[quote]Cortes wrote:
Again you show yourself to be a drive-by shit-talking sophist. [/quote]
LOL, I liked that - thanks man.
You know… on reflection, I’ll actually wear the mantle of “shit-talking sophist” with pride.
In all seriousness, it’s a byproduct of the arguing style of my family, and Cortes, I honestly do not mean to demean you… to be arrogant, yes… I just can’t help myself.
just a thought :
monotheism was maybe the beginning of the end of religion.
during 99% of our history, animism has been our only religious system.
it was once universal. de facto.
animist religiosity accomplished a vital task : it sacralized life, it described the universe and our place within in narrative and metaphorical terms and it defined a traditionnal order for each society.
then came the neolothic revolution. agriculture, metalworking.
the beginning of our promethean hubris.
spirits were replaced by gods. zoomorphic gods at first, then anthropomorphic gods.
humanity started to divinize itself and to desacralize Life and the Earth at the same time.
next came all the inventions of the Antiquity. Writing, the State, the first real wars.
the Gods became imperials, more and more powerful. and more and more abstract.
next came monotheism
the prolific pagan pantheons were replaced by one God. the only one. all powerful. absolutely abstract. unknowable. invisible. distant.
but still antrophomorphic.
atheism is not “the ennemy”. it’s just the last phase.
now, humanity adore itself openly and directly. and for the first time in history, humanity feels alone in the cosmos.
maybe we should go back where it all started. telling new stories and drawing new metaphors to hear the spirits again.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Cortes,
It was a sophomoric question… I’m sorry if that characterization offends you.
I’m not certain what point you wish to make by referencing the Aztecs, Nazi Germany, etc… but if it is to argue that because some attempts at collective reasoning of morals were unsuccessful then the general idea is invalid, then you are opening a big can of worms. I could make the same argument in reference to religions, but it would not be a fair one… It would also be sophomoric.
I don’t agree that moralism is an ‘is’ vs. ‘ought’ issue. This, I think, is what you are missing about my argument. ‘Is’ and ‘ought’ are terms only applicable in the context of an immutable external force. I posit that such a thing does not exist. To ask me to provide you scientific evidence for an ‘ought’ shows a misunderstanding of my central point.
I have actually taken the time to read every page of this thread, and I apologize, but I still don’t see where you’ve demonstrated a thorough knowledge of moral relativism. To be fair, why not explain it now, so we can put this portion if the discussion to rest. You did actually characterize me as a moral relativist, which is why I think bridging this gap of understanding as important.
I make no attempt here to “define your beliefs.” I’m simply responding to those you have presented.
[/quote]
Here you go. I was even nice and dug around for the point where I started posting and gave you that link.
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/atheismophobia?id=4026166&pageNo=26
Everything you’ve brought up has already been discussed there. I’m not going to write another 100 posts restating what’s readily accessible to anyone interested.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Lastly, I honestly do not think that you understand moral relativism… more to the point, it appears that you wold like to pigeonhole the broad topic of moral relativism into the more nihilistic of its camps in which the prevailing theory is that there is no such thing as right or wrong. The more traditional mentality of moral relativism is that there is no immutable right or wrong, but rather right and wrong relative to any specific ethical decision. This philosophy still includes subjective levels of validity/ethical correctness.
[/quote]
I wouldnt bother on that, I tried explaining that kind of topic a while ago to no avail - You might be able to do it better thought…
[quote]Cortes wrote:
- Again you show yourself to be a drive-by shit-talking sophist. The only poster I’ve had issues with until you was krsoneeeee. And he, like you, drew first blood. I share a very friendly relationship with the vast majority of posters here. Even those with whom I disagree. Even Mak, ffs! You came in here dropping ad hominems and little turds of disrespect, and now you are trying to twist the dialog to make it appear that I am the unreasonable one.
[/quote]
WHAT! You obviously take this internet thing more seriously than me but the only issues we had were you taking other peoples views and suggestions to heart - And us just apparently missing each others points, which instead of discussing you would call me an idiot…
Also Rambo, I think you may have jumped in on me and brother chris, so don’t spread bullshit about me drawing first blood…
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Being good for the sake of being good should be enough…[/quote]
Okay, cool. I can definitely roll with that. I happen to feel like “brainwashing” children from young age is “good.” On what authority do you oppose me?
[/quote]
The fact that it has to be explained in simplistic terms which leads to misunderstandings. If you truly want children to understand your religion, you should be teaching them the things that people on this board have claimed I should learn if I “want to understand”. If I am required to read extra material at age 24, what makes you think a 7 year old is going to understand?[/quote]
No no no no no. On what authority do you oppose that fact that I FEEL something is moral that you do not? What makes you the moral authority?[/quote]
Suppose I FEEL that Megan Fox has a strong attraction to me. And therein lies the problem. You can FEEL whatever you want about the state of reality, but to tell other people you have to provide something testable, otherwise you are sharing a feeling and not knowledge.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Never even implied that they don’t fear death. It’s just a gross over-simplification to discount the thousand other factors that come into play, including the possibility even of a genetic predisposition to belief in God(s). Also the statement implies that atheists are somehow “tougher,” that they do not fear death. I highly doubt this is honestly the case for most atheists.
And in any case, go back and look at the few posts before you wrote that and look at the company you put yourself in. Kind of hard to argue for an atheistic “enlightenment” with that albatross hanging around your neck. >;)
[/quote]
Of course atheist fear death (except via old age), you’d be a failure of genetics if you didn’t. What atheists don’t fear is what happens AFTER death.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
But surely that cant be possible - the bible says he created everything and that humans started, as humans. And all this occurred at the start of “time” -
BUT we know humans evolved later in the piece. So, to combine the two is in complete opposition. ???
[/quote]
What are you mumbling about? Obviously you’re not looking at the literal meaning of what Moses was trying to convey. Let me explain…Yes, God created everything, good. If Genesis was a historical account, why would one man write the story two different times right next to each other? In the same book? Moses was trying to get across that there was order to the world. Hebrew translates day in English to mean something ultimately different than 24 hours or even what they considered a day back then (sunset to sunset). (Jewbacca if you’re in here reading, correct me if I am wrong and also do you speak Hewbrew or Yiddish?)
Well science pretty much proved that humans as we know them have been around for maybe 200,000 years. Kind of hard to be here at the start of time, when the universe is 13.5 million years old? Or, is it billion I do not remember been a long time since I took a science class.
Evolved later in what piece? To combine what two?[/quote]
AHHH i get it! The dude who wrote the good book was a fuckin lunatic so you only take out of it what you need to justify your own beliefs. good hustle. BUT without following what is written in the book/s, what is religion? I mean you either follow the historical “reality” or you dont… as it would appear, you substitute your own.
[/quote]
Are you intentionally this stupid?
[/quote]
There it is!!! a joke taken too seriously by Mr Constructive… AKA Cortes - arrogance is not >= intelligence.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[
Here you go. I was even nice and dug around for the point where I started posting and gave you that link.
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/atheismophobia?id=4026166&pageNo=26
Everything you’ve brought up has already been discussed there. I’m not going to write another 100 posts restating what’s readily accessible to anyone interested.
[/quote]
Oh, man… You’re a riot, Cortes. Seriously, I’m giving you the respect of reading your posts on that thread… I’ve gotten about 4 pages into it, and man you were pompous from the start 
Really. Don’t ever accept an apology form me for being arrogant. You take the cake there, bub.
Also, I think it’s okay if you don’t try to address my few central arguments. Judging by the content you linked to, we won’t get anywhere.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Maybe the atheist should concern himself less with the religious transmitting faith to their children, and start actually having children.[/quote]
Or being married…or actually graduating from school. You know growing up
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Being good for the sake of being good should be enough…[/quote]
Okay, cool. I can definitely roll with that. I happen to feel like “brainwashing” children from young age is “good.” On what authority do you oppose me?
[/quote]
The fact that it has to be explained in simplistic terms which leads to misunderstandings. If you truly want children to understand your religion, you should be teaching them the things that people on this board have claimed I should learn if I “want to understand”. If I am required to read extra material at age 24, what makes you think a 7 year old is going to understand?[/quote]
No no no no no. On what authority do you oppose that fact that I FEEL something is moral that you do not? What makes you the moral authority?[/quote]
Suppose I FEEL that Megan Fox has a strong attraction to me. And therein lies the problem. You can FEEL whatever you want about the state of reality, but to tell other people you have to provide something testable, otherwise you are sharing a feeling and not knowledge.[/quote]
The Bible that we read today is more accurate than writings from Socrates, Plato and many other ancient writings. But since the Bible talks about God just dismiss it.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
What atheists don’t fear is what happens AFTER death.[/quote]
I think I know what you mean. It’s sort of like a 2 year old having no fear of running out in front of a car traveling at 60 miles an hour.
yeah… that thread was painful.
I decided to quote here something that you wrote, Cortes. It appears to me to be the only point at which you addressed evolution and morals;
What exactly is it that you find lacking in the theory of evolution… or what is it that you refer to that it can not explain?
This is as far as I ever saw you go in the way of addressing morality in the context of evolution, such as I’ve presented it. Do you care to take a stab at it now, or will you continue to dismiss it as an affront to some status that you have gained in these threads?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
The Bible that we read today is more accurate than writings from Socrates, Plato and many other ancient writings. But since the Bible talks about God just dismiss it.
[/quote]
Accurate in what sense?
I’m just going to throw this out there. I think it’s better to focus more on the content of what people are saying rather than reading the way it was said with offense. It’s even easier to do on the internet than real life I think.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
The Bible that we read today is more accurate than writings from Socrates, Plato and many other ancient writings. But since the Bible talks about God just dismiss it.
[/quote]
Accurate in what sense?
[/quote]
www.newmediaministries.orgBible/Biblographic_S.html
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
The Bible that we read today is more accurate than writings from Socrates, Plato and many other ancient writings. But since the Bible talks about God just dismiss it.
[/quote]
Accurate in what sense?
[/quote]
www.newmediaministries.orgBible/Biblographic_S.html
[/quote]
this link does not work
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Being good for the sake of being good should be enough…[/quote]
Okay, cool. I can definitely roll with that. I happen to feel like “brainwashing” children from young age is “good.” On what authority do you oppose me?
[/quote]
The fact that it has to be explained in simplistic terms which leads to misunderstandings. If you truly want children to understand your religion, you should be teaching them the things that people on this board have claimed I should learn if I “want to understand”. If I am required to read extra material at age 24, what makes you think a 7 year old is going to understand?[/quote]
No no no no no. On what authority do you oppose that fact that I FEEL something is moral that you do not? What makes you the moral authority?[/quote]
Suppose I FEEL that Megan Fox has a strong attraction to me. And therein lies the problem. You can FEEL whatever you want about the state of reality, but to tell other people you have to provide something testable, otherwise you are sharing a feeling and not knowledge.[/quote]
The Bible that we read today is more accurate than writings from Socrates, Plato and many other ancient writings. But since the Bible talks about God just dismiss it.
[/quote]
It has been claimed on this thread the bible is only symbolic - so it’s be accurately symbolic? to be honest the bible sounds more like a story book…