Atheists are Better than You...

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]GCF wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

LOL

I know more believers than non-believers and I can’t say there is any difference as far as being a good person.
My dad is a believer and was totally accepting of me not being.
Maybe I just hang out with better believers, also I’m not American, so I guess those studies don’t apply to me.
[/quote]

That may be true but I know who I would rather have as my phone a friend on who wants to be a millionaire. [/quote]

I sometimes think that not all who claim to be believers really are, like politicians and people who only attend church during special occasions. As an atheist I have difficulty believing believers really believe. If that makes sense. lol
[/quote]

I know what you’re saying, but no. I think most are believers, but I think they just don’t follow it.[/quote]

LOL
So basically you think most are believers (even atheists) and I think most are atheist (even believers)?
[/quote]

No, I think that there might be some believers who say they are atheist (not sure why), but I think most atheists are genuine. What I am saying is that most believers are actual believers they just don’t take their own medicine.
[/quote]

I thought maybe you were referring to that “no atheists in a foxhole” expression, or however it goes.[/quote]

Actually I do know about 15 atheist that lived in ‘foxholes’ for 8 years, now. I think there is a good reason for the saying though, it does seem that when people learn their fate, they look for something bigger than them to appeal to. It is natural, that does mean that there isn’t any, though.

[quote]
I was not raised in a religion so my exposure was limited, friends, summer camps, etc. I wonder if I was raised in a religion if I would still be an atheist.[/quote]

Never know, I wasn’t raised religious, either. I am sure if you were raised that way and unless someone gave you unsurmountable proof you’d leave (but then again I have unsurmountable proof that atheists are wrong ;)) that you’d probably be theist because you do seem like a smart lady.

I personally didn’t grow up religiously, at all. We prayed before meals…that was it. No church, nothing. I sure didn’t have an experience of G-d (at least not physically, unless you count when I had the cognitive reaction of knowing someone was lying to me). I sat down with a blank slate (it was so bad at one point I honestly couldn’t answer if 2+2=4), and figured things out from the ground up. Started with the question “Is G-d Real?”

I am sure you can figure out what happened after about four months of going through the logical arguments. (I’ll put the reasons at the end)

Maybe I should read everything before answering. Yes, I would be a believer if I was not raised with religion, because I was not raised with religion.

Four Reasons why G-d is Real…that I can explain in a weekend (because I have a lot more, just not that much time).

  1. The Universe began to exist.
  2. The Universe is finely tuned.
  3. Objective Morality exists.
  4. Jesus of Nazareth.
22

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I like how some of the social positions are held out as basic moral principles.[/quote]

Other than the death penalty and possibly corporal punishment for children, I don’t see anything that isn’t a pretty Manichean right-and-wrong issue.

Basic morality: torture is bad, racism is bad, sexism is bad, homophobia is bad, Antisemitism is bad, environmental degradation is bad, human rights are good. That doesn’t seem too controversial.[/quote]

What’s your source for these though?

23

The only reason atheists would have larger penises is that they are relativists.

24

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]GCF wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

LOL

I know more believers than non-believers and I can’t say there is any difference as far as being a good person.
My dad is a believer and was totally accepting of me not being.
Maybe I just hang out with better believers, also I’m not American, so I guess those studies don’t apply to me.
[/quote]

That may be true but I know who I would rather have as my phone a friend on who wants to be a millionaire. [/quote]

I sometimes think that not all who claim to be believers really are, like politicians and people who only attend church during special occasions. As an atheist I have difficulty believing believers really believe. If that makes sense. lol
[/quote]

I know what you’re saying, but no. I think most are believers, but I think they just don’t follow it.[/quote]

LOL
So basically you think most are believers (even atheists) and I think most are atheist (even believers)?
[/quote]

No, I think that there might be some believers who say they are atheist (not sure why), but I think most atheists are genuine. What I am saying is that most believers are actual believers they just don’t take their own medicine.
[/quote]

I thought maybe you were referring to that “no atheists in a foxhole” expression, or however it goes.
I was not raised in a religion so my exposure was limited, friends, summer camps, etc. I wonder if I was raised in a religion if I would still be an atheist. I think I would still be a skeptic but not sure I wouldn’t be a believer. Do you think you would be a believer if you were not raised with religion, that is provided you were raised with religion?
[/quote]

I don’t know. I’m not sure it matters though–there are many people who go from atheist to religious and many vice versa whose childhood was completely opposite their final belief structure, many of whom I have directly interacted with in my life, and many millions more I will not. This is where some person throws out the “childhood indoctrination” card, I know. Thing is, EVERYONE indoctrinates their kids in their belief system. It’s called raising a kid, and it happens either consiously or unconsciously–your kids pick up on parts of your beliefs even if you try to encourage them not to. But
in a deceloped western democracy a kid starts to be exposed to things contrary to any belief system they might have, no matter what. Some early, some late, but you eventually have enough information to make up your own mind for yourself when you are grown, or even before, no matter how happy/unhappy, sheltered/unsheltered, lax/rigid your childhood was.

So really I am not sure that the question is relevent :). The important question is are you going to keep testing your belief structure, or are you going to stagnate again? And that is a question BOTH sides need to answer, not just one side or the other.

25

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]GCF wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

LOL

I know more believers than non-believers and I can’t say there is any difference as far as being a good person.
My dad is a believer and was totally accepting of me not being.
Maybe I just hang out with better believers, also I’m not American, so I guess those studies don’t apply to me.
[/quote]

That may be true but I know who I would rather have as my phone a friend on who wants to be a millionaire. [/quote]

I sometimes think that not all who claim to be believers really are, like politicians and people who only attend church during special occasions. As an atheist I have difficulty believing believers really believe. If that makes sense. lol
[/quote]

I would totally and completely agree! I would not say “all” or “most” but there are certainly a lot who claim it but don’t believe or claim it because their parents were that (“i’m a catholic/baptist/whatever”) but never believe. Kinda cultural almost (“i’m jewish by heritage not belief” sort of thing). Very politician like indeed.

26

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I like how some of the social positions are held out as basic moral principles.[/quote]

Other than the death penalty and possibly corporal punishment for children, I don’t see anything that isn’t a pretty Manichean right-and-wrong issue.

Basic morality: torture is bad, racism is bad, sexism is bad, homophobia is bad, Antisemitism is bad, environmental degradation is bad, human rights are good. That doesn’t seem too controversial.[/quote]

What’s your source for these though?[/quote]

The issues themselves I drew straight from the article, if that’s what you mean.

If you mean what is my source for the value judgements I assigned to each: they are things that I believe, and that most good and intelligent people on Earth believe.

There is no source because, to my mind, there is no absolute code of morality or ethics–no book of laws which can claim to be unerring and absolute. I think instead that we must each arrive at conclusions, guided only by a love of truth and happiness and hatred towards undue pain and suffering.

27

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]GCF wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

LOL

I know more believers than non-believers and I can’t say there is any difference as far as being a good person.
My dad is a believer and was totally accepting of me not being.
Maybe I just hang out with better believers, also I’m not American, so I guess those studies don’t apply to me.
[/quote]

That may be true but I know who I would rather have as my phone a friend on who wants to be a millionaire. [/quote]

I sometimes think that not all who claim to be believers really are, like politicians and people who only attend church during special occasions. As an atheist I have difficulty believing believers really believe. If that makes sense. lol
[/quote]

I know what you’re saying, but no. I think most are believers, but I think they just don’t follow it.[/quote]

LOL
So basically you think most are believers (even atheists) and I think most are atheist (even believers)?
[/quote]

No, I think that there might be some believers who say they are atheist (not sure why), but I think most atheists are genuine. What I am saying is that most believers are actual believers they just don’t take their own medicine.
[/quote]

Well I see what you are saying, but isn’t the definition of being a christian being willing to put your money where your mouth is? I mean, I am not talking about making mistakes (goodness knows I have many waaaay too many) or even falling down where you should have stood up, or not believing a specific social doctrine, or even going through a crisis. I am talking about a sort of chronic behavior pattern.

What is it the letter said? “you are lukewarm, and I will spit you out”. And many other references in the Bible that talk about people who claim the name but don’t put their “money” up to back that claim getting condemned or left out (not literally money of course, I mean their actions).

There is a certain point where it switches from “not taking your own medicine” to “not really being a christian”. Certainly we as humans are not fit to judge an individual person’s heart, but they exist and there are a lot of them out there.

28

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I like how some of the social positions are held out as basic moral principles.[/quote]

Basic morality: torture is bad, racism is bad, sexism is bad, homophobia is bad, Antisemitism is bad, environmental degradation is bad.

[/quote]

handing money to people who didn’t earn it and don’t deserve it is bad

[/quote]

Clarify your position. Who earned it. And who deserves it. And who doesn’t? Are you anti-charity and/or any social programs?

29

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

analysis:
Racially homogeneous countries have less crime. Racially homogeneous states have less crime.
[/quote]

If the above is true, then why doesn’t it translate down to the city level. Some of our most crime-ridden cities and neighborhoods are “racially homogeneous”. Explain.

Do you mean White States and White Countries have less crime?

30

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I like how some of the social positions are held out as basic moral principles.[/quote]

Basic morality: torture is bad, racism is bad, sexism is bad, homophobia is bad, Antisemitism is bad, environmental degradation is bad.[/quote]

Higher taxes are bad, handing money to people who didn’t earn it and don’t deserve it is bad, bigger government sucking up more power is bad.

[/quote]

Were these mentioned in the article? Where did these things come from? Are they intended in any way to detract from (or even address) the content of my post, which you quoted?

31

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I like how some of the social positions are held out as basic moral principles.[/quote]

Basic morality: torture is bad, racism is bad, sexism is bad, homophobia is bad, Antisemitism is bad, environmental degradation is bad.[/quote]Higher taxes are bad, handing money to people who didn’t earn it and don’t deserve it is bad, bigger government sucking up more power is bad.

[/quote]

Also: higher taxes are bad? Higher than what? Higher than they are today? Higher than under Clinton? Reagan? Higher than another countries’? Moral principles cannot be stand-alone dependent clauses. One of the things I ask of the maxims by which I live is that they have grammatical meaning.

And I doubt that in reality you believe that a sentence like “bigger government sucking up more power is bad” is as forceful, fundamental, or as self-evident as “environmental degradation is bad” or “human rights are good.”

32

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I like how some of the social positions are held out as basic moral principles.[/quote]

Other than the death penalty and possibly corporal punishment for children, I don’t see anything that isn’t a pretty Manichean right-and-wrong issue.

Basic morality: torture is bad, racism is bad, sexism is bad, homophobia is bad, Antisemitism is bad, environmental degradation is bad, human rights are good. That doesn’t seem too controversial.[/quote]

What’s your source for these though?[/quote]

The issues themselves I drew straight from the article, if that’s what you mean.

If you mean what is my source for the value judgements I assigned to each: they are things that I believe, and that most good and intelligent people on Earth believe.

There is no source because, to my mind, there is no absolute code of morality or ethics–no book of laws which can claim to be unerring and absolute. I think instead that we must each arrive at conclusions, guided only by a love of truth and happiness and hatred towards undue pain and suffering.[/quote]

But that is objective again. What is your source that is happiness and hatred of suffering is what we use to determine morals?

33

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I like how some of the social positions are held out as basic moral principles.[/quote]

Other than the death penalty and possibly corporal punishment for children, I don’t see anything that isn’t a pretty Manichean right-and-wrong issue.

Basic morality: torture is bad, racism is bad, sexism is bad, homophobia is bad, Antisemitism is bad, environmental degradation is bad, human rights are good. That doesn’t seem too controversial.[/quote]

What’s your source for these though?[/quote]

The issues themselves I drew straight from the article, if that’s what you mean.

If you mean what is my source for the value judgements I assigned to each: they are things that I believe, and that most good and intelligent people on Earth believe.

There is no source because, to my mind, there is no absolute code of morality or ethics–no book of laws which can claim to be unerring and absolute. I think instead that we must each arrive at conclusions, guided only by a love of truth and happiness and hatred towards undue pain and suffering.[/quote]

But that is objective again. What is your source that is happiness and hatred of suffering is what we use to determine morals?[/quote]

I am not sure what you are asking. Did you mean subjective? Because it is subjective.

34

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I like how some of the social positions are held out as basic moral principles.[/quote]

Other than the death penalty and possibly corporal punishment for children, I don’t see anything that isn’t a pretty Manichean right-and-wrong issue.

Basic morality: torture is bad, racism is bad, sexism is bad, homophobia is bad, Antisemitism is bad, environmental degradation is bad, human rights are good. That doesn’t seem too controversial.[/quote]

Take homophobia, for example. What the hell does that mean? I don’t want gay studies taught in the public school system. Also, I don’t support government recognition of gay marriage. Do I want them dragged out of their homes, or beaten up by hoodlums? No. Even so, am I still a homophobe because of the earlier beliefs I put foward? If so, is that even ‘bad?’ By what authority is this sociologist declaring it ‘bad?’

What the heck is ‘enviromental degradation?’ Am I for it if I’m not willing to sink economies around the world in some panicked rush to do away with fossil fuels?

Am I racist because I dislike affirmative action, am willing to confront uncomfortable facts, and want the government to do something about illegal immigration? If I am racist, how does he decide it’s ‘bad?’

I suspect his standard of racism, and homophobia, etc., is pretty damn low.

And, you’ll have to excuse me, I don’t believe in basic human morality. The same beings that can save a dog from a roof swept into the ocean, is the same animal that can enslave each other, videotape the beating of a homeless man, walk out on their children, and kill children in the womb. I don’t believe in right and wrong as defined by man. With man, I see only opinions, risk/reward calculations, but not morality.

35

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I like how some of the social positions are held out as basic moral principles.[/quote]

Other than the death penalty and possibly corporal punishment for children, I don’t see anything that isn’t a pretty Manichean right-and-wrong issue.

Basic morality: torture is bad, racism is bad, sexism is bad, homophobia is bad, Antisemitism is bad, environmental degradation is bad, human rights are good. That doesn’t seem too controversial.[/quote]

What’s your source for these though?[/quote]

The issues themselves I drew straight from the article, if that’s what you mean.

If you mean what is my source for the value judgements I assigned to each: they are things that I believe, and that most good and intelligent people on Earth believe.

There is no source because, to my mind, there is no absolute code of morality or ethics–no book of laws which can claim to be unerring and absolute. I think instead that we must each arrive at conclusions, guided only by a love of truth and happiness and hatred towards undue pain and suffering.[/quote]

But that is objective again. What is your source that is happiness and hatred of suffering is what we use to determine morals?[/quote]

I am not sure what you are asking. Did you mean subjective? Because it is subjective.[/quote]

So, if I hit you in the head with a metal tube it is neither morally wrong or morally right?

36

I too am confused, since you said something like, basic human morality. But now there is no such thing.?

37

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I like how some of the social positions are held out as basic moral principles.[/quote]

Other than the death penalty and possibly corporal punishment for children, I don’t see anything that isn’t a pretty Manichean right-and-wrong issue.

Basic morality: torture is bad, racism is bad, sexism is bad, homophobia is bad, Antisemitism is bad, environmental degradation is bad, human rights are good. That doesn’t seem too controversial.[/quote]

Take homophobia, for example. What the hell does that mean? I don’t want gay studies taught in the public school system. Also, I don’t support government recognition of gay marriage. Do I want them dragged out of their homes, or beaten up by hoodlums? No. Even so, am I still a homophobe because of the earlier beliefs I put foward? If so, is that even ‘bad?’ By what authority is this sociologist declaring it ‘bad?’

Am I racist because I dislike affirmative action, am willing to confront uncomfortable facts, and want the government to do something about illegal immigration? If I am racist, how does he decide it’s ‘bad?’
[/quote]

What makes a person a homophobe is dislike of homosexuality or homosexuals. A racist dislikes a certain race of people. It isn’t complicated.

38

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

So, if I hit you in the head with a metal tube it is neither morally wrong or morally right?[/quote]

The obvious answer is that it is morally wrong. But why? God’s law? That cannot be proven. The government’s laws? They have little to do with morality, and are not free from error.

It boils down to common sense. Social living necessitates that individuals strive to not do each other harm. Morality, in my view, flows from that pragmatic, rather than absolute, truth.

39

[quote]smh23 wrote:
It isn’t complicated.[/quote]

Then you aren’t paying attention. If you merely disagree with Obama nowadays you could earn the racist label. If you’re for enforcing our immigration laws, yep, you get the same. If you dislike AA, the same. And what’s with the idiotic “you’re a homophobe” if you dislike homosexuality? Am I a coprophiliacaphobe, too? Or, a stepping-out-on-the-wifephobe? A swingers-phobe? Sorry, but to me, if the mumbo-jumbo term has any meaning at all, it could be applied to a minority smaller than homosexuals themselves.

40

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I like how some of the social positions are held out as basic moral principles.[/quote]

Basic morality: torture is bad, racism is bad, sexism is bad, homophobia is bad, Antisemitism is bad, environmental degradation is bad.

[/quote]

handing money to people who didn’t earn it and don’t deserve it is bad

[/quote]

Clarify your position. Who earned it. And who deserves it. And who doesn’t? Are you anti-charity and/or any social programs?[/quote]

For me at least, Government programs that make people feel entitled are bad. Requiring “charity” by law is also not really good.

By the way, on a side note to this, if keeping the highest marginal tax rate the same would spur 1.5% more TOTAL growth in GDP (NOT annual), that those who touch the highest bracket today would pay more total taxes than if the top rate went up to 39.8% and we did not get that prospective 1.5% growth.