Atheism-o-phobia Part 2

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…reliable in what way? You could say that if i do something i find moral and subsequently notice how someone else is negatively affected by it, i’d make sure not to act like that towards that person…

…but that’s rare. I mean, it’s not so rare that someone finds me offensive for instance, or crass, but i have little regard for social norms. So yeah, i still don’t get what you mean by reliable?

…sleep well!
[/quote]

Alright I lied. Really last post tonight:

How do you know you can trust them?

To use your example, you felt that you acted against your principles when denying the two Turkish gentlemen entrance to the bar you were working at. How do you know that your boss was wrong and you are right?
[/quote]

…the boss had his reasons for asking that of me; reasons i understood. But that can’t be the yardstick i live my life by. How i feel about things, the effects i’ve experienced certain behaviour can have on people, what effect certain behaviour has on me [stress, guilt, sorrow], all contribute to my sense of wrong and right…

…i prefer to be relaxed, to be friendly and kind because of how that makes me feel. Being stressed, surly, mean and vindictive is not how i want to live the one life i have. That’s how…

142

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
^
You don’t grope because God tells you not to grope, right? Or is it something else. I imagine you weren’t groping before you were a Christian, right?

Personally, I don’t grope because it royally screw with my psyche and ability to have positive relationships with the fairer sex and because I empathize and sympathize with people regardless of whether I want to or not and it would make me feel horrible as a result even if there were not external consequences.[/quote]

So, like ephrem said, guilt. So guilt is the only motivator (or demotivator) in this case?
[/quote]

Guilt is an important demotivator/motivator and I’m not sure where I would be without a conscious that can make me guilty or feel good, but it’s not the only one. I also couldn’t do it because it would go against my code of ethics that have been developed large part form Judeo-Christian principles within an evolutionary ethic. Simply put, because it’s wrong according to my standards.

143

Guilt for certain actions is taught and reinforced. And, of course, it can be rejected in the name of freedom. It is an emotional reaction which can be mastered. Even disposed of. The self aware would say, “my empathy for this person is silly. It isn’t me who I’d be groping, but another. There is no need to project what they feel onto myself. And, hey, I can’t get caught in these circumstances.” If I master my guilt, then the action becomes right?

Edit: It’s like a soldier posted as a guard to a death camp. The hidden revulsion and guilt during the initial period prevents the wrong from being a right. But as time and acclimation erases this emotion, eventually the guard joins his fellows in taunting the condemned. The wrong now becomes the right. Of course, he may still feel guilty for having smacked his wife the night before he marched prisoners out to the execution grounds. But as to the fate of the prisoners, he is now doing the ‘right’ thing.

144

…you know Sloth, you seem to imply that a believer does not have some emotion pay-off by following their religion’s commandments. I think that’s bullshit. You also seem to imply that “feelings” isn’t a good indicator of whether an action is right or wrong. That too is bullshit, i say…

…i say all we have are “feelings” to stear us through the moral quagmire that’s life. You may have a rigid set of rules to live by, but your adherence to those rules is based on the same “feelings” i have. The added bonus for you however is the ability to be arrogant about it…

145

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…you know Sloth, you seem to imply that a believer does not have some emotion pay-off by following their religion’s commandments.[/quote]

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t. When it does, it’s usually because I’ve become conditioned (as we all are) to enjoy what is ‘right.’ But, at the same time, I’d have punched a few more people in my life if I went by the emotional payoff.

Feelings are only a useful indicator when they arise from a right system of morality. The feelings don’t create the system. The system creates the feelings. I don’t much care that the Nazi felt not a shred of guilt when he executed the Jew, yet deeply loved his family, friends and countrymen. His action was wrong. Besides, you don’t believe an action can actually be right or wrong. You only believe that action can FEEL right or wrong. Whichever it is, depends on who you ask, and how they’re feeling at the time.

If your feeling are your guide, you’ve set up your own rigid rules. And you’re wrong about my arrogance. It doesn’t come from my religious-morality. That’s one of my secular faults I’m still working on. Smugness just feels so damn good. Still, you’re my favorite atheist. So, I’m sorry if you feel like I’m picking on you.

146

…perhaps i’m simply a better person than you?

I kid, but is it really necessary to trot out Nazis again and again?

Repeat a lie over and over again and people will start to believe it’s true.

The dehumanisation of Jews began long before the Endlosung. IOW, they prepped the germans to think of Jews as subhuman. I kill mosquitos without a shred of guilt. I can’t imagine thinking the same about another human being, but many a nazi did.

The most important aspect of my way of living is honesty. Clear, unrelenting and bold honesty. Without that, you’re right; it would just be a go-with-the-flow kind of thing. Wishywashy.

You’ve made me change how i format my posts. Don’t know how, but i’ll keep it this way.

147

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
Darwinism[/quote]

Yeah, I only reacted to your ad hominems, straw mans, and appeals to authority. I have two B.S. degrees behind my name. Get over yourself. Because it’s hard to take you seriously this way, look at forlife and eph, both disagree with me, neither attack me.

Okay, but who said Darwinism is correct. I purpose that the theory of evolution that was propounded before Charles Darwin’s time, by Lamark (1809) and Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire was correct, however it only being a theory. The theory of evolution as a scientific hypothesis is in perfect agreement with the Christian (Catholic) conception of the universe. As a philosophical speculation, the conception is in agreement with the Christian view of the universe.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the same language thing, can you explain that to me?

[/quote]

BS sounds about right.

148

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
Darwinism[/quote]

Yeah, I only reacted to your ad hominems, straw mans, and appeals to authority. I have two B.S. degrees behind my name. Get over yourself. Because it’s hard to take you seriously this way, look at forlife and eph, both disagree with me, neither attack me.

Okay, but who said Darwinism is correct. I purpose that the theory of evolution that was propounded before Charles Darwin’s time, by Lamark (1809) and Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire was correct, however it only being a theory. The theory of evolution as a scientific hypothesis is in perfect agreement with the Christian (Catholic) conception of the universe. As a philosophical speculation, the conception is in agreement with the Christian view of the universe.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the same language thing, can you explain that to me?

[/quote]

Bachelor of Science sounds about right.[/quote]

x2, I didn’t feel like writing it out.

149

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
Darwinism[/quote]

Yeah, I only reacted to your ad hominems, straw mans, and appeals to authority. I have two B.S. degrees behind my name. Get over yourself. Because it’s hard to take you seriously this way, look at forlife and eph, both disagree with me, neither attack me.

Okay, but who said Darwinism is correct. I purpose that the theory of evolution that was propounded before Charles Darwin’s time, by Lamark (1809) and Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire was correct, however it only being a theory. The theory of evolution as a scientific hypothesis is in perfect agreement with the Christian (Catholic) conception of the universe. As a philosophical speculation, the conception is in agreement with the Christian view of the universe.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the same language thing, can you explain that to me?

[/quote]

Ok firslty lets stop the bullshit swipes at it eachother before we post yeah?

I dont see how the inconsistencies in the stories aren’t already clear. So far, It seems as though you only partially believe the adam and eve story. Id like a clear, concise answer as to whether you think adam and eve were the first humans but define whether you think they were created…out of dust and a rib…as the story goes…or if you think they evolved from another species.

And the language thing - Do you think language just “snapped” into fruition? …i think it would have evolved from signals and sounds then into more complex language - and certainly not with a talking snake…

The clincher for me is, if you believe in evolution you cant believe god created humans…because if he created humans, we wouldn’t have needed to evolve…science and religion don’t and shouldn’t be mixed.

150

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
because if he created humans, we wouldn’t have needed to evolve…[/quote]

Unless humans were meant to be physical beings, in a physical world, subject to physical laws.

151

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
Darwinism[/quote]

Yeah, I only reacted to your ad hominems, straw mans, and appeals to authority. I have two B.S. degrees behind my name. Get over yourself. Because it’s hard to take you seriously this way, look at forlife and eph, both disagree with me, neither attack me.

Okay, but who said Darwinism is correct. I purpose that the theory of evolution that was propounded before Charles Darwin’s time, by Lamark (1809) and Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire was correct, however it only being a theory. The theory of evolution as a scientific hypothesis is in perfect agreement with the Christian (Catholic) conception of the universe. As a philosophical speculation, the conception is in agreement with the Christian view of the universe.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the same language thing, can you explain that to me?

[/quote]

Ok firslty lets stop the bullshit swipes at it eachother before we post yeah?

I dont see how the inconsistencies in the stories aren’t already clear. So far, It seems as though you only partially believe the adam and eve story. Id like a clear, concise answer as to whether you think adam and eve were the first humans but define whether you think they were created…out of dust and a rib…as the story goes…or if you think they evolved from another species.

And the language thing - Do you think language just “snapped” into fruition? …i think it would have evolved from signals and sounds then into more complex language - and certainly not with a talking snake…

The clincher for me is, if you believe in evolution you cant believe god created humans…because if he created humans, we wouldn’t have needed to evolve…science and religion don’t and shouldn’t be mixed.

[/quote]

Why is this so difficult for you?

When you show up late to meet a friend, and the friend says, “I’ve been waiting forever!” Do you counter, “Bullshit, because if so, you’d be immortal, and that’s impossible. So there!”

When someone is very hungry, and they say,“I’m starving!”
Do you counter, “Actually, the process of starvation is a really long, drawn out, miserable experience. You would have to have no food for over a week or more until you were really starving.”

You’re not much fun at parties, are you?

152

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
Darwinism[/quote]

Yeah, I only reacted to your ad hominems, straw mans, and appeals to authority. I have two B.S. degrees behind my name. Get over yourself. Because it’s hard to take you seriously this way, look at forlife and eph, both disagree with me, neither attack me.

Okay, but who said Darwinism is correct. I purpose that the theory of evolution that was propounded before Charles Darwin’s time, by Lamark (1809) and Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire was correct, however it only being a theory. The theory of evolution as a scientific hypothesis is in perfect agreement with the Christian (Catholic) conception of the universe. As a philosophical speculation, the conception is in agreement with the Christian view of the universe.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the same language thing, can you explain that to me?

[/quote]

Ok firslty lets stop the bullshit swipes at it eachother before we post yeah?

I dont see how the inconsistencies in the stories aren’t already clear. So far, It seems as though you only partially believe the adam and eve story. Id like a clear, concise answer as to whether you think adam and eve were the first humans but define whether you think they were created…out of dust and a rib…as the story goes…or if you think they evolved from another species.

And the language thing - Do you think language just “snapped” into fruition? …i think it would have evolved from signals and sounds then into more complex language - and certainly not with a talking snake…

The clincher for me is, if you believe in evolution you cant believe god created humans…because if he created humans, we wouldn’t have needed to evolve…science and religion don’t and shouldn’t be mixed.

[/quote]

Why is this so difficult for you?

When you show up late to meet a friend, and the friend says, “I’ve been waiting forever!” Do you counter, “Bullshit, because if so, you’d be immortal, and that’s impossible. So there!”

When someone is very hungry, and they say,“I’m starving!”
Do you counter, “Actually, the process of starvation is a really long, drawn out, miserable experience. You would have to have no food for over a week or more until you were really starving.”

You’re not much fun at parties, are you?[/quote]

worst analogies everrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr- try again…

to lighten the mood - - YouTube

153

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
because if he created humans, we wouldn’t have needed to evolve…[/quote]

Unless humans were meant to be physical beings, in a physical world, subject to physical laws.[/quote]

what does that even mean…?

154

the point no one seems to get is if some of the bible is symbolic…how does anyone know which parts to take as literal? ridiculous

155

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
the point no one seems to get is if some of the bible is symbolic…how does anyone know which parts to take as literal? ridiculous[/quote]

How much of the Bible have you actually read?

Be honest.

156

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

worst analogies everrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr- try again…

to lighten the mood -

[/quote]

So instead of engaging me in debate and countering my points, you act like a child, avoid the hard work of pointing out why the analogies don’t work, and post a silly video as a distraction that you’ve already posted before.

Yeah, you’re quite the formidable opponent in the debating ring.

157

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
because if he created humans, we wouldn’t have needed to evolve…[/quote]

Unless humans were meant to be physical beings, in a physical world, subject to physical laws.[/quote]

what does that even mean…?[/quote]

It means that evolution doesn’t disprove God’s creation of the universe and/or it’s laws, therefore the creation of evolution. And issuing from evolution, the human being.

158

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
the point no one seems to get is if some of the bible is symbolic…how does anyone know which parts to take as literal? ridiculous[/quote]

The authority of the Church. Other denominations are free to provide their own answers.

159

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
the point no one seems to get is if some of the bible is symbolic…how does anyone know which parts to take as literal? ridiculous[/quote]

How much of the Bible have you actually read?

Be honest.[/quote]

I think its irrelevant…but Ive read it…just the one time was enough for me though.

Being so confident, Im hoping you at least have some kind of university education…

160

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

worst analogies everrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr- try again…

to lighten the mood -

[/quote]

So instead of engaging me in debate and countering my points, you act like a child, avoid the hard work of pointing out why the analogies don’t work, and post a silly video as a distraction that you’ve already posted before.

Yeah, you’re quite the formidable opponent in the debating ring.[/quote]

If you think you 'engage" anyone in debates you are very mistaken. what you do is berate to the point of frustration and the opposition gets sick of arguing with stupidity…

I didn’t reply to save you the embarrassment and by all means correct me if im wrong (im sure you will)… But by the analogies you just wrote - your saying that which is written in the bible shouldn’t be taken at face value…Your saying it requires the interpretation from an authority such as the church…So YOUR beliefs are not coming from what YOU read…So the need for you or me to read a bible is essentially omitted…