want to fill in missing knowledge arbitrarily for the sake of an explanation - any explanation. We need truth more than fulfillment. The faithful require fulfillment more than truth, to the point of delusion. They are so fully convinced that religion provides real answers that they will abhor any intrusion by science into the gaps to which they've laid claim. They speak of God as we speak of physics. Therein lies a seemingly eternal gap between the two sides.

Which is why I seek to maintain a "concentration of fire", so to speak. I pass over those who define their very lives by their faith, in the interest of making a difference where I can. I seek people like myself, and I try to set a good example. Such as siding against athieism. Athiesism seems, at first glance, to be scientifically plausible. But as I've said many times before, "it is scientifically impossible to prove that something does not exist" - because of the infinite context of the universe, and because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Both of these negate the ability to prove non-existence.

There may be a God. But this potential existence has little to do with religion or faith. Religion seeks to control. It does not need God to do that.

The charter of religion is good: Promoting positive ethical values and morality. But the execution stinks. More people have suffered and died in this world in the name of religion than by any other reason.

I don't hate religion. I hate what it's become.

Kudos to those of you who keep it as it should be.

[Pie Man]

Originally posted by ScorLibran
True.

Like any other political organization, a church needs "handles of control" over its constituents. Organized religion is older than the bible. The bible provides a means of control. A manifesto of ignorance.

Religion benefits from the propagation of ignorance. Faith is ignorance by choice. Science seeks to rationally explain the universe. It will, therefore, always have "holes". Science does not presume to explain everything, nor will it ever. So, the holes that remain provide the basis for religious faith. "See? Science can't explain what God created."

As scientific discoveries are made throughout time, these holes are filled in, one by one. This leaves less and less room for religious faith to thrive. Less room for ignorance.

So religion then has to extend ignorance beyond just the empty holes, and apply it to the holes that have been filled in with knowledge. A prime example of this is evolution vs. creation. Evidence is ignored in the interest of maintaining control by ignorance. Ignorance by choice. Faith.

Religion couples a requirement of faith with a fear of divine retribution and a reward of a plentiful afterlife to make its control mechanism as strong as possible.

Those of us who seek actual knowledge do not want to fill in missing knowledge arbitrarily for the sake of an explanation - any explanation. We need truth more than fulfillment. The faithful require fulfillment more than truth, to the point of delusion. They are so fully convinced that religion provides real answers that they will abhor any intrusion by science into the gaps to which they've laid claim. They speak of God as we speak of physics. Therein lies a seemingly eternal gap between the two sides.

Which is why I seek to maintain a "concentration of fire", so to speak. I pass over those who define their very lives by their faith, in the interest of making a difference where I can. I seek people like myself, and I try to set a good example. Such as siding against athieism. Athiesism seems, at first glance, to be scientifically plausible. But as I've said many times before, "it is scientifically impossible to prove that something does not exist" - because of the infinite context of the universe, and because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Both of these negate the ability to prove non-existence.

There may be a God. But this potential existence has little to do with religion or faith. Religion seeks to control. It does not need God to do that.

The charter of religion is good: Promoting positive ethical values and morality. But the execution stinks. More people have suffered and died in this world in the name of religion than by any other reason.

I don't hate religion. I hate what it's become.

Kudos to those of you who keep it as it should be.

I wish to thank you for the above post with the utmost sincerity. It has obviously taken much time to put this extremely well-reasoned study together, and your eloquence is something of which I can only dream about. I cannot disagree with even one single letter of it - but I guess from my posts above, you already knew this. You have just put my deepest thoughts into words.

I don't know your vocation - surely a lecturer or teacher perhaps, or something much greater. Whatever it is, and I respect your privacy - but I'm sure you excel in your field.

From some of my phrases, you will realise that I have been drawn to our mutual understanding of the cosmos, by the work of Dr. Carl Sagan, of whom I'm sure you'll be aware (indeed you will also be aware that it is ten years since he tragically died at souch a young age). I have paid tributes, many times over the past few weeks to him, on many websites, blogs etc., including USA Today (I'm in the UK). This is not the place (I opened another thread about this elsewhere on this forum). I have of course read further about Einstein, Special Relativity, astonomy etc. etc. I know it doesn't matter by which path we have jointly arrive at juncture, but I just thought I would say, as regards science at a higher level, I'm self-taught.

I passionately believe that a global network of scientists/self-taught lay people should be formed. There is no better place to start than at

http://carlsagan.com

- where you can join his blog-a-thon, contact his widow, Cosmos Studios and thousands of like-minds. I personally miss this brilliant populariser of science more than ever. I'll say again, Carl the world needs you more than ever.

Breaking news that would have been of immense interest to him, and now you - a satellite has been launched which will analyse 120,000 stars from a vantage point of over 500 miles above the earthg. It will search for evidence of rocky terrestrial worlds orbiting them. It has been launched from the Russian Cosmodrome at Baikonur, Kazakhstan, today at 1423hrs GMT today. It is the ESA French-led Carot probe launched via a Russian Soyuz 2-1-b vehicle

Full details at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/6203161.stm

[mistermeow]

If you want TRUE answers, all you have to do is look inside yourself. Our hearts hold the truth, but most people are used to being told what is right or wrong, and what to do next.

Meditation is the key to looking deep within your heart. Through meditation you can sort of sever yourself from everyday life (temporarily), and go deeper than you could ever imagine :)

It is also possible through meditation, to leave the physical body, and prove to yourself, there is NO DEATH, only life :)

So all you people worried about dying. Stop! You have just as many if not more loved ones on the other side as you do here. You will never be alone, and you will never be without love!

Jeff

[SSJ4 Gogitta]

You listen to too much Art Bell.

[jheriko]

Originally posted by mistermeow
It is also possible through meditation, to leave the physical body, and prove to yourself, there is NO DEATH, only life :)

So all you people worried about dying. Stop! You have just as many if not more loved ones on the other side as you do here. You will never be alone, and you will never be without love!

Idle speculation. No evidence. No self-consistent theory. You could have said literally nothing and the meaningful content would not have been lost. If you are going to preach then please only preach to other people that which you can prove, or at the very least demonstrate. Asking people to accept something on faith alone is pretty terrible in my opinion, i.e. ethically unjustified.

I don't worry excessively about death, I just accept it as something that will happen, and what happens next is unknown. I am an atheist and personally I lean towards viewing death as an absolute end to my consciousness. Don't get me wrong though, I really, really, don't want to die, it just stopped being something that upset or distressed me a long time ago..

I also feel that a lot of people turn to religion from fear of death. Please, stop reinforcing my prejudices!

[ScorLibran]

Originally posted by mistermeow
Meditation is the key to looking deep within your heart. Through meditation you can sort of sever yourself from everyday life (temporarily), and go deeper than you could ever imagine :)

It is also possible through meditation, to leave the physical body, and prove to yourself, there is NO DEATH, only life

When you "sever yourself from everyday life", you experience...

delusion
Main Entry: de·lu·sion
Pronunciation: di-'lü-zhən
Function: noun
1 a : the act of deluding : the state of being deluded b : an abnormal mental state characterized by the occurrence of psychotic delusions.
2 : a false belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that persists despite the facts and occurs in some psychotic states.

(from Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary)

[germain47]

Orginally posted by ScorLibran
1 a : the act of deluding : the state of being deluded b : an abnormal mental state characterized by the occurrence of psychotic delusions.
Your reply is just as closed minded as a fundalmentalist. The only difference is he would find a way to attach Satin in his reply. Odd.

Just because you have not personally experienced meditation does not qualify you to claim mistermeow's experiences are deluded.

It would appear you have limited reality to a rather small box of "if you can't prove it it isn't real". Maybe it's comfortable and safe in there, but a box is a box and not that much different than the religious box.

[xzxzzx]

Holy crap. This thread's still going on?

Anyone say anything interesting?

[ScorLibran]

Originally posted by germain47
...
Having an out-of-body experience defines reality? "I saw it, so it must be real"...? You're kidding, right?

Vision does not equal reality. People get high and have visions. They're called hallucinations. The source is irrelevant - drugs, meditation, vision quest, etc. What you "see" may be real, or it may not be real. This is why we have additional means of verification for defining "reality".

It's a matter of fixed reference points, and a simple application of the scientific method.

You'll learn all this as you grow older. Life is about experience. :)



P.S...I just closed my eyes and saw pink elephants in my dining room. So that means they're real.

:blah:

[rockouthippie]

Atheists are untrusted in American society.

http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/03/24/67686

Those surveyed tended to view people who don't believe in a god as the "ultimate self-interested actor who doesn't care about anyone but themselves," Edgell said.

"People really strongly believe that religion and good morals are one and the same," O'Connor said. "Increasing problems of society - for example, juvenile delinquency - are being blamed on lack of religious value."

I agree and I have never met an atheist that changed my opinion.

[SSJ4 Gogitta]

You're right; I care about no one but myself.

:rolleyes:

[rockouthippie]

Caring isn't the point. I have no frame of reference for determining your belief system. That leaves you being an unknown quantity.

Hence, you are untrusted.

Most people that embrace unconventional belief systems do it simply to find some distinction from the rest of us. 3% Atheists in our population want to tell us all that we're wrong. I think this is a matter of pride in nothing.

Uninteresting people, after all, will say anything to be different. Some radical Christians suffer the same defect, but it isn't as prevalent, and Christian dogma opposes such behavior.

I mostly consider atheists, whacky Christians, american islamics and other new age bullshitters as people with low self esteem that somehow needed to make themselves different from the rest of us.

Usually, that's their only distinction. Usually they consider conventional morality to be a problem in their lives. That's usually to find blame for things that are their own fault.

[SSJ4 Gogitta]

The only thing about my "unconventional belief system" is that I flat out deny the existence of any god or god-like entity. This includes the Christian god, Allah, Ra, Zeus, Hercules and any other entity you can think up. I prefer science and logic rather than "belief" and "faith" in something. That, however, does not mean that neither exists; of course they do. I have faith in my monetary system. After all, the dollar is backed by nothing but the consensus that we the people agree that $1 = $1. If we collectively decided that $100 could buy a Mercedes Benz, then it would.

If I see you carrying bags of groceries into your house and you drop a bag, I'll help you. THAT has nothing to do with me being an atheist. I have morals and values just like you do, and I'm sure a lot of them can be found in the bible. Yeah, the bible is a good book to live by, I just believe that a bunch of the stories in it are made up bs written by some king thousands of years ago to control his people. We know for a fact that some stories of the bible were selectively left out (First Council of Constantinople, 381 AD). Sure, most of the places in the bible exist. A lot of stories take place in real places. Doesn’t mean the stories are real, though.

You can't walk on water, a sea won’t magically split in two, and water doesn't just turn into wine. Those never happened. I also highly doubt someone is going to wander in the desert for 40 years.

If you met me on the streets, you’d never know I was atheist. I’d help you just as much as any other good person would. But I guess the moment you ask what religion I am, and I say atheist, I guess that magically means I’m untrustworthy.

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by SSJ4 Gogitta
But I guess the moment you ask what religion I am, and I say atheist, I guess that magically means I’m untrustworthy.

No, not magically. But then most atheists I've ever met have actually been anti-theists. You don't seem to fall into that category.

The beginning of this thread reflects this....

All the problems in the world are because of religion. Religion is the cause of all wars...........

and other babble......

Here. Look at this idiot. He used to have a shoutcast tv station discussing the bug he has up his ass about religion.

http://www.infidelguy.com/

Maybe if you wanted to get respect, you could tell Reggie to shut the F up. I do the same when I run into Christian whack jobs.

If you could find me one single solitary thing in Reggies web site that is uplifting to anyone...... I might recant. But there isn't anything. Because Reggie is an angry man that hates religion. Of course, he calls that hate "critical thought".

"ultimate self-interested actor who doesn't care about anyone but themselves" nails Reggie right on the head.

Reggie, of course, has an enlightened view..... a legend in his own mind.... He, of course, is so much wiser than we mere mortals that have a job.

[SSJ4 Gogitta]

At least his web site looks decent.

And for the record, no, I'm not really anti-theist, I just really dislike certain religions. Or rather, some of the people who practice some religions.

If you're an Islamic Muslim; that's fine and dandy. Good for you. I have no qualms with you. However, if you're an Islamic Muslim and you want me, my family, and my little dog, too, dead because I don't follow Islamic laws; then we got a problem.

Are you a Christian? Sure, good for you. Are you the crazy Jesus lady (http://youtube.com/watch?v=9FlqXgHyTvs)? Yeah? Then we got problems.

Originally posted by rockouthippie
So does Paris Hilton

Haha, we'll have to agree to disagree on that...

[rockouthippie]

Yeah, I'll give him that. It might even convince you that he wasn't an idiot..... briefly.

I dislike anything that spreads hate. Since the bible of atheism is written by hateful guys like Reggie, I'd have to oppose atheism.

Christianity has it's radical sects. I oppose those too. When I find any atheist doctrine that is uplifting to anyone, rather than a hate attack on religion, I might change my mind.

I wouldn't identify myself with Pat Robertson and evangelistic Christians. Perhaps it is unwise to identify yourself with atheists. At least Robertson does a dance and sings a song. The whole message isn't hate.

Just like it's one thing to be in favor of womens rights and another thing to be a feminist, there is a difference between abivalence about God and atheism.

[germain47]

Originally posted by ScorLibran
It's a matter of fixed reference points, and a simple application of the scientific method.
A limitation of the scientific method are the tools it has available at any given time to measure reality. Observations that that can not be measured are set aside and can not be investigated. That does not negate the possiblity that the observation was not real, just that it can't be tested. Imagine living in the 1880's and hearing someone's claim that the very room you are sitting in is being inundated by invisisble and undetectable Radio Waves. Hmmm, is the speaker delusional? If you solidly fix reference points and define reality in terms of those points you have drawn yourself in a box. That's OK unless you become rigid in your belief structure and begin to claim your version of reality is the only version. If you then ridicule and shame those that do not hold to your version is that any different than the holier than thou attitude of the religious zealot?

Before you completely rule out out-of-body experiences as delusional, check out the CIA's use of Remote Viewing to spy on the Soviet Union. If you are willing to push on your definition of reality, check out the movie/dvd "What the Bleep Do We Know". The movie includes some of the top scientists in their fields. Investigate some of the research being done with the quantum Zero Point Field. Maybe look into the research that's cropping up on the energy field that surrounds all living organisms.

I have no need to prove my reality is the true reality because I know I just hold a small piece of total reality. I realize that everyone of us holds a somewhat different reality. It only sends up red flags when someone claims their reality is the true reality, be it the churchman or the scientist. Those with open minds are inclusive, not exclusive, and seek to find the truth held by all.

By the way ScorLibran, I am old enough to have seen Janice and Jimi, Pigpen and Jim perform on stage.

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by germain47
If you then ridicule and shame those that do not hold to your version is that any different than the holier than thou attitude of the religious zealot?

No, it isn't any different, but mainstream religion isn't zealous. It isn't an attack on anyone.

Christianity doesn't always represent itself with whacked out nuts, atheism generally does.

It's not "I don't believe in God". It's "I hate God and religious people and blame them for all the ills in the world." "Conventional morality is wrong...... bla bla".

Just as nutty as the 700 Club members....

[ElChevelle]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
Holy crap. This thread's still going on?

Anyone say anything interesting?

Fuck no.

Originally posted by deeder7001
I don't know. I do know that everybody believes in something.

I believe I'll have another cup of coffee.

I'll be damned if I can remember who said it but it was something along the lines of "I'm skeptical about the existence of God. If I'm wrong by not believing, he can't blame me for he gave me the gift of skepticism."

[mysterious_w]

Originally posted by rockouthippie
Abortion is legal, but I'm failing to see anyone say that this is a good thing.

Abortion is a good thing in many different circumstances. Though I would like to see the legal limit be lowered to 16 weeks, just to be sure that you are remvoing a sac of cells and nothing relating to a baby.

Also, you are arguing about religion, which is the most stupid thing since you can never change anyone's mind.

You form your opinions of a president or PM since he's been in power, so there is a chance those opinions could be changed.

Your opinions on homosexuality or gun control tend to form in your teenage years, so there's less chance of changing them since they're more engrained.

Your religious beliefs have been hammered into you one way or another since you were born, you really think they are going to be changed by a well-written argument on an internet forum?

[ElChevelle]

Well spoken.

I see no sense in trying to sway anyone. That's why I sat back and watched as 5 pages got posted in this thread, the whole time laughing my ass at some really stupid arguments.

No offense to those who put forth really stupid arguments.

[ScorLibran]

You and me both, brother. There have been some whacky religious threads in this place in previous years, but this one has got to be the best of all.

:blah::up:

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by mysterious_w
Abortion is a good thing in many different circumstances. [size=1]

No. It's never a good thing. That's because it's violence. A good thing would be if we lived in a society where women didn't have to kill their children to survive.

I think abortion should be legal, but I don't think we should confuse that with it being a good thing.

If it were a good thing, women wouldn't suffer such crushing remorse about it. A lot of women my age killed one or more of their children. Almost universally, they regret it.

The lazy thing, the expedient thing, but hardly ever a good thing. Which ever way you look at it, women should have better choices than to kill their children.

"It takes a whole tribe to raise a child", but in our society it's "Fuck it, too much trouble, kill em".

30 million dead babies and counting....

[ScorLibran]

That's some wild, interesting stuff.

[ElChevelle]

Like this country needs more welfare babies.

[mysterious_w]

Originally posted by rockouthippie
30 million dead babies and counting....

There you go, you are counting a 16 week or less foetus/embryo as a baby. Counting it as a baby is the same as counting it as a human, meaning you are logically comparing abortion to murder. I count something in that stage as a sack of cells, so I don't compare it to the murder of a human and therefore am not opposed to abortion.

But then again, abortion is one of those big issues like homosexuality or the death penalty, so why the heck am I arguing with someone in their thirties. You might be able to change my young objectionable mind, but I sure as hell won't be able to change yours (Especially with your likely predjudices against my liberal self (and maybe some closet xenophobism I seem to detect)).

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by mysterious_w
meaning you are logically comparing abortion to murder.

No, but there are 30 million less people..... I used to think like you, but then I lived with and knew women that had abortions. This is a gravely painful experience, especially when they have other children.

It's not how I think about it. It's how WOMEN think about it. This is not just a no-big-deal toss the tissue in a bucket thing. It's violence.

So like I said. Abortion is legal. That doesn't make it good.

I tacitly support womens right to choose, but I also think we need to give them better choices. Women don't have abortions because they WANT to, it's usually because they HAVE to.

Whether you agree with abortion or not, I think there is social coercion to have abortions, rather than consider alternatives. The problem is that this brutalizes our women.

We even made an industry out of it.

I think the right to choose should really be the right to choose.

[mistermeow]

Thats funny how people like to rule things out, because they are too lazy to examine it for themselves.

You don't have to believe me. I can't prove it to you. But you can prove it to yourself (but I doubt you have the patience).

There are many websites and message forums discussing obe's (out of body experiences) as well as experiences, and methods on how to achieve results.

By standing over my own sleeping physical body, I no longer have any fear of death. (Now that I know there is no death).

:)

[swingdjted]

If the fetus/unborn child/baby is healthy, why not go the adoption way? The adopting parents pay for all the prenatal care and they get a kid they wouldn't have gotten otherwise. I'd be dead if I had been aborted instead of adopted.

I really don't see very many instances where abortion is something that should be considered. Perhaps in the case of the mother's self defense (killing her unborn to save her own life) I'm ok with it, but really, if you're pregnant and unable to raise, give for adoption :up:

[ElChevelle]

I own stock:

http://www.designboom.com/history/wirehangers/h11.gif

[skryingbreath]

I rofld so hard.

[mysterious_w]

Originally posted by swingdjted
I'm ok with it, but really, if you're pregnant and unable to raise, give for adoption :up:

I'd say an early term abortion is a lot easier emotionally than being pregnant for 6 more months then giving away an actual baby.

[ElChevelle]

Nobody wants American babies.
Even our own go outside the country for microwavables.

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by mysterious_w
I'd say an early term abortion is a lot easier emotionally than being pregnant for 6 more months then giving away an actual baby.

I don't think so. I know a woman who used to work for me. We're still friends. She must be about 75. She gave away a son in 1946 (London) and only met him last year.

She found out he is a very gay, very alcoholic, very successful college professor. In other words, things worked out okay for him.

It is very strange that the son that she raised here in America is also gay ?.

Hmmm....

I think that would be a nice thing to know at the end of your life. The son you gave away is ok, and your son has a brother.

Maybe that's better than the other way.

[ElChevelle]

The two brothers should hook up.

[mistermeow]

I got out of bed a few months ago,(in the late morning) couldn't see my feet (so I knew I was out of body), I floated off into my roomates room, and she was in a blue and white bathing suit I had never seen before, I didn't get too far outside before I snapped back to my body.

Later that evening I did laundry, and when I went to put my clothes in the dryer, I saw her same blue and white bathing suit in the dryer.

Even the most self doubting person couldn't deny the reality of obe's if they had the experience themselves.

[ScorLibran]

Dammit, pass that joint!

[ElChevelle]

Fuck the joint, pass the acid:igor:

Last time I had an out of body experience, it was me taking a crap this morning.

"Get that outta my body!"

[ScorLibran]

This post-op medication constipates me. :sick:

When I try to have out-of-body experiences now, my eyes go blurry and my face goes numb.

I haven't popped a blood vessel yet, though.

[ElChevelle]

Whatta pain in the neck, literally.

[mistermeow]

Out of body experiences are similar to pooping... It is only natural.

[germain47]

mistermeow
Out of body experiences are similar to pooping... It is only natural.

You won't get far trying to prove the reality of your experiences to others. This is especially true when you are attempting to sway folks who would have to radically alter their world view to entertain your view. It is much easier to mock and ridicule than to seriously consider that you have any validity. However, the act of ridicule itself is but a method of defense for the closed mind, protecting the soft underbelly, not allowing seeds of doubt to take root.

[ScorLibran]

:blah:

Please be honest: You guys are a team, aren't you? It's just too "perfect" otherwise.

[germain47]

;) Nahh. No conspiracy here.

[ScorLibran]

OK. Just checking. Now let's all have a group hug. :)

[jheriko]

Originally posted by germain47
However, the act of ridicule itself is but a method of defense for the closed mind, protecting the soft underbelly, not allowing seeds of doubt to take root.

I thought it was mainly to punish the stupidity/naiveté required to actually think you can sway the beliefs of others with no evidence. Without negative stimuli you don't learn from your mistakes.

Put your hand in the fire and it will get burned...

[ScorLibran]

That's a pearl of wisdom.

[mistermeow]

I don't expect to change anybodys view, but when someone has a concrete view on spirituality or lack of it, based on something they read in a book, I like to open up the discussion.

My views on spirituality have been shaped by what I have experienced, not on what somebody else told me, or something I read in a book.

Anybody else can experience the same things I have _if they choose_, and they can they can make up their own mind. However it is easier to keep on the blinders and NOT investigate (because of their own personal fears) and to ridicule and poke fun.

[ScorLibran]

Please join our group hug. Take off your clothes and get over here!

[xzxzzx]

*hugs*!

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by mistermeow
My views on spirituality have been shaped by what I have experienced, not on what somebody else told me, or something I read in a book.


Noone is an island.

There is nothing wrong with atheism. There is something wrong with attacking religion. That's especially when it is a general attack.

I have no problem with atheism. I accept that point of view. I only take exception that it manifests itself as a broadside attack on religion.

Go be an atheist. Be happy. I'm a Christian and I'm not the one that ruined your day.

[will]

On the same note, I have no problem with christianity. I only take exception when its followers:

Indoctrinate children
Try and convert/annoy me
Pass laws to enforce their doctrine upon me
Start wars
Get into government and rely on prayer rather than reason
Slander and disrupt science
Use tax-exempt status

Did I miss any?

[mistermeow]

The problems come from the extremists. All the major religions have their extremist branches, Christian fundamentalists, Jewish zionists, Islamic fundalmentalists, and Hindu militants. Though here in the much biased United States, there is a heavy focus the Islamic extremists, while the others are pretty much ignored.

The Buddhists seem to be the only ones who don't bother anybody. And maybe the Zorastrians.

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by will
On the same note, I have no problem with christianity. I only take exception when its followers:

Indoctrinate children
Try and convert/annoy me
Pass laws to enforce their doctrine upon me
Start wars
Get into government and rely on prayer rather than reason
Slander and disrupt science
Use tax-exempt status

Did I miss any?

And the reverse:

Indoctrinate children in relativism, socialism and decadence.

Try to convert/annoy me.

Pass laws to enforce their doctrine upon me

Wars?. Who are you kidding?.

Get into government and rely on decadence rather than reason

Slander and disrupt religion.

Use tax exempt status to support liberalism.

[germain47]

Geeez Rockout, is there any way you can post in a thread without reenterating your political agenda? Ya know recently I have been finding statements in some of your posts I could actually agree with, but you always manage to make sure we get another chance to meditate on your political views. But not once has the light shined upon me and revealed to me the righteousness of your opinions. I have had no out-of-body experiences so that I could travel to your locale and observe the utter devistation the evil liberal empire has wreeked upon your life. I have prayed to be saved from your verbage and the good lord has answered my prayers through direct telepathic communication with the help of the God channel and pastor Ben. For a small $100 donation I was directed to extend unto you a challenge. For two blessed weeks, your challenge is not bring your political views into any thread you post. I have been assured by pastor Ben that if you sway towards temptation that you too may call upon him in your time of need. You know your friends here at the Winamp forum will be pulling for your success. I think I can speak for all of us that we will do our part to keep you on the straight and narrow path to salvation.

[ScorLibran]

I often disagree with RoH. Probably more often than most. But I'll fight to the death for his right to post any opinion he has in this place (as long as they're within forum rules), any time of the day or night. Just as I would hope anyone else would do for me.

(Not jabbing at you, G, just doing my part for general freedom-of-speech within the rules of the platform at hand.) ;)

[skryingbreath]

Originally posted by germain47


If you don't like what he says, put him on ignore and stfu.

Oh yeah, here's a smilie for your trouble. :)

[mikm]

Originally posted by ScorLibran
I often disagree with RoH. Probably more often than most. But I'll fight to the death for his right to post any opinion he has in this place (as long as they're within forum rules), any time of the day or night. Just as I would hope anyone else would do for me. :up:

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by germain47
Geeez Rockout, is there any way you can post in a thread without reenterating your political agenda?

I respond to political posts. I'm sorry if my opinion isn't yours. You'll notice I don't start these posts. Mainly I respond to Bush bashing and religion bashing.

I did notice that a Jesus oriented post was locked. Atheists posting their belief aren't.

If you don't want political or religious discussions in your forum, don't allow them.

Or is this forum only for expressing liberal, atheist viewpoints?.

[heath28m]

LOl I agree.. never understood why when we have the freedom that we argue or discuss about it..the freedom itself..

then point for point.. all of the psychological reasoning and connections are made while everyone involved relies on making one point that outweighs or will out do the..

"WHO'S THE BETTER PERSON"

"WHO WANTS TO TAKE PART IN THE BATTLE OF WHITS"

We all create our lives how we want them, the people and ideas that we believe and onto..therefore simply rid yourselves of whatever it is, or whoever it is within the limits of discriminatory law..Keep your perspectives to yourself and let other people breath...

And yes both sides do get involved on such a level regardless of the reiterations of one individual or another..or beliefs and they do effect our world...

And its injustice on both sides..to all walks of life..regardless of the arguing viewpoint from either..

ATROCITY OF OUR LIVES

...give us freedom so we can destroy it...

..respect us so we can ^%$# down your throat..

..We are about a GOD of love..but we teach hatred..

..We want our freedom from religion but we try to take it away from others..

..We want to be happy yet we sit here with our anger and our unhappiness in debate while we complain about the whole thing..

..We claim that we believe in GOD but follow the teachings of those perspectives from the mouth/mind of another man or woman...


..You can beat your children into submission and make them act the way you think they should but it only makes them hate you and start the cyclic circle from sin to forgiveness..

..You give them freedom to be free from it all they wind up believing the game because they have never had to deal with matters of the kind and are convinced by the conniving that its the truth..

Its all wrong..My personal views are for neither..an atheist is snot welcome in my life just like the baptist and Jehovah's witnesses are not..In fact if you have a theory and waste your life on it instead of making something better from what we have with the knowledge you gain then you aren't welcome.. force an idea on someone and you have broken the rules.. realize what is within your grasp what is yours to change and what is not..


i was called a reverse bigot in defense from a Christian who did not grasp the ideal at all.. someone caught up defending it.. i was also a victim of an atheist who did not believe in GOD and it served his purpose to do whatever he decided was the best thing for the situation including murder.

Monks used to kill people in the name of GOD drilling holes in peoples heads who were ill claiming it was the demon inside that needed to be let out.. I have been literally chased around by antagonizing Jehovah's Witnesses claiming they have dispelled the truth on modern day religions and they have the only one true god..In turn using the same reason and tactics as the rest of the 200,000 denominations on this fucking planet, who all lay claim to the same thing..we go to a country while we say that GOD is with us and may god save our souls to kill others and destroy their lives. Why because we actually don't believe in GOD and it is a set societal structure of belief to keep us all under control, or within a certain frame of mind, or a point of justification the same...

there were crusades where millions died to say I rule I believe in GOD..'My ARMY PENIS is Bigger than yourns'..Who has the bigger belief.. Who is going to buy into your campaign, and why to simply survive.. or because they really believe..

We have Satanic Churches who claim that Christmas should not be a national holiday and why because they were revolted against when they opened their first public church in New York? Why because they have all sat around and listened to the ongoing tiring crap generation after generation..

Bring it up to the next level at least for the rest of us and yourselves no matter what side if you believe then you shoudl do one thing.. find that place that works for you and stay there with it..

trying to rework someones mind to be like yours which can be a step backwards or forwards is not how yo make something better for it and you do not go to heaven for saving souls and bringing them to GOD ( the same ideal behind a human sacrifice ).. Where does it stop ..

WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS COUNTRY AND THE IDEALS THAT IT WA BASED ON REGARDLESS OF A ONE_LINER THAT PEOPLE CLAIM HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE PROTECTION OF THE IDEAL WHILE EVERY ASPECT OF IT IS BEING DESTROYED WHILE ITS IS COVERED BY THE WHOLE FACADE.. THE WOLF IS SHEEP"S CLOTHING..

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[ScorLibran]

That's a very intriguing idea. Usually, people look within the sheep's clothing for the wolf, but never do they look directly at the sheep's clothing in search of a polymorphed wolf.

So, with that metaphor, are you saying that belief in God is just athiesm in another form?

:)





:igor:

[skryingbreath]

People seem to forget.

What Atheism is today = What Christianity was 2000 years ago.

They were the renegade, bad-assed mother fuckers. Hated and mistrusted en masse.

[shakey_snake]

Christianity 2000 years ago was a 7 year old Jewish boy.

[skryingbreath]

My good friend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini#Accuracy) says he'd be 13-19. Even before that, in Malachi (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/kjv/mal003.htm) (number 1), there existed a spark of Christianity.

huaaarg, hey guyz lets argue semantics lolz.

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by skryingbreath
My good friend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini#Accuracy) says he'd be 13-19. these are the things Bible Majors know. I was just being capricious.

[heath28m]

No I don't think you get the analogy at all...

You see its not looking and the sheep for proverbial wolf and this why I hate metaphor and saying .. that are directed at saying something direct but actually are not saying it directly...

What I am saying is that it is all the same thing...

and no its not atheism in another form and the problem continues with the line of thought..

I know you have to be completely capable of understanding words then you will try to open the trap to a long lengthy discussion in which the thread will continue for the next three years for you to use every tactic available in debate and every point you were taught to prove whatever side you may be on.

Ignorant bickering..meanwhile your actual lives and the mental crime you commit on others around you make you the demon within itself which..in turn destroys people inner peace and lives.. not a mystical beast of Satanic proportions..You then turn from the subject trying to disassociate the matter with something else..or some other point.. a place of almost Alzheimer-ish and ADHD levels..

and one other point speak of having to believe in something.. no you don't...The only thing you have to do is be aware of what you are actually doing... ( Where the Christian claims your going to Hell as should repent or ask for forgiveness ) ...Its Narcissism at best in an attempt at a mind war .... Its becomes cyclic.. like the belief in a Santa Claus...You observe and become a master of your environment and learn how to function within it, and yes the human mind is capable of this process contrary to the evidence people exhibit otherwise.. I see it used as the minds way out and a point of failure ... repetitively ...

Instead of adjusting and persevering to be a better person you simply.. just say oh well I can pray be forgiven.. I don't actually have to go beyond what i am because I have GOD, you are as walk as someone who stops short of finding a belief and realizing it doesn't matter for all of the points that all of these people try to make and just say I am an Atheist.. I don't have to feel bad for anything I do or have done. I can do whatever i have to do to survive and there is not any difference otherwise..

There simply is no infrastructure in teaching or belief that is as true or as powerful as people being truly happen and without the emotional instability and lack of reasoning put into place as something that falls short or goes way too far..


You know maybe if I play air-headed enough and act and pretend to be dumb enough I can get into heaven too.. maybe I can fool someone up THERE, maybe I will be rewarded by someone DOWN THERE for creat8ing as much hell as possible while I am alive...

Maybe just maybe I will turn to Satan because of GOD and to God because of Satan...

Maybe I can get away with it all.. though I know inside but none of you do..

maybe I can refuse to listen and maintain that ignorance..

What a trend to spark to ruin our actual social structure and try to say it is a Demonic spirit that will simply feed your cause...

The point I make is mainly about the ******d development and actions that we all choose for ourselves.. Who we really are inside..What measure of the pointlessness in arguing is it.. that will make you realize what actually is wrong..

I am leaving the thread alone from here on out .. its does absolutely no good to discuss something with anyone who does try to understand it...


"im RIGHT"

"IIII'm Right"

"MAnnnn.. its says right here.."

BLAH.. BLAH BLAH.. until you all die and become worm-food and you never actually live your lives and forcedly ruin those around you with the inability to move to the next level of reasoning and observation about the demographical structure of society and as its whole basis and means to achieve more and have a better means to survive with a better life.. instead you get distracted from the main goal and caught up in a fight that keeps you in limbo..stops you and halts the thought and development of such which allow you to open your minds and lift a weight off your chest..literally.. by dumping the uselessness of the whole ideal either way..ridding yourself of the question or matter in every way, not letting anyone enter into that area of your life to change it.. no matter what they say and what you say nobody can help someone think.. period.. thats why this whole things is useless.. you can't break the chains that truly hold you instead you are picking at the links instead of the lock...

[ElChevelle]

All humans STFU! before we make your species extinct.

[Mattress]

Originally posted by heath28m
...lots of words... Could you boil that down to something that makes sense?

[Jedi Gemstone]

heath28m you say "Maybe just maybe I will turn to Satan because of GOD and to God because of Satan..."

Ever occur to you that god and satan could actually be one and the same?

And noting on what you guys were saying previously about freedom of speech, do you think we actually have freedom within the country? Or is it just to an extent governed by rules??

[ElChevelle]

Originally posted by Jedi Gemstone
Ever occur to you that god and satan could actually be one and the same?

If God made man in his own image, then yes! Yes he is.

[ScorLibran]

Originally posted by Mattress
Could you boil that down to something that makes sense?
I've got 8:1 against. Any takers? :)

[skryingbreath]

Originally posted by ElChevelle
All humans STFU! before we make your species extinct.
http://xs411.xs.to/xs411/07015/1157776845486.jpg (http://xs.to)
:p

[ElChevelle]

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/1138/evictionnoticeuz5.jpg

[mistermeow]

We don't have true freedom of speech in this country. If you speak out for the Iraqi people, the right blasts you. If you speak out for the Palestinian people (a large percentage which live in refugee camps/instead of their homes now occupied by someone else), you are branded an "antisemite" by the right and the left.

If you are person with any prominent position in government or a corporation, you have to keep your mouth shut, or suffer the consequences.

The average person like me can get away with it, but many people because of their positions in the corporate or world of government have to go alone with the boneheads.

Everyone deserves human rights, and that includes the middle east, Africa, Asian and the rest of the world. Somehow some people see fit to impose their style of democracy at the end of a gun barrel.

Accept our democracy or DIE!

[ScorLibran]

Undertand the concept of "rights". If you speak out on something and people berate you, that's not a lack of rights. It's being berated for an opinion.

A lack of rights means you're imprisoned, tortured or killed for acting freely.

"They put me down if I speak my peace, so there's really no right of free speech" is just whining. Be strong and say it a bit louder. Being insulted for a position isn't a lack of rights, it's an invitation for you to have more resolve.

If you feel no physical pain, and remain alive and unimprisoned, then you were protected by a right.

If social oppression stops you, then you need to be a stronger person.

[ElChevelle]

Showing a nipple now and then goes along way in quelling the oppression.

[ScorLibran]

I exercise my free nipple rights every day.

When one is pinched, I get up and stand more strongly.

[ElChevelle]

Mine both stand up for their rights on a regular basis.

[ScorLibran]

Mine only do that on cold days.

In the summer my nipples are liberals. Both of them. Although the left one more than the right.