Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Student stabs himself in the hand with a pen to prove the existence of God. It didn't work   ( collegiatetimes.com) divider line
    More: Strange, stabbing, emergency calls, student groups, stabs, Student stabs, Nicole Schrand, existence, resisting arrest  
•       •       •

15525 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Apr 2011 at 3:04 AM (6 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



439 Comments     (+0 »)
 
 
2011-04-13 11:45:00 PM  
Your Bic has forsaken you.
 
2011-04-13 11:46:38 PM  
FTFA: Alexander M. Huppert, a freshman university studies major

What's a university studies major..... do they study universities?
 
2011-04-13 11:52:37 PM  
Ugh, at this rate we'll switch from racial and religious profiling to "Have you ever been a student at Virginia Tech?" =/
 
2011-04-13 11:52:42 PM  
Always a bummer when the schizo fires up in the kiddies.
 
2011-04-13 11:52:56 PM  

Arthur Jumbles: FTFA: Alexander M. Huppert, a freshman university studies major

What's a university studies major..... do they study universities?


www.fatguygolf.net
 
2011-04-13 11:55:59 PM  

Arthur Jumbles: What's a university studies major..... do they study universities?


Kinda, it's Tech's "undecided" option, you can be there for your 1st two years.
 
2011-04-13 11:57:30 PM  
TFA:If it had been a more streamlined pen, I would have expected it to go through
images.easyart.com
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2011-04-13 11:57:35 PM  
Someone needs to check his computer for a Richard McBeef sequel.
 
2011-04-13 11:58:12 PM  
A for effort, E for execution. So we'll give it a C.
 
2011-04-13 11:59:18 PM  

Arthur Jumbles: FTFA: Alexander M. Huppert, a freshman university studies major

What's a university studies major..... do they study universities?


I hear they weave a mean basket.
 
2011-04-14 12:02:06 AM  

Theaetetus: A for effort, E for execution. So we'll give it a C.


And what does Jesus's last name start with?

Bam, there's your proof.
 
2011-04-14 12:02:19 AM  
I'm not sure how stabbing a cross on the back of someone's hand will prove the existence of God.
 
2011-04-14 12:04:56 AM  
I wish my campus atheist group had seen crazy like this.
 
2011-04-14 12:07:38 AM  
The "use" of "quotes" throughout the "article" was "commendable."
Thank "GOD" for those "brave" and "courageous" people that "saved" everyone from that "pen-wielding" *hic* "drunk" *hic* freshman
 
2011-04-14 12:20:42 AM  
Atheist groups are weird.

Religion is a community. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Daoists, Wiccans; they all have provisions in their religions that create an organization of other members. In the monotheistic religions, their clergy are the voice of god on Earth. In the non-theistic religions like Buddhism, the community is seen as nessecary to provide the ideal environment for study of the religious principles so you can get deeper quicker and without wasting years and decades like the Buddha did.

But atheism merely requires you do nothing. And not all atheists are atheists for the same reason. Some approach it from a position of educated wisdom, but many more approach it out of reactionary ignorance. The whole "Prove god exists and I'll believe." doesn't work when you don't actually go take a look at the proof which is found in certain religious practices. Oh, but wait, that takes physical and mental discipline to actually accomplish the proper depth of meditation so I'll just ignore 10,000s of years of indirect evidence of something important being here and just call it a life.

If you've actually taken the time, put in the sweat, touched the divine and still decided you do not believe that there's anything worthwhile to religion that's a commendable choice on your part, but STILL the group confuses me. You deny something for various reasons, so you don't care about it at all. It shouldn't even be a part of your life. Why waste time with declaring how much you don't believe in something with a bunch of people who feel the same way? Go play a sport or have another beer or something.

It would be like a group of people who were blind from birth getting together to discuss how they don't like the color of rooms in houses they've never been in or heard anyone describe to them.
 
2011-04-14 12:20:47 AM  
imfreakinoutman.jpg
 
2011-04-14 12:25:48 AM  
How in the hell does a stab wound in the hand prove or disprove anything except what a dicknut you are?
 
2011-04-14 12:28:44 AM  

doglover: Atheist groups are weird.


And they get so offended if you point out that atheism is just another religion. If you spend your time in an atheist group talking about how much you love being an atheist and setting up tables to convert other people to atheism then for that person, atheism is a religion.
 
2011-04-14 12:31:08 AM  

kitryne: How in the hell does a stab wound in the hand prove or disprove anything except what a dicknut you are?


It can prove that you're a total badass, but I don't think the god you would be proving would be the Christian one.

More like Tyr or Thor or Odin. I think berserks were said to have Odin's battle rage. If you are frothing at the mouth and fire cannot harm you and then you stab yourself in the hand, you might just be one of the faithful.
 
2011-04-14 12:32:19 AM  

doglover: It would be like a group of people who were blind from birth getting together to discuss how they don't like the color of rooms in houses they've never been in or heard anyone describe to them.


That's all very silly of you to say.
A) plenty of atheists are active in their atheist communities, some, much to many people's chagrin even proselytize.

2) It takes more effort to think for yourself than to follow

c)All of that is explainable by science.

Atheists aren't weird. We're the same as everyone, we just prove to believe what's written in the science books instead of religious text. Many atheists meditate. Buddhism is an atheistic religion, and those dudes are the kings of meditation.

Some people want to get together with other people who see things the same general way as they do so they can discuss things. Same as religions. You don't need to have faith in a deity for that.

And some people want to dispel the image that people have of us, that we're evil sinners who'll suck you into damnation or whatever the hell it is people think we do. They don't like us, that's the point. And we would like to change that, because we're pretty cool and maybe you might learn something in the process.
 
2011-04-14 12:33:15 AM  

doglover: If you've actually taken the time, put in the sweat, touched the divine


How do you touch the divine if you don't believe in the divine? Unless you meant "divan," in which case, I've done that. I was unimpressed. It was comfy and all, but that's about it.
 
2011-04-14 12:33:45 AM  

doglover: More like Tyr or Thor or Odin. I think berserks were said to have Odin's battle rage. If you are frothing at the mouth and fire cannot harm you and then you stab yourself in the hand, you might just be one of the faithful.


See, like, I could see putting a cigar out on your face before going into a murder-rage working here, but somehow, a bic pen slightly denting your hand is just silly.
 
2011-04-14 12:34:13 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: If you spend your time in an atheist group talking about how much you love being an atheist and setting up tables to convert other people to atheism then for that person, atheism is a religion.


And a boring one at that! Seriously, would you rather party with the dudes who say "Our god is the god of wine. For him, AN ORGY!" or the guys who say "There's nothing but what physics already knows to life. Nothing. Yep. Still nothing."
 
2011-04-14 12:36:23 AM  

doglover: And a boring one at that! Seriously, would you rather party with the dudes who say "Our god is the god of wine. For him, AN ORGY!" or the guys who say "There's nothing but what physics already knows to life. Nothing. Yep. Still nothing."


Man, are you kidding? Scientists make the BEST shiat. Those dudes can get down, with their labs and titration and abilities to buy chemicals without being asked a lot of questions.
 
2011-04-14 12:37:35 AM  
Did he use a Bic Biro, Waterman 400 or a Montblanc 149? To really show proof of God he should have gone for a Namiki Emperor, it leaves a bigger hole.
 
2011-04-14 12:39:23 AM  
Remember that time when Ashton Kutcher was in prison and he told his cellmate that he was Jesus? Then he went back in time and stabbed his hands in elementary school and when he came back to prison the religious guy believed him?

This is like that.
 
2011-04-14 12:39:40 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: If you spend your time in an atheist group talking about how much you love being an atheist and setting up tables to convert other people to atheism then for that person, atheism is a religion.


So political parties are religions too?
 
2011-04-14 12:42:45 AM  

bighasbeen: So political parties are religions too?


...well...
 
2011-04-14 12:42:47 AM  

bighasbeen: So political parties are religions too?


Are political parties organized around beliefs regarding the divine? Well, besides the GOP.
 
2011-04-14 12:51:46 AM  

RodneyToady: How do you touch the divine if you don't believe in the divine?


A fair point. You put aside your childish beliefs in a magic sky jew and your adult beliefs in electromagnetic waves and atomic structure and practice a religion with an open mind for a change, expecting nothing. Then you may truly judge its worth. Chances are you will be surprised but likely not converted. (Unless it's Buddhism. Very tricksy, Buddhism is. But it's so full of amicable things almost anyone will find SOMETHING appealing. Especially if they don't believe in gods.)

That's all it takes. Find ONE religion and give it an honest chance and you will invariably find you were wrong about it. But be careful. It takes more than just sitting in a bench like a sheep. You have to pray or meditate or fast or climb the mountain or eat the cactus. You can't just sit there and expect something many, many, MANY wise men and women spent their whole lives seeking to understand to be presented up to you on a silver platter.

The whole point of religion is this effort on YOUR PART. It's something you do, not something you read. Going to Church on Sundays and saying grace isn't nearly the same thing as actually being a Christian. Nor is squating down five times a day and growing a beard gonna make you an actual Muslim. You have to change your mind from closed to open and then try honestly without expectations in order to observe something property.


kitryne: Atheists aren't weird. We're the same as everyone, we just prove to believe what's written in the science books instead of religious text.


That's not weird. What's weird is a community based around what is not even a lack, just a nothingness. You deny religion as though religion denied science. It doesn't, usually. You only experience red neck senators who wouldn't know about prayer if it bit them in the ass trying to endumben the public with retarded laws because "Science is hard." or "Babies are good!"

Look at a man like Mr Rogers. THAT is a practicing Christian. That is not only the ideal, but the inevitable result of the practices set forth in the Bible performed properly diligently.

Never confuse laypeople with the actual members of a religion. Even Scientologists can do a lot of good in the community via entertainment. I've also heard they're all smiles and work ethic on set, too. Just remember never to confuse authority in the cult with honest practice of the religion. Not always the same thing.
 
2011-04-14 12:53:22 AM  

doglover: drivel


I live with my mom
 
2011-04-14 12:54:16 AM  

doglover: Why waste time with declaring how much you don't believe in something with a bunch of people who feel the same way?


Keep your religion out of my government, entirely, and I won't give a rat's ass about your religion. But when you use religion for justification from everything to anti gay marriage, anti choice, anti planned parenthood funding, creationism in schools, and even, somehow, farking economic policy ("Jesus didn't believe in the minimum wage"), then you're forcing me to get involved with your religion. Keep it to your own damn self and you won't have any problems.

/May not refer to you, but refers to many many religious people in America
 
2011-04-14 12:54:49 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Are political parties organized around beliefs regarding the divine?


I just don't see advocacy of a position equaling religion.

kitryne: bighasbeen: So political parties are religions too?

...well...


I mean, it is zealotry.
 
2011-04-14 12:58:25 AM  

doglover: adult beliefs in electromagnetic waves and atomic structure


Science is the search for fact, not truth. If it's truth you're interested in Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.
 
2011-04-14 01:04:18 AM  

TheOnion: doglover: Why waste time with declaring how much you don't believe in something with a bunch of people who feel the same way?

Keep your religion out of my government, entirely, and I won't give a rat's ass about your religion.


Isn't it a bit ironic that you're angry about "religion" forcing itself into government, but you have no problem with atheism forcing itself in just the same way?

If you want to talk about brainwashing children, why don't we start with forcing Evolutionism down the throats of today's public school students?
 
2011-04-14 01:07:26 AM  

doglover: That's all it takes. Find ONE religion and give it an honest chance and you will invariably find you were wrong about it.


Lawd, you're being serious.

When you look at the data, you'll find that atheists/agnostics know more about religion than any other group (new window).

The days of being able to accuse us of not knowing what it is that we're criticising are over, I'm happy to say.

doglover: The whole point of religion is this effort on YOUR PART. It's something you do, not something you read. Going to Church on Sundays and saying grace isn't nearly the same thing as actually being a Christian. Nor is squating down five times a day and growing a beard gonna make you an actual Muslim. You have to change your mind from closed to open and then try honestly without expectations in order to observe something property.


To be religious requires at least some kind of supernatural belief. If that's not what you mean by being religious, I don't know what you're talking about.

There is nothing that needs to be presupposed on insufficient evidence in order to reject all of the theistic doctrines on offer. All an atheist is is someone who has heard the claims made by the religious, considered them carefully and honestly, and found them to be ridiculous.

Atheist activists like the group in the story are people who want to educate and encourage critical thinking, and hopefully go some way to minimising the harm that is caused by religion (which there is no shortage of).

doglover: What's weird is a community based around what is not even a lack, just a nothingness.


The natural world, the world as it really is, is not nothing at all. In fact it's everything. The empty supernatural claims of believers - they're what really represent nothing. Atheist and skeptical activists do much good work, like promoting science education and resisting the infiltration of dogma into politics and other places it doesn't belong. We have well formed and rounded morals and philosophies. We exist as groups because we live in a world where many many people believe many very strange things. Organising how we do makes perfect sense in the context of the strange beliefs in society.

Another good thing we do is support many secret non-believers, who are unable to be honest about their atheism for fear of losing their family and friends - or even face the threat of abuse. This is a big problem for a lot of people, not just in the Islamic world but in middle America too.
 
2011-04-14 01:08:43 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: If you want to talk about brainwashing children, why don't we start with forcing Evolutionism down the throats of today's public school students?


8/10

You didn't overplay it, and you'll probably get a few bites.
 
2011-04-14 01:10:29 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Isn't it a bit ironic that you're angry about "religion" forcing itself into government, but you have no problem with atheism forcing itself in just the same way?


Do you have any idea how nonsensical that question is? It's like saying "You spend all your time keeping guns out of schools, but you have no problem with NOTguns getting in?"

Ridiculous.
 
2011-04-14 01:11:50 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: You didn't overplay it, and you'll probably get a few bites.


>:|

fine...
 
2011-04-14 01:16:46 AM  

doglover: And a boring one at that! Seriously, would you rather party with the dudes who say "Our god is the god of wine. For him, AN ORGY!" or the guys who say "There's nothing but what physics already knows to life. Nothing. Yep. Still nothing."


I can't speak for ancient Romans but in my experience the atheists and freethinkers are the ones most likely to take part in something like an orgy. Plus we've got science on our side, so it would be more like: "You kids have fun with your wine. We just grew some pot with triple the THC content and Andrew just made some LSD. Who wants to get farked up and have an orgy?"
 
2011-04-14 01:16:52 AM  

Fuller: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: You didn't overplay it, and you'll probably get a few bites.

>:|

fine...


I was halfway into typing "Establishment Clause" before I reconsidered and hit refresh.
 
2011-04-14 01:17:02 AM  

doglover: Going to Church on Sundays and saying grace isn't nearly the same thing as actually being a Christian. Nor is squating down five times a day and growing a beard gonna make you an actual Muslim. You have to change your mind from closed to open and then try honestly without expectations in order to observe something property.


I'm an agnostic, not an atheist. I was raised Catholic, but it didn't take. By your standards, I know legitimate Catholics, other Christians, Jews, etc. I don't take issue with them. They embody the spiritual as well as nominal aspects of their faiths. But the vast majority of followers lack the spiritual aspect. They're born into their religion, or choose it out of desperation after illness or addiction. And they vote, and have political positions, and make laws. And they help drive whatever positive feelings I have about religion into the ground.

Many truly seek the divine, and some find it, and that's great. I'm fine with the concept of a deity, or many deities, in an abstract way. I'm fine with some people who believe in an interpersonal God who cares about them as an individual. I stop being fine when people tell me I should live my life, and we should base our laws, on some old book that claims to be the "Word of God."

Sorry. No.

A god or gods may or may not have created the universe. I don't know, and in a pretty fundamental way, I don't think it matters. But there's no way anyone is going to convince me that this god (or these gods) have any interest at all on the gender of the person I'm screwing, or whether or not I have a beard, or what I'm eating on any particular day of the week or year.
 
2011-04-14 01:21:20 AM  

doglover: What's weird is a community based around what is not even a lack, just a nothingness.


See, that's not true at all. We believe that science made some pretty biatchin stuff and damned if we're not gonna learn everything about it.

I personally believe that the fact our existence happened pretty much by random chance on the grand scale of the universe(s?) is far more awe inspiring than to think that some dude put it together. It's just too easy of an answer.
 
2011-04-14 01:23:01 AM  

doglover: What's weird is a community based around what is not even a lack, just a nothingness.


It helps understanding if you can grasp the notion that most of the "atheist communities" are not so much atheist as secularist.

TheOnion: Keep your religion out of my government, entirely, and I won't give a rat's ass about your religion.


...for example.

Fuller: To be religious requires at least some kind of supernatural belief.


"Supernatural" isn't the best dividing line, from what I can see; my impression is that a couple strains of Buddhism avoid it. The element of ritual seems a more precise demarcation - although the precise definition of "ritual" is anthropologically fuzzy.
 
2011-04-14 01:26:45 AM  
doglover - here's a short piece to help you understand skeptical/atheist philosophy. It's new, and it's funny and entertaining even if you (somehow) come away disagreeing with it.

Link (new window)
 
2011-04-14 01:30:40 AM  

abb3w: "Supernatural" isn't the best dividing line, from what I can see; my impression is that a couple strains of Buddhism avoid it. The element of ritual seems a more precise demarcation - although the precise definition of "ritual" is anthropologically fuzzy


Yeah I go with supernatural even though it may not be an absolutely perfect divider - the difference between natural and supernatural is about as clear as you can get. 'Ritual' is far more vague.

Fuller: doglover - here's a short piece to help you understand skeptical/atheist philosophy. It's new, and it's funny and entertaining even if you (somehow) come away disagreeing with it.

Link (new window)


Sorry should have warned NSFW - there's a couple of swears in there, nothing especially bad though.
 
2011-04-14 01:38:40 AM  

Fuller: doglover - here's a short piece to help you understand skeptical/atheist philosophy. It's new, and it's funny and entertaining even if you (somehow) come away disagreeing with it.

Link (new window)


Wow, he certainly murdered that strawman.
 
2011-04-14 01:40:20 AM  
See, we can get along! There just needs to be someone even crazier nearby.
 
2011-04-14 01:40:58 AM  

Fuller: doglover - here's a short piece to help you understand skeptical/atheist philosophy. It's new, and it's funny and entertaining even if you (somehow) come away disagreeing with it.

Link (new window)


That was farking BEAUTIFUL. Thank you.
 
2011-04-14 01:43:48 AM  

doglover: kitryne: How in the hell does a stab wound in the hand prove or disprove anything except what a dicknut you are?

It can prove that you're a total badass, dumbass but I don't think the god you would be proving would be the Christian one.

More like Tyr or Thor or Odin. I think berserks were said to have Odin's battle rage. If you are frothing at the mouth and fire cannot harm you and then you stab yourself in the hand, you might just be one of the faithful dumbasses.


ftfy
 
2011-04-14 01:50:43 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Wow, he certainly murdered that strawman.


I'm happy to get into the nitty gritty here, but you'll have to elaborate a bit first..
 
2011-04-14 01:51:32 AM  

Fuller: doglover - here's a short piece to help you understand skeptical/atheist philosophy. It's new, and it's funny and entertaining even if you (somehow) come away disagreeing with it.

Link (new window)


Actually, I think this deserves a more thoughtful reply. Isaac Newton was one of the most profoundly important people in the history of the world. Many scientists still hold him up as one of their role models. You really can't understate his importance to both science and math.

That was half of what Newton did. The other half was on theology and the occult. And it wasn't just because it was popular at the time: it wasn't. But between his work in science and theology, he considered his work on theology to be more important. Let me restate that: the man who invented calculus, thermodynamics, described gravity, wrote laws of motion, and more, spent more time writing on religion than on science.

But I'm supposed to listen to some beat poet when he tells me that religion is stupid and only idiots believe in it?
 
2011-04-14 01:54:53 AM  

jaylectricity: Remember that time when Ashton Kutcher was in prison and he told his cellmate that he was Jesus? Then he went back in time and stabbed his hands in elementary school and when he came back to prison the religious guy believed him?

This is like that.


Will you be my facebook friend?
 
2011-04-14 01:55:35 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Actually, I think this deserves a more thoughtful reply. Isaac Newton was one of the most profoundly important people in the history of the world. Many scientists still hold him up as one of their role models. You really can't understate his importance to both science and math.

That was half of what Newton did. The other half was on theology and the occult. And it wasn't just because it was popular at the time: it wasn't. But between his work in science and theology, he considered his work on theology to be more important. Let me restate that: the man who invented calculus, thermodynamics, described gravity, wrote laws of motion, and more, spent more time writing on religion than on science.

But I'm supposed to listen to some beat poet when he tells me that religion is stupid and only idiots believe in it?


Yes, there are many scientists who did great science despite having some kooky beliefs. Is this supposed to be an argument in support of kooky beliefs?

He's remembered for the science. Not for the alchemy. If all he did was alchemy and occult stuff, he would NOT be the famous and respected figure he is today.

Plato thought that men had more teeth than women, and that flies were spontaneously generated from cow carcasses. Again, not why he's remembered.
 
2011-04-14 01:57:53 AM  

doglover: The whole "Prove god exists and I'll believe." doesn't work when you don't actually go take a look at the proof which is found in certain religious practices.


For the sake of disambiguation, are you saying there is proof in certain religions?
 
2011-04-14 01:59:52 AM  

Fuller: Yes, there are many scientists who did great science despite having some kooky beliefs. Is this supposed to be an argument in support of kooky beliefs?


It's an argument that says it's silly to just dismiss everything you can't observe with science as a "kooky belief." It's an act of extreme hubris by in effect saying you're so much smarter than people like Newton.
 
2011-04-14 02:00:15 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: But I'm supposed to listen to some beat poet when he tells me that religion is stupid and only idiots believe in it?


Also, he never said that only idiots believe in it. That is a real strawman. A blatantly dishonest representation of the message if there ever was one.

And also, Tim's not entirely a beat poet or anything, he's a comedian...here's some other great stuff.

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

Link (new window)
 
2011-04-14 02:00:51 AM  
I can prove God exists.

Stab my hand.
 
2011-04-14 02:02:14 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: I can prove God exists.

Stab my hand.


I can prove my hand exists.

Stab God.
 
2011-04-14 02:02:58 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: It's an argument that says it's silly to just dismiss everything you can't observe with science as a "kooky belief." It's an act of extreme hubris by in effect saying you're so much smarter than people like Newton.


I don't say I'm smarter than Newton, where are you getting this stuff from? I simply benefit from being born later - which means there is a much larger body of accumulated knowledge available to me.

Because of this body of knowledge, any one of us could thrill Newton to his core with a lecture on what we now know.

And are you seriously advancing the argument that alchemy can't be dismissed as kooky? I thought it was a pretty safe example..
 
2011-04-14 02:04:52 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Fuller: Yes, there are many scientists who did great science despite having some kooky beliefs. Is this supposed to be an argument in support of kooky beliefs?

It's an argument that says it's silly to just dismiss everything you can't observe with science as a "kooky belief." It's an act of extreme hubris by in effect saying you're so much smarter than people like Newton.


"What I'm saying is, if God wanted to send us a message, and ancient writings were the only way he could think of doing it, he could have done a better job."

-Carl Sagan
 
2011-04-14 02:05:52 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: It's an argument that says it's silly to just dismiss everything you can't observe with science as a "kooky belief." It's an act of extreme hubris by in effect saying you're so much smarter than people like Newton.


We have access to information that Newton did not have access to - E&M theory, relativity, satellites, space probes, and countless others. In this way we are much, much smarter than Newton. That's not hubris.

I also see that you neatly dodged the question. Do you support beliefs in homeopathy, auras, psychics, flying spaghetti monsters, and so on?
 
2011-04-14 02:06:05 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: I can prove God exists.

Stab my hand face.


FTFY?
 
2011-04-14 02:09:19 AM  
I like how the kid from the atheist group and the other kid from Campus Crusade for Christ teamed up to help the police officer and also complimented one another on the constructive dialogue they had.

Then there is this thread... lulz..
 
2011-04-14 02:25:08 AM  

thismomentinblackhistory: Then there is this thread... lulz..


Hey don't look at me, I'm perfectly amiable. I've just had to (as per) defend non-believers and organisations comprised of such, from some pretty outrageous misrepresentations.
 
2011-04-14 02:25:29 AM  
I like how an unbalanced religious nutball confronts a group of atheists claiming to be able to prove the existence of God, tells them to stab his hand with a pen and when they refuse to do him bodily harm, he stabs himself, attacks a cop, has to be physically subdued by the cop and others --including a student from a campus Christian organization-- but it's the atheists who are the unreasonable nutters.
 
2011-04-14 02:33:18 AM  
You know, Egon, this reminds me of the time you tried to drill a hole in your head.
 
2011-04-14 02:35:39 AM  

GreenAdder: You know, Egon, this reminds me of the time you tried to drill a hole in your head.


That would have worked if you hadn't stopped me.
 
2011-04-14 02:46:14 AM  

GreenAdder: You know, Egon, this reminds me of the time you tried to drill a hole in your head.


that would have worked if you hadn't stopped me.
 
2011-04-14 02:46:52 AM  
dag, yo. day late and a dollar short
 
2011-04-14 03:23:22 AM  
chzhistoriclols.files.wordpress.com
 
2011-04-14 03:23:35 AM  
fc07.deviantart.net
 
2011-04-14 03:25:52 AM  
FTFA: "We don't believe in assaulting people," Schrand said. "We're very against assaulting people."

I don't get this. Why? You're just rearranging some molecules, man, what's the big deal? Not like anything you do will matter in a hundred years. Even if it still matters in a thousand years, eventually, the universe will run down and then nothing that happened prior to that will matter one wet fig. Besides which, some people really need to be assaulted. What about that? Very confusing.
 
2011-04-14 03:26:22 AM  

doglover: Why waste time with declaring how much you don't believe in something with a bunch of people who feel the same way?


Because it's no fun to be the only sane guy in the loony bin. God does not have to exist in order to be a pain in the ass.

(not my blog, some ads may be NSFW)
 
2011-04-14 03:27:18 AM  
Oh No Melon

Er...too late. Sorry about that. Wish I'd seen this about 2 minutes ago.

**zzzzzzziiiip**
 
2011-04-14 03:27:21 AM  

doglover: What's weird is a community based around what is not even a lack, just a nothingness.


No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of.
 
2011-04-14 03:28:58 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: bighasbeen: So political parties are religions too?

Are political parties organized around beliefs regarding the divine? Well, besides the GOP.



You're reaching.

Sorry, but I still go with the bald is a hairstyle, and clear is a color as working analogies for atheism is a religion.

try them out for a bit. before you toss them off.
 
2011-04-14 03:30:21 AM  
Theists profess to "believe" in things they cannot verify. That is insanity, plain and simple. All the pontificated arguments in this thread boil down to that one undeniable FACT. Theists are no different than some psycho fanboy who talks about Lord of the Rings as if that shiat had actually happened. Atheists choose to rely on what can be proven. Hey, I personally like the IDEA of god, it's pretty darn cool... some all-knowing father-figure who is always looking out for you, that's a freaking awesome idea. But to profess that a good idea is actually real just because it makes me feel good to think about it? That's just farking crazy, and that's pretty much what we Atheists are saying. It's awesome that you theists think that this "god" cat is so cool and loving, but at the end of the day, it's just a cool idea as far as you or anyone else KNOWS.
 
2011-04-14 03:30:50 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Fuller: doglover - here's a short piece to help you understand skeptical/atheist philosophy. It's new, and it's funny and entertaining even if you (somehow) come away disagreeing with it.

Link (new window)

Actually, I think this deserves a more thoughtful reply. Isaac Newton was one of the most profoundly important people in the history of the world. Many scientists still hold him up as one of their role models. You really can't understate his importance to both science and math.

That was half of what Newton did. The other half was on theology and the occult. And it wasn't just because it was popular at the time: it wasn't. But between his work in science and theology, he considered his work on theology to be more important. Let me restate that: the man who invented calculus, thermodynamics, described gravity, wrote laws of motion, and more, spent more time writing on religion than on science.

But I'm supposed to listen to some beat poet when he tells me that religion is stupid and only idiots believe in it?


You know he also stuck a needle in his eye to see what would happen, and by a number of accounts, was generally a bit of an asshole? That whole "If I have seen further, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants" wasn't him being humble.


But hey, let's not get carried away with the fact that Newton wasted half of his life on nonsense after giving up science at about 30.
 
2011-04-14 03:31:55 AM  
Please don't mock the Lord! He loves all of you. You are his children. He created you. He is your Father! The Lord will not tolerate this. He will cast your souls into a burning lake of fire where you will be tortured by demons, your skin will be torn, your flesh pulled from your bones - eternal agony! Please repent so we can all met in Heaven with our loving and benevolent Father. Or, burn in hell for all time. It's your choice.
 
2011-04-14 03:33:56 AM  

doglover: Atheist groups are weird.

Religion is a community. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Daoists, Wiccans; they all have provisions in their religions that create an organization of other members. In the monotheistic religions, their clergy are the voice of god on Earth. In the non-theistic religions like Buddhism, the community is seen as nessecary to provide the ideal environment for study of the religious principles so you can get deeper quicker and without wasting years and decades like the Buddha did.

But atheism merely requires you do nothing. And not all atheists are atheists for the same reason. Some approach it from a position of educated wisdom, but many more approach it out of reactionary ignorance. The whole "Prove god exists and I'll believe." doesn't work when you don't actually go take a look at the proof which is found in certain religious practices. Oh, but wait, that takes physical and mental discipline to actually accomplish the proper depth of meditation so I'll just ignore 10,000s of years of indirect evidence of something important being here and just call it a life.

If you've actually taken the time, put in the sweat, touched the divine and still decided you do not believe that there's anything worthwhile to religion that's a commendable choice on your part, but STILL the group confuses me. You deny something for various reasons, so you don't care about it at all. It shouldn't even be a part of your life. Why waste time with declaring how much you don't believe in something with a bunch of people who feel the same way? Go play a sport or have another beer or something.

It would be like a group of people who were blind from birth getting together to discuss how they don't like the color of rooms in houses they've never been in or heard anyone describe to them.


I agree with this. I'm an atheist, and I generally just don't care. If someone else wants to practice their religion, then that's their right (as long as they're doing it legally, no kiddie diddling or anything). I will engage in religious arguments with people who go off on me for being atheist, and I always find it amusing.

When someone demands that I prove God doesn't exist, I demand proof that he does. I really don't care, but I've known religious people in my time that were generally cool, and I've known a few bat shiat crazies that like to go nuts and give human beings in general a bad name.

I like to view religion as a coffee shop. Some people want lattes, some people just want the special of the week, some people want a soda, and some people just want a glass of water. It's their choice, and there's nothing stopping a pumpkin spice latte drinker from being friends with someone who ordered straight drip.

/will intentionally piss off religious nut jobs though
//sadly lost some friends in high school to some 'Christian reborn' thing
/people can practice their religion, but don't condemn me for not going with them to church
 
2011-04-14 03:33:57 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: doglover: Atheist groups are weird.

And they get so offended if you point out that atheism is just another religion. If you spend your time in an atheist group talking about how much you love being an atheist and setting up tables to convert other people to atheism then for that person, atheism is a religion.


It's not a religion.

The opposite of atheism is theism. Most of the religions mentioned in previous posts fall into that category. (Buddhism could actually fall under atheism or theism)

Atheism is a collection of many religions. That is why it is such a diverse group as a whole: it is not one group but a collection of many. If you stuck representative members off all the aforementioned groups in a room, they would seem just as eclectic.
 
2011-04-14 03:35:07 AM  

untaken_name: FTFA: "We don't believe in assaulting people," Schrand said. "We're very against assaulting people."

I don't get this. Why? You're just rearranging some molecules, man, what's the big deal? Not like anything you do will matter in a hundred years. Even if it still matters in a thousand years, eventually, the universe will run down and then nothing that happened prior to that will matter one wet fig. Besides which, some people really need to be assaulted. What about that? Very confusing.



really? THAT is just something you can't get ? that atheists are moral ?

You haven't really tried to figure this out have you ?
 
2011-04-14 03:39:35 AM  

doglover: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: If you spend your time in an atheist group talking about how much you love being an atheist and setting up tables to convert other people to atheism then for that person, atheism is a religion.

And a boring one at that! Seriously, would you rather party with the dudes who say "Our god is the god of wine. For him, AN ORGY!" or the guys who say "There's nothing but what physics already knows to life. Nothing. Yep. Still nothing."


"Would you rather" never has anything to do with discussing whether something is true or not.
 
2011-04-14 03:39:35 AM  
I almost expected this to end with the professor dropping the chalk, it hitting his foot, etc....
 
2011-04-14 03:41:01 AM  

untaken_name: FTFA: "We don't believe in assaulting people," Schrand said. "We're very against assaulting people."

I don't get this. Why? You're just rearranging some molecules, man, what's the big deal? Not like anything you do will matter in a hundred years. Even if it still matters in a thousand years, eventually, the universe will run down and then nothing that happened prior to that will matter one wet fig. Besides which, some people really need to be assaulted. What about that? Very confusing.


I live with my mom.

That's high grade unfiltered derp.
 
2011-04-14 03:41:46 AM  

dbaggins: really? THAT is just something you can't get ? that atheists are moral ?

You haven't really tried to figure this out have you ?


Where do atheist morals come from? I am assuming you mean this definition of "moral", please link the correct definition if I'm wrong:
Adjective

* S: (adj) moral (concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles) "moral sense"; "a moral scrutiny"; "a moral lesson"; "a moral quandary"; "moral convictions"; "a moral life"

If you are using this definition, how could atheists possibly be moral*? There is no right and wrong, therefore why would you concern yourself with the principles of right and wrong? It doesn't make any sense. I have actually spent a great deal of time trying to figure this out, but no one's been able to explain it to me in a logical manner. I hope that you are the one who can do it.

/*Please note that because there is no right and wrong, NO ONE can be moral, but since you specified that atheists can be, limiting your explanation to how atheists specifically can be moral will suffice, since that would provide a method by which non-atheists could also be moral.
 
2011-04-14 03:42:55 AM  

Fuller: And are you seriously advancing the argument that alchemy can't be dismissed as kooky? I thought it was a pretty safe example..


Alchemy actually gets an unfairly bad rap. It deserves to be thought of as proto-chemistry. (The terms were frequently used interchangeably; Boyle considered himself an alchemist, and other early alchemists knew quite a bit of practical chemistry.) There's really nothing at all weird about Newton having been interested in alchemy.
 
2011-04-14 03:43:07 AM  

InfidelSavant: untaken_name: FTFA: "We don't believe in assaulting people," Schrand said. "We're very against assaulting people."

I don't get this. Why? You're just rearranging some molecules, man, what's the big deal? Not like anything you do will matter in a hundred years. Even if it still matters in a thousand years, eventually, the universe will run down and then nothing that happened prior to that will matter one wet fig. Besides which, some people really need to be assaulted. What about that? Very confusing.

I live with my mom.

That's high grade unfiltered derp.


In other words, you can't answer the question. Noted. (Hint: people attack when they can't counter with facts. It's transparent.)
 
2011-04-14 03:45:11 AM  
 
2011-04-14 03:46:40 AM  

doglover: Why waste time with declaring how much you don't believe in something with a bunch of people who feel the same way?


I suspect there are several reasons. Perhaps some of them just wish to accomplish something in particular related to atheism, like this particular group -- trying to dispel myths so that people don't vilify them. Which does happen. Or perhaps they want to make a place for people who come from a religious background but who have doubts or who want to leave it -- such peoples friends and family are often bound up in religion, and they may have trouble finding people on the other side of the fence to sit down and talk with.

There are plenty of reasons I can think of.


Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: If you spend your time in an atheist group talking about how much you love being an atheist and setting up tables to convert other people to atheism then for that person, atheism is a religion.


Really? That's your definition of a religion?
Well damn, I guess the frats at school should qualify, then. Or any given sports team. Or the Lady Gaga Fanclub.

We (or at least I) don't get offended when you say atheism is a religion. But the thing is, you can only do it by hacking the term down to such a broad generality that it is useless, because it describes so many things that aren't religions.

So it's stupid. But not offensive.
 
2011-04-14 03:48:07 AM  

untaken_name: Where do atheist morals come from? I am assuming you mean this definition of "moral", please link the correct definition if I'm wrong:


Same place religious people do, society around them, culture, basic humanity. Oh wait, you thought it came from those ancient books and belief in deities?

LOL. Have you noticed how religion changes over time? How the emphasised parts of a given religious work are different depending on the prevailing culture?

That's right, religious folk impose their moral code onto their religion, not the other way around.


untaken_name: There is no right and wrong


FAIL.
 
2011-04-14 03:50:28 AM  

Skyrmion: Fuller: And are you seriously advancing the argument that alchemy can't be dismissed as kooky? I thought it was a pretty safe example..

Alchemy actually gets an unfairly bad rap. It deserves to be thought of as proto-chemistry. (The terms were frequently used interchangeably; Boyle considered himself an alchemist, and other early alchemists knew quite a bit of practical chemistry.) There's really nothing at all weird about Newton having been interested in alchemy.


That's like saying astrology unfairly gets a bad rap. In their time, understandable ignorance. Today, we know damn well it's bunkum.

untaken_name: InfidelSavant: untaken_name: FTFA: "We don't believe in assaulting people," Schrand said. "We're very against assaulting people."

I don't get this. Why? You're just rearranging some molecules, man, what's the big deal? Not like anything you do will matter in a hundred years. Even if it still matters in a thousand years, eventually, the universe will run down and then nothing that happened prior to that will matter one wet fig. Besides which, some people really need to be assaulted. What about that? Very confusing.

I live with my mom.

That's high grade unfiltered derp.

In other words, you can't answer the question. Noted. (Hint: people attack when they can't counter with facts. It's transparent.)


Sure I can. I don't attack people because I don't like being attacked. People are independent autonomous agents who react unfavourably to being attacked. Plus there are laws against attacking people. That's why the words you say are stupid, and by extension, you are stupid.
 
2011-04-14 03:51:09 AM  

lisarenee3505: Theists profess to "believe" in things they cannot verify.


As do atheists.
 
2011-04-14 03:52:02 AM  

untaken_name:
Where do atheist morals come from?
...

/*Please note that because there is no right and wrong, NO ONE can be moral, but since you specified that atheists can be, limiting your explanation to how atheists specifically can be moral will suffice, since that would provide a method by which non-atheists could also be moral.


Society. The societal norms will create what is right or wrong. There are cultures that eat people, that believe it is moral to eat people. There are cultures that believe it is not moral to eat people. An atheist would (should) say that both are correct in the respective cultures.
 
2011-04-14 03:52:37 AM  

Skyrmion: Fuller: And are you seriously advancing the argument that alchemy can't be dismissed as kooky? I thought it was a pretty safe example..

Alchemy actually gets an unfairly bad rap. It deserves to be thought of as proto-chemistry. (The terms were frequently used interchangeably; Boyle considered himself an alchemist, and other early alchemists knew quite a bit of practical chemistry.) There's really nothing at all weird about Newton having been interested in alchemy.


Nor, given what we know about element decay, is the fundamental principle that one form of matter can be transmuted into another form of matter incorrect.
 
2011-04-14 03:52:49 AM  

doglover: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: If you spend your time in an atheist group talking about how much you love being an atheist and setting up tables to convert other people to atheism then for that person, atheism is a religion.

And a boring one at that! Seriously, would you rather party with the dudes who say "Our god is the god of wine. For him, AN ORGY!" or the guys who say "There's nothing but what physics already knows to life. Nothing. Yep. Still nothing."


Dionysianism is the sexiest religion.

/why isn't it more popular?
//let's bring it back
 
2011-04-14 03:52:50 AM  

Gothnet: untaken_name: Where do atheist morals come from? I am assuming you mean this definition of "moral", please link the correct definition if I'm wrong:

Same place religious people do, society around them, culture, basic humanity. Oh wait, you thought it came from those ancient books and belief in deities?

LOL. Have you noticed how religion changes over time? How the emphasised parts of a given religious work are different depending on the prevailing culture?

That's right, religious folk impose their moral code onto their religion, not the other way around.


untaken_name: There is no right and wrong

FAIL.


Um, care to define "basic humanity" and show me where it exists?
Also, if right and wrong exist, define them for me, and show me from where they derive. I don't mean using bs feel-good terms like "basic humanity". I mean show me how the existence of good and evil may be experimentally proved. Thanks.
 
2011-04-14 03:54:26 AM  
FTFA: Alexander M. Huppert, a freshman university studies major

Er, can anyone tell me what he's actually studying? I'm not understanding of American university subject matters.

There's a subject called 'University Studies'? Wha?


/psycho nutjob, I'd stab you in the penis
 
2011-04-14 03:54:55 AM  

untaken_name: If you are using this definition, how could atheists possibly be moral*?


What about that definition prevents atheists from being moral? It doesn't stipulate that moral principles have to come from a deity or anything.

I'm not trying to be confrontational, but I really don't understand your argument. Plenty of philosophies that put forward moral principles exist independent of religion - Objectivism and Utilitarianism, to name two off the top of my head. And for that matter, there are plenty of religions that don't concern themselves with morality - the ancient Greeks' principles of morality and religious beliefs existed almost entirely apart from one another.

What you're saying doesn't seem to make any sense.
 
2011-04-14 03:55:16 AM  

InfidelSavant: Sure I can. I don't attack people because I don't like being attacked. People are independent autonomous agents who react unfavourably to being attacked. Plus there are laws against attacking people. That's why the words you say are stupid, and by extension, you are stupid.


So, morality is based on what you, personally, like? Or based on laws, which are a product of human minds and many of which are contradictory? And you call ME stupid? Well, geez, man, with such conclusive evidence, you've sure proved your case. Well, except for completely and totally failing to prove your case, that is.
 
2011-04-14 03:57:07 AM  

untaken_name: If you are using this definition, how could atheists possibly be moral*? There is no right and wrong, therefore why would you concern yourself with the principles of right and wrong? It doesn't make any sense.


Who says there is no right or wrong just because we don't believe in a God?

The fact is that morality doesn't come from religion but from society and from our own emotional responses. Our parents teach us right and wrong, and we learn to be good people by noticing that we feel emotionally rewarded when people respond to or reciprocate our generosity. Morality doesn't have to be objective, it is built into us and built into society.

The idea that, without a book full of moral commands, that we should all be selfish, greedy rapists and murders is preposterous. Even chimps and other apes have a better social contract with each other than that, and they certainly don't go to church. Give human beings a little credit, we're at least as good as our hairy cousins.

Besides, I'd say that if the only reason you're refraining from killing and stealing is because the Bible or your pastor told you that God would punish you, maybe you aren't really a very moral person.
 
2011-04-14 03:57:07 AM  

untaken_name: Um, care to define "basic humanity" and show me where it exists?



you really need to pick up a book sometimes (no, not that book, you already think you know what's in there).

This is a topic that you could put in the effort learning a lot about if you wished to actually learn about it.


There is a reason that people don't keep slaves today, despite most ancient holy books saying it is fine. Why do you think that is ?
 
2011-04-14 03:57:19 AM  
I bet if we all tried hard enough, we could finally prove the existence (or non-existence) of God and lay down the fundamental moral code which guides all of humanity. All we need is more debate, because that always comes to a satisfactory conclusion and convinces all sides of the validity of the winning side.
 
2011-04-14 03:57:52 AM  

Chinchillazilla:
Dionysianism is the sexiest religion.

/why isn't it more popular?
//let's bring it back


26.media.tumblr.com

/one religion this atheist could get behind
//not getting into the usual fark atheism flamewar
 
2011-04-14 03:57:54 AM  

Gunther: What about that definition prevents atheists from being moral? It doesn't stipulate that moral principles have to come from a deity or anything.


Because it includes the imaginary concepts of right and wrong. There can be no morality without an objective standard of right and wrong, which does not exist. There can only be pseudo-morality, which is completely subjective. You can CALL things moral, but you have no way to PROVE whether they actually are.
 
2011-04-14 03:58:27 AM  

untaken_name:
Um, care to define "basic humanity" and show me where it exists?


Nope

Also, if right and wrong exist, define them for me, and show me from where they derive. I don't mean using bs feel-good terms like "basic humanity". I mean show me how the existence of good and evil may be experimentally proved. Thanks.

Nope.

Just because atheists as a group don't believe in right and wrong as concepts handed down by the divine doesn't mean they don't have a concept of right and wrong. Where that concept comes from, how it's defined and what basis it has are questions of philosophy.

I didn't come here to say that atheist morality is complete, well grounded or correct, the variation amongst atheist folks almost guarantees a massive spectrum of moral leanings and foundations anyway.

My comments were more to point out that you were being a complete arsehead by assuming that all atheists are necessarily moral relativists or nihilists. Not that you need my help.
 
2011-04-14 03:59:11 AM  
If you are going to try and prove god by somehow causing bodily harm to yourself could you at least have the decency to do it without witnesses and by throwing yourself off a really high cliff in the middle of nowhere? Please?
 
2011-04-14 03:59:36 AM  

Gawdzila: Who says there is no right or wrong just because we don't believe in a God?


No, I say there is no right and wrong because no one can prove the existence of right and wrong. They can provide only subjective definitions. Sorry, but as a rational person I don't believe in imaginary concepts. I only believe in what I can prove, or what someone else can prove that I could, with enough time and inclination, replicate. Any other position is irrational.
 
2011-04-14 03:59:37 AM  

Necrosis: Chinchillazilla:
Dionysianism is the sexiest religion.

/why isn't it more popular?
//let's bring it back

/one religion this atheist could get behind
//not getting into the usual fark atheism flamewar


This just seems like one to stay out of.
 
2011-04-14 04:00:11 AM  

untaken_name: Gothnet: untaken_name: Where do atheist morals come from? I am assuming you mean this definition of "moral", please link the correct definition if I'm wrong:

Same place religious people do, society around them, culture, basic humanity. Oh wait, you thought it came from those ancient books and belief in deities?

LOL. Have you noticed how religion changes over time? How the emphasised parts of a given religious work are different depending on the prevailing culture?

That's right, religious folk impose their moral code onto their religion, not the other way around.


untaken_name: There is no right and wrong

FAIL.

Um, care to define "basic humanity" and show me where it exists?
Also, if right and wrong exist, define them for me, and show me from where they derive. I don't mean using bs feel-good terms like "basic humanity". I mean show me how the existence of good and evil may be experimentally proved. Thanks.


I always assume that "basic humanity" is more or less empathy, being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes and understanding how you would feel. Although really that's somewhat of a learned trait, as children and babies are jerks, but in the end it seems to be one of the traits that comes with being a rational being. Over time those empathetic thoughts get codified (don't kill other people because you wouldn't like other people killing you, don't steal other peoples stuff because you don't like having your stuff stolen, etc.) And, of course, because each culture grows differently, those rules end up changing. A culture that doesn't have hangups on possessions wouldn't talk about stealing. A culture that doesn't have sexual hang ups wouldn't have anything about homosexuality. Things like that.
 
2011-04-14 04:00:15 AM  

Gothnet: My comments were more to point out that you were being a complete arsehead by assuming that all atheists are necessarily moral relativists or nihilists.


No, only the honest and rational ones.
 
2011-04-14 04:02:31 AM  

Penman: lisarenee3505: Theists profess to "believe" in things they cannot verify.

As do atheists.


A more accurate assessment would be that theists have absolute belief in things that are impossible to verify. This is a different prospect on a fundamental level than having varying degrees of confidence in a theory based on the level of evidence available.

People who accept empiricism also accept implicitly that nothing is ever proven 100%, but the important part is the amount of confidence we have in a conclusion because of supporting evidence. Having 100% confidence despite a lack of evidence (or even contradicting evidence) is a hallmark of religious faith.
 
2011-04-14 04:03:08 AM  

untaken_name: No, only the honest and rational ones.


Why?

So far all you have is bluster.

Also, the number of completely honest and totally rational people on the planet can probably be counted on the fingers of one foot.
 
2011-04-14 04:03:28 AM  

InfidelSavant: Skyrmion: Fuller: And are you seriously advancing the argument that alchemy can't be dismissed as kooky? I thought it was a pretty safe example..

Alchemy actually gets an unfairly bad rap. It deserves to be thought of as proto-chemistry. (The terms were frequently used interchangeably; Boyle considered himself an alchemist, and other early alchemists knew quite a bit of practical chemistry.) There's really nothing at all weird about Newton having been interested in alchemy.

That's like saying astrology unfairly gets a bad rap. In their time, understandable ignorance. Today, we know damn well it's bunkum.


Not quite. The problem is that there isn't a real historical distinction between "chemistry" and "alchemy". It would be a bit like if we retroactively decided that the study of medicine from before 1700 would be called "almedicine" and only modern medicine would be called medicine. Is "almedicine" bunkum? Well, much of it, but doctors of that age did know a few things.
 
2011-04-14 04:03:53 AM  

Tachikoma: /people can practice their religion, but don't condemn me for not going with them to church


I don't. But if you form a church of Atheism it's a big disappointment. Do you thing, pot, but call not the kettle black. I support atheists, but an atheist group seems odd.
 
2011-04-14 04:04:57 AM  
img.photobucket.com

Surely Bevets would have some crappy quote that would not explain this in the least bit!
 
2011-04-14 04:05:17 AM  

dbaggins: untaken_name: Um, care to define "basic humanity" and show me where it exists?


you really need to pick up a book sometimes (no, not that book, you already think you know what's in there).

This is a topic that you could put in the effort learning a lot about if you wished to actually learn about it.


There is a reason that people don't keep slaves today, despite most ancient holy books saying it is fine. Why do you think that is ?


I actually HAVE put in a lot of time. That's how I know that no one is going to be able to contradict me. If some philosopher had managed to derive objective right and wrong without invoking a deity, it would be the discovery of the century, at least, and if the combined weight of human philosophy hasn't managed it yet, I doubt some random farker is going to manage it.

Why do I think people don't keep slaves today? Why on Earth would I think that? It's not true. Link (new window)
 
2011-04-14 04:05:32 AM  

untaken_name: There can be no morality without an objective standard of right and wrong, which does not exist.


Of course objective standards of right and wrong exist, one needs merely define results for positive and negative morality and chart how actions influence those. Nothing subjective about this.
 
2011-04-14 04:06:19 AM  

untaken_name: Gunther: What about that definition prevents atheists from being moral? It doesn't stipulate that moral principles have to come from a deity or anything.

Because it includes the imaginary concepts of right and wrong. There can be no morality without an objective standard of right and wrong, which does not exist. There can only be pseudo-morality, which is completely subjective. You can CALL things moral, but you have no way to PROVE whether they actually are.


Let's put aside the positive claim you're making with zero evidence (that "there can be no morality without an objective standard of right and wrong", which isn't something you've shown any evidence for) for now. Plenty of non-religious philosophies claim to have objective standards of right and wrong (Like oh, say... objectivism). Do those just not count because they don't involve the supernatural? That seems awfully arbitrary. How do you even reach that distinction?

Can Buddhists be moral? there's gods in Buddhism, but they don't lay down objective standards of right and wrong.
Can a Deist be moral? They believe in god, but don't believe He handed down a bunch of commandments or anything.

Your view that morality must somehow involve religion is just baffling to me. You treat it as though it should be an obvious fact, but plenty of real-life religions and philosophies separate the two.
 
2011-04-14 04:06:27 AM  

The Fark Filter: Stigmata


Bicmata?
 
2011-04-14 04:06:45 AM  
I'm an atheist. I'm quite happy with my lack of belief in deities or forced social structure.

But that said, I usually don't get together with a bunch of people and talk about how great it is to be atheist. In fact, I've NEVER done that. I usually just have a BBQ, invite over Atheist and believers alike, and have some ribs and beer. Maybe watch a football game. And don't talk about religion or lack thereof.
 
2011-04-14 04:07:06 AM  
Should have gone with the sword, chief.
 
2011-04-14 04:07:57 AM  

Gothnet: Why?


Because morality depends upon the existence of right and wrong, which do not exist. Since the concepts upon which morality depends do not exist, it cannot exist. If it cannot exist, people cannot be it. It's really pretty easy to follow.
 
2011-04-14 04:08:36 AM  

untaken_name: No, I say there is no right and wrong because no one can prove the existence of right and wrong. They can provide only subjective definitions. Sorry, but as a rational person I don't believe in imaginary concepts. I only believe in what I can prove, or what someone else can prove that I could, with enough time and inclination, replicate. Any other position is irrational.


So there is no set of irrational numbers?
 
2011-04-14 04:09:50 AM  

untaken_name: Gunther: What about that definition prevents atheists from being moral? It doesn't stipulate that moral principles have to come from a deity or anything.

Because it includes the imaginary concepts of right and wrong. There can be no morality without an objective standard of right and wrong, which does not exist. There can only be pseudo-morality, which is completely subjective. You can CALL things moral, but you have no way to PROVE whether they actually are.


I may be wrong, but you seem to think that there is no right and wrong. I disagree

easy example

right: having sex
wrong: raping someone

now can you honestly tell me that raping someone is ok?

that's not really subjective. its just wrong any way you look at it
 
2011-04-14 04:10:27 AM  

Vangor: Of course objective standards of right and wrong exist, one needs merely define results for positive and negative morality and chart how actions influence those. Nothing subjective about this.


So...link me to the chart, would you? From where are these objective standards derived? Remember that the same action in different places can be considered both moral and immoral, thus rendering your idea of objective morality unlikely. You might be able to chart what certain people in certain situations think is moral or immoral, but you cannot state that action A is always moral or always immoral, because there will always be a circumstance where that is not true.
 
2011-04-14 04:10:33 AM  

Shadowknight: I'm an atheist. I'm quite happy with my lack of belief in deities or forced social structure.

But that said, I usually don't get together with a bunch of people and talk about how great it is to be atheist. In fact, I've NEVER done that. I usually just have a BBQ, invite over Atheist and believers alike, and have some ribs and beer. Maybe watch a football game. And don't talk about religion or lack thereof.


You haven't lived until you've had the sort of party where your dad and your uncle Jim have ripped their sister's religion to shreds, leaving her in tears, looking desperately to her husband for support until he agrees with them...
 
2011-04-14 04:10:40 AM  

doglover: Tachikoma: /people can practice their religion, but don't condemn me for not going with them to church

I don't. But if you form a church of Atheism it's a big disappointment. Do you thing, pot, but call not the kettle black. I support atheists, but an atheist group seems odd.


If they're getting together just to discuss how god doesn't exist, then sure, but people tend to want to socialize with others who hold similar beliefs in order to minimize friction.

Also, churches tend to be heavily involved in social and community programs, so it's understandable for atheists who want to contribute to form a group that does the same without the religious involvement.
 
2011-04-14 04:11:19 AM  

Gunther:
Can Buddhists be moral? there's gods in Buddhism, but they don't lay down objective standards of right and wrong.
Can a Deist be moral? They believe in god, but don't believe He handed down a bunch of commandments or anything.

Your view that morality must somehow involve religion is just baffling to me. You treat it as though it should be an obvious fact, but plenty of real-life religions and philosophies separate the two.


Wouldn't the 8 Fold Path and the four noble truths more or less be laying down an objective standard of right and wrong?

Gawdzila:

A more accurate assessment would be that theists have absolute belief in things that are impossible to verify.



I wouldn't say they believe in things that are -impossible- to verify. If some being came down right in front of me and said "Hey, I'm God. Check this out" and does a number of random God-acts, wouldn't that qualify as verifiable?
 
2011-04-14 04:11:38 AM  

untaken_name: Gothnet: Why?

Because morality depends upon the existence of right and wrong, which do not exist. Since the concepts upon which morality depends do not exist, it cannot exist. If it cannot exist, people cannot be it. It's really pretty easy to follow.


Right and Wrong exist because we (mankind) have decided that they exist. They are intellectual concepts. And if they do not exist then that means that everything ever written does not exist.
 
2011-04-14 04:11:48 AM  

untaken_name: No, I say there is no right and wrong because no one can prove the existence of right and wrong.


Sure we can. It clearly exists, because our society revolves around the concept.


untaken_name: They can provide only subjective definitions.


So what?


untaken_name: Sorry, but as a rational person I don't believe in imaginary concepts.


Why is a concept imaginary simply because it is subjective? Emotions are subjective, but only a complete idiot would take that to mean that they don't exist.


untaken_name: I only believe in what I can prove, or what someone else can prove that I could, with enough time and inclination, replicate. Any other position is irrational.


It is easy to prove the existence of the concepts of right and wrong.

But you're looking for someone to produce some sort of electrical instrument that measures the amounts of "rightness" and "wrongness" in the fabric of the universe, as if they are entities unto themselves, before you'll acknowledge that they're rational, meaningful concepts? That's completely, dumbfoundingly ridiculous. It ignores the possibility (in fact, the certainty) that "right" and "wrong" do not exist as an objective moral code chiseled in stone, but rather as the complex results of the neurochemistry of emotion coupled with hundreds of thousands of years of human societal evolution and instinct.
 
2011-04-14 04:11:48 AM  

tweek46420: untaken_name: Gunther: What about that definition prevents atheists from being moral? It doesn't stipulate that moral principles have to come from a deity or anything.

Because it includes the imaginary concepts of right and wrong. There can be no morality without an objective standard of right and wrong, which does not exist. There can only be pseudo-morality, which is completely subjective. You can CALL things moral, but you have no way to PROVE whether they actually are.

I may be wrong, but you seem to think that there is no right and wrong. I disagree

easy example

right: having sex
wrong: raping someone

now can you honestly tell me that raping someone is ok?

that's not really subjective. its just wrong any way you look at it


Some people have rape fetishes. For them, it's ok. For others, it might not be ok. That's why it's called "subjective".
 
2011-04-14 04:11:49 AM  

Gunther: Can Buddhists be moral? there's gods in Buddhism, but they don't lay down objective standards of right and wrong.


Actually...
Link (new window)
 
2011-04-14 04:12:10 AM  

untaken_name: Gawdzila: Who says there is no right or wrong just because we don't believe in a God?

No, I say there is no right and wrong because no one can prove the existence of right and wrong. They can provide only subjective definitions. Sorry, but as a rational person I don't believe in imaginary concepts. I only believe in what I can prove, or what someone else can prove that I could, with enough time and inclination, replicate. Any other position is irrational.


You're not a rational person. You're a troll. Otherwise known as a dick.
 
2011-04-14 04:13:03 AM  

Mock26: Right and Wrong exist because we (mankind) have decided that they exist.


Um, are you serious? By that logic, God exists, as does Zeus, Thor, the Easter bunny, and single, attractive, non-biatchy women. Give me a break.
 
2011-04-14 04:13:46 AM  
It's gotten to the point that you can't tell the trolls from the jokers from the God-botherers around here.
 
2011-04-14 04:14:16 AM  

Gawdzila: Why is a concept imaginary simply because it is subjective? Emotions are subjective, but only a complete idiot would take that to mean that they don't exist.


Actually, emotions are the product of chemical reactions that can be understood and reproduced. So of course they exist. Can't say the same about "right" and "wrong".
 
2011-04-14 04:14:30 AM  

Gothnet:

You haven't lived until you've had the sort of party where your dad and your uncle Jim have ripped their sister's religion to shreds, leaving her in tears, looking desperately to her husband for support until he agrees with them...


And I am glad that I am not related to such scum as that.
 
2011-04-14 04:14:46 AM  

sirbissel: Gawdzila:

A more accurate assessment would be that theists have absolute belief in things that are impossible to verify.


I wouldn't say they believe in things that are -impossible- to verify. If some being came down right in front of me and said "Hey, I'm God. Check this out" and does a number of random God-acts, wouldn't that qualify as verifiable?


Okay, sure, that's true. But then it wouldn't qualify as an article of faith anymore ;)

I guess the more important thing to take away from that statement is that the belief is not a function of the evidence available at all.
 
2011-04-14 04:16:17 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Actually...


sirbissel: Wouldn't the 8 Fold Path and the four noble truths more or less be laying down an objective standard of right and wrong?


Sure, but the eightfold path wasn't handed down by a deity (It was written by a human spiritual teacher who became Buddha), so by untaken_name's rather bizarre standards of morality, it doesn't count.
 
2011-04-14 04:16:54 AM  

InfidelSavant: untaken_name: Gawdzila: Who says there is no right or wrong just because we don't believe in a God?

No, I say there is no right and wrong because no one can prove the existence of right and wrong. They can provide only subjective definitions. Sorry, but as a rational person I don't believe in imaginary concepts. I only believe in what I can prove, or what someone else can prove that I could, with enough time and inclination, replicate. Any other position is irrational.

You're not a rational person. You're a troll. Otherwise known as a dick.


Um, yes, I am a dick. But just because you can't answer my question, or you don't agree with my position, that doesn't make me a troll. And what makes me rational is relying on reason. You can believe in your imaginary sky-concepts of good and evil if you want to, but that doesn't make them any more real than the tooth fairy. Some people believe in that, too.
 
2011-04-14 04:17:04 AM  

untaken_name: Some people have rape fetishes. For them, it's ok. For others, it might not be ok. That's why it's called "subjective".


People with rape fetishes don't want to be raped. They like to play at it. It's very different from actual rape.
 
2011-04-14 04:17:25 AM  

untaken_name: Mock26: Right and Wrong exist because we (mankind) have decided that they exist.

Um, are you serious? By that logic, God exists, as does Zeus, Thor, the Easter bunny, and single, attractive, non-biatchy women. Give me a break.


God does exist as a concept. So do Zeus, Thor and the Easter Bunny. Do they physically exist? Maybe, maybe not. But the thought of them radiates through the actions, writings, etc. of many, many people. To say that the concept doesn't exist is just blindingly stupid.
 
2011-04-14 04:18:16 AM  

Mock26: Gothnet:

You haven't lived until you've had the sort of party where your dad and your uncle Jim have ripped their sister's religion to shreds, leaving her in tears, looking desperately to her husband for support until he agrees with them...

And I am glad that I am not related to such scum as that.


It's called tough-love.
 
2011-04-14 04:18:50 AM  

untaken_name: Mock26: Right and Wrong exist because we (mankind) have decided that they exist.

Um, are you serious? By that logic, God exists, as does Zeus, Thor, the Easter bunny, and single, attractive, non-biatchy women. Give me a break.


Far fetched, bad example is, well, far fetched and bad. There is a huge difference between a morality concept like Right and Wrong and the idea of mythical/divine/living creatures.
 
2011-04-14 04:19:25 AM  

sirbissel: Wouldn't the 8 Fold Path and the four noble truths more or less be laying down an objective standard of right and wrong?


No, it would be a subjective one, since it was the subjective opinion of one person. That's kind of the whole definition of subjective...
Also, moral codes handed down by "deities" are no more objective, since only the followers of those deities follow those codes (and most don't even do that). But they are subjective because they are all different.
 
2011-04-14 04:19:55 AM  

untaken_name: So...link me to the chart, would you?


Charting would be a mental task as the specificity of actions is too expansive to be meaningfully useful as a graphic, yet the human mind works wonderfully with examples including those of experience and reactions of fellow humans.

untaken_name: From where are these objective standards derived?


This was exactly what I discussed in the comment.

untaken_name: Remember that the same action in different places can be considered both moral and immoral, thus rendering your idea of objective morality unlikely.


Regardless of place, those standards remain the same. Others may interpret those differently, but this would be true of your own perception of an objective reality unless all people simultaneously clung to a precisely identical moral construct.

untaken_name: but you cannot state that action A is always moral or always immoral, because there will always be a circumstance where that is not true.


This is not a result of lack of objectivity but lack of specificity.

What you mentioned was a lack of objective standards of right and wrong. Those exist. What you want are immutable standards of right and wrong which are intrinsic in the universe, which is absurd considering morality is a human construct.
 
2011-04-14 04:20:44 AM  

untaken_name: Um, yes, I am a dick. But just because you can't answer my question, or you don't agree with my position, that doesn't make me a troll. And what makes me rational is relying on reason.


You're using a definition of morality that is only used by you and crazed religious fundamentalists. Nobody else in the world believes that morality has to come from the supernatural.

So yeah; by your batshiat-insane definition of morality, morality doesn't exist. By a normal, non-retarded definition of morality, it does exist.
 
2011-04-14 04:20:58 AM  

Gunther: AverageAmericanGuy: Actually...

sirbissel: Wouldn't the 8 Fold Path and the four noble truths more or less be laying down an objective standard of right and wrong?

Sure, but the eightfold path wasn't handed down by a deity (It was written by a human spiritual teacher who became Buddha), so by untaken_name's rather bizarre standards of morality, it doesn't count.


Buddha was, of course, a deity in the manner that Jesus was a deity.
 
2011-04-14 04:21:23 AM  

Fuller: The natural world, the world as it really is, is not nothing at all. In fact it's everything. The empty supernatural claims of believers - they're what really represent nothing.


Excellent point. The natural world is indeed everything, humbling and profound, such as Hubble telescope findings and video from a space vehicle flying through Saturn's rings. How anyone can witness such breath-taking views of the universe and think it looks only 6,000 years old is beyond my comprehension.

Atheist and skeptical activists do much good work

Would only add that non-theist charity is given with no strings attached. Fulfilling need for its own sake without receiver obligation, guilt or shame, such as Doctors Without Borders and the Red Cross.

Another good thing we do is support many secret non-believers, who are unable to be honest about their atheism for fear of losing their family and friends - or even face the threat of abuse. This is a big problem for a lot of people, not just in the Islamic world but in middle America too.

Amen and amen.
 
2011-04-14 04:21:36 AM  

Ed Grubermann: untaken_name: Some people have rape fetishes. For them, it's ok. For others, it might not be ok. That's why it's called "subjective".

People with rape fetishes don't want to be raped. They like to play at it. It's very different from actual rape.


Right. Like the craiglist lady that wanted to be murdered - that wasn't real murder, right? Or maybe rape is wrong but murder isn't.
Either way, there's no objective code. It doesn't exist.
 
2011-04-14 04:21:54 AM  

untaken_name: Gawdzila: Why is a concept imaginary simply because it is subjective? Emotions are subjective, but only a complete idiot would take that to mean that they don't exist.

Actually, emotions are the product of chemical reactions that can be understood and reproduced. So of course they exist. Can't say the same about "right" and "wrong".


ALL thoughts and actions are the product of chemical reactions in your brain that can be understood, including those that qualify as "moral".
If you'd bothered to read the rest of my response, you'd see where I posited:

Gawdzila: "right" and "wrong" do not exist as an objective moral code chiseled in stone, but rather as the complex results of the neurochemistry of emotion coupled with hundreds of thousands of years of human societal evolution and instinct.


Is this not a possibility?
Because I'm pretty sure that is the prevailing viewpoint.


Anyway, I'm done with you. You're just cutting pieces out in whatever way suits your ridiculous argument best and not even bothering to read or understand people's responses to your posts. I have better things to do with my time.
 
2011-04-14 04:21:59 AM  

Gothnet: You haven't lived until you've had the sort of party where your dad and your uncle Jim have ripped their sister's religion to shreds, leaving her in tears, looking desperately to her husband for support until he agrees with them...


Myself and my siblings are atheist. My parents claim to believe in something, but don't know what or go to church, so they are best classified as agnostic.

My wife, however, is a church going Lutheran. She also believes in gay rights, gay marriage, and doesn't think people are going to hell for not believing as she does.

At least in my circle, a fight is hard to come by.
 
2011-04-14 04:22:22 AM  

untaken_name: tweek46420: untaken_name: Gunther: What about that definition prevents atheists from being moral? It doesn't stipulate that moral principles have to come from a deity or anything.

Because it includes the imaginary concepts of right and wrong. There can be no morality without an objective standard of right and wrong, which does not exist. There can only be pseudo-morality, which is completely subjective. You can CALL things moral, but you have no way to PROVE whether they actually are.

I may be wrong, but you seem to think that there is no right and wrong. I disagree

easy example

right: having sex
wrong: raping someone

now can you honestly tell me that raping someone is ok?

that's not really subjective. its just wrong any way you look at it

Some people have rape fetishes. For them, it's ok. For others, it might not be ok. That's why it's called "subjective".


no its not, someone with a "rape fetish" is still a willing participant, therefore it is not really rape.

Rape is forced, unwanted sexual intercourse. Rape is about power, not sex

so try again pal
 
2011-04-14 04:23:03 AM  

untaken_name: sirbissel: Wouldn't the 8 Fold Path and the four noble truths more or less be laying down an objective standard of right and wrong?

No, it would be a subjective one, since it was the subjective opinion of one person. That's kind of the whole definition of subjective...
Also, moral codes handed down by "deities" are no more objective, since only the followers of those deities follow those codes (and most don't even do that). But they are subjective because they are all different.


Not so, as that one person was giving the underlying laws of reality. Whether it's true or not is a different question, but they say that those are objective rules. Similarly, if Christianity is true, then that would mean that there would be some sort of objective rules that the universe exists by. If Christianity is not true, then yes, they would be subjective rules. It all depends on the truth of the various belief systems. I can't say whether one is or isn't objective because I don't know what, if any, underlying rules to the universe there are.
 
2011-04-14 04:23:10 AM  

Vangor: Regardless of place, those standards remain the same. Others may interpret those differently, but this would be true of your own perception of an objective reality unless all people simultaneously clung to a precisely identical moral construct.


No, sorry. Gravity just works, regardless of your perception of it. Same with thermodynamics and all other natural laws. If there were objective morality, it would work the same way. There isn't.
 
2011-04-14 04:24:00 AM  

untaken_name: sirbissel: Wouldn't the 8 Fold Path and the four noble truths more or less be laying down an objective standard of right and wrong?

No, it would be a subjective one, since it was the subjective opinion of one person. That's kind of the whole definition of subjective...
Also, moral codes handed down by "deities" are no more objective, since only the followers of those deities follow those codes (and most don't even do that). But they are subjective because they are all different.


Who cares if they are subjective? Without subjective concepts like this then society would not exist.
 
2011-04-14 04:24:09 AM  

Gawdzila: Is this not a possibility?
Because I'm pretty sure that is the prevailing viewpoint.


That would be more subjective morality. What I asked for originally was OBJECTIVE morality. Who's ignoring what now?
 
2011-04-14 04:24:22 AM  

Skyrmion: Mock26: Gothnet:

You haven't lived until you've had the sort of party where your dad and your uncle Jim have ripped their sister's religion to shreds, leaving her in tears, looking desperately to her husband for support until he agrees with them...

And I am glad that I am not related to such scum as that.

It's called tough-love.


Or just what happens when you stick siblings in a room together for several hours with lots of booze.


untaken_name: Mock26: Right and Wrong exist because we (mankind) have decided that they exist.

Um, are you serious? By that logic, God exists, as does Zeus, Thor, the Easter bunny, and single, attractive, non-biatchy women. Give me a break.


Err, no. right and wrong are concepts.
The concept of god certainly exists, to deny that would be nuts. The thing itself, not so much.

Deliberately misunderstanding arguments so you can continue trolling is no way to go through life son.
 
2011-04-14 04:25:27 AM  

Mock26: Who cares if they are subjective? Without subjective concepts like this then society would not exist.


I don't care that they're subjective. I'm just tired of people telling me they're somehow objective when they aren't. If everyone just admitted that they were moral relativists subject to situational ethics I wouldn't have any problem. I'm just tired of people who reject one imaginary concept only to replace it with another.
 
2011-04-14 04:26:17 AM  

Gothnet: Err, no. right and wrong are concepts.
The concept of god certainly exists, to deny that would be nuts. The thing itself, not so much.


Yes, the CONCEPT of objective morality exists. The thing itself, not so much.
 
2011-04-14 04:26:55 AM  

Shadowknight: Myself and my siblings are atheist. My parents claim to believe in something, but don't know what or go to church, so they are best classified as agnostic.

My wife, however, is a church going Lutheran. She also believes in gay rights, gay marriage, and doesn't think people are going to hell for not believing as she does.

At least in my circle, a fight is hard to come by.



Heh, it's not a frequent thing in my family either their mother (my grandmother) had just died a little while before and everybody was drunk...
 
2011-04-14 04:27:08 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy:

Buddha was, of course, a deity in the manner that Jesus was a deity.


Ehhhhhh.... I guess it depends on what you mean by "in the manner that Jesus was a deity." Buddhists tend not to believe that Buddha was actually God's physical form, but just an enlightened being.
 
2011-04-14 04:27:22 AM  

untaken_name: No, sorry. Gravity just works, regardless of your perception of it.


Unless, of course, you use universal gravitation rather than general relativity, and only until you venture into the quantum scale. Gravity does merely work, as do actions creating those morally positive or negative outcomes. Data is always through the lense of interpretation, otherwise those are merely motes of data meaning nothing themselves. "Gravity" is a construct to explain the motes of data.
 
2011-04-14 04:27:23 AM  
FTFA: "We don't believe in assaulting people," Schrand said. "We're very against assaulting people."

Is that guy really an undercover robot alien who studied assaulting people, then formed a policy and belief system based on the assault data?

Personally, I believe in candy and I'm very against rape-rape.
 
2011-04-14 04:27:55 AM  

sirbissel: AverageAmericanGuy:

Buddha was, of course, a deity in the manner that Jesus was a deity.

Ehhhhhh.... I guess it depends on what you mean by "in the manner that Jesus was a deity." Buddhists tend not to believe that Buddha was actually God's physical form, but just an enlightened being.


You're drawing a distinction that doesn't exist.
 
2011-04-14 04:30:34 AM  
The stupid christers are at it, again!
 
2011-04-14 04:31:16 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy:
You're drawing a distinction that doesn't exist.


Christians believe that Jesus is God. Buddhists do not believe that Buddha is God. Or even a god. So if Christianity is correct, Jesus would be the creator, the almighty, etc. If Buddhism is correct, the Buddha would not be the creator, the almighty, etc. -- So it depends on what you mean by "in the manner that Jesus was a deity"
 
2011-04-14 04:31:23 AM  

untaken_name: Yes, the CONCEPT of objective morality exists. The thing itself, not so much.


So what?

I'm calling troll on this one because you started off by saying atheists can't be moral, and now you're trying to argue that "rational" atheists can't be "objectively" moral. You've moved the goalposts over to another pitch entirely.
 
2011-04-14 04:31:55 AM  
Have fun rationalizing your faith in imaginary things. I only believe in the existence of one less objective moral code than you.
 
2011-04-14 04:32:17 AM  
Sounds like he needs a social worker.
i.imgur.com
 
2011-04-14 04:32:25 AM  

untaken_name: 'm just tired of people telling me they're somehow objective when they aren't.


Again, you want immutable, intrinsic standards. Stop misusing "objective".

For instance, I consider someone "smart". You tell me the person is not "smart". We agree upon a definition, I show measures which demonstrate someone conforms to this definition of "smart". My considering of someone to be "smart" is therefore objective. However, "smart" is not immutable nor intrinsic in our universe, the same as any language construct.

Try this same task with "chair". What you seek is impossible for "chair" because there is no immutable, intrinsic standard for what "chair" means. One may effectively determine if an object is a "chair", though. Unless you wish to argue chairs do not exist, in which case I'll leave you to your delightful little world.
 
2011-04-14 04:34:48 AM  

untaken_name: I don't care that they're subjective. I'm just tired of people telling me they're somehow objective when they aren't. If everyone just admitted that they were moral relativists subject to situational ethics I wouldn't have any problem. I'm just tired of people who reject one imaginary concept only to replace it with another.


Moral relativism doesn't exist, though. If you honestly believe that morality is relative, then you have to agree that my belief that morality is objective is just as true as your belief that morality is relative. If you don't, it proves you think that moral relativism is objectively more true than moral objectivism, and are thus a moral objectivist yourself. Hence; there is no such thing as moral relativism, and morality is objective.

How does it feel to have someone redefine your positon as inherently contradictory? Kinda frustrating, maybe? Then perhaps you should stop doing it to us, you douchebag.
 
2011-04-14 04:35:16 AM  

untaken_name: Mock26: Who cares if they are subjective? Without subjective concepts like this then society would not exist.

I don't care that they're subjective. I'm just tired of people telling me they're somehow objective when they aren't. If everyone just admitted that they were moral relativists subject to situational ethics I wouldn't have any problem. I'm just tired of people who reject one imaginary concept only to replace it with another.


But this isn't the point you raised in your Boobies, where you questioned how atheists have morals at all. They have morals subject to the societal conventions they were brought up in, which I believe someone pointed out early on and you glossed over.
 
2011-04-14 04:35:35 AM  

sirbissel: AverageAmericanGuy:
You're drawing a distinction that doesn't exist.

Christians believe that Jesus is God. Buddhists do not believe that Buddha is God. Or even a god. So if Christianity is correct, Jesus would be the creator, the almighty, etc. If Buddhism is correct, the Buddha would not be the creator, the almighty, etc. -- So it depends on what you mean by "in the manner that Jesus was a deity"


You're trying to draw a distinction between the concept of God and that of an enlightened being. Gautama was certainly a human being, as was Jesus. But the Buddha is God as Jesus was God.

See John 1 for the similarities, if you're that interested. (I doubt it, though. It's not that interesting and really moot)
 
2011-04-14 04:36:22 AM  

untaken_name: Have fun rationalizing your faith in imaginary things. I only believe in the existence of one less objective moral code than you.


Trollery and dickshiattedness?
 
2011-04-14 04:36:52 AM  
haha idiot, ya gotta stab a pen through one of your testicles to prove that God exists. and it has to be a fountain pen especially...
 
2011-04-14 04:40:04 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy:

You're trying to draw a distinction between the concept of God and that of an enlightened being. Gautama was certainly a human being, as was Jesus. But the Buddha is God as Jesus was God.

See John 1 for the similarities, if you're that interested. (I doubt it, though. It's not that interesting and really moot)


God requires an underlying permanent reality. Buddhism rejects that.
 
2011-04-14 04:40:13 AM  

untaken_name: Mock26: Who cares if they are subjective? Without subjective concepts like this then society would not exist.

I don't care that they're subjective. I'm just tired of people telling me they're somehow objective when they aren't. If everyone just admitted that they were moral relativists subject to situational ethics I wouldn't have any problem. I'm just tired of people who reject one imaginary concept only to replace it with another.


Ahh, got you. I missed the bit about "objective" in the opening shots of this little side discussion.
 
2011-04-14 04:44:10 AM  

Vangor: Try this same task with "chair". What you seek is impossible for "chair" because there is no immutable, intrinsic standard for what "chair" means. One may effectively determine if an object is a "chair", though. Unless you wish to argue chairs do not exist, in which case I'll leave you to your delightful little world.



Schlock: But this isn't the point you raised in your Boobies, where you questioned how atheists have morals at all. They have morals subject to the societal conventions they were brought up in, which I believe someone pointed out early on and you glossed over.



I like both of these things :)

AverageAmericanGuy: See John 1 for the similarities, if you're that interested. (I doubt it, though. It's not that interesting and really moot)



Have you seen "The Man From Earth"?

Low budget movie mostly set in one room with a group of people sitting around, talking about the life of one of them, who is leaving town after 10 years, which he does every 10 years and has been doing for centuries. His grudging admission that the whole jesus thing was just his attempt to bring the teachings of buddha to a wider audience, and that he never meant for it to go so far, was quite entertaining
 
2011-04-14 04:44:40 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: But the Buddha is God as Jesus was God.


The distinction between the Buddha and deities is an important one for the origins of Buddhism. Jesus was effectively an avatar of God, while in Hinduism there are numerous facets of Brahman such as Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. Of those, they have physical manifestations which are avatars which are still a portion of the deity. The Buddha was not a deity, facet, avatar, or otherwise, but was one who found how to escape Samsara. Highly spiritual person, but not a deity and quite distinct from Jesus.
 
2011-04-14 04:45:29 AM  

sirbissel: AverageAmericanGuy:

You're trying to draw a distinction between the concept of God and that of an enlightened being. Gautama was certainly a human being, as was Jesus. But the Buddha is God as Jesus was God.

See John 1 for the similarities, if you're that interested. (I doubt it, though. It's not that interesting and really moot)

God requires an underlying permanent reality. Buddhism rejects that.


A permanent state of impermanence? How interesting.

To address your claim, I suggest you contemplate what Dharma could be if not the underlying permanent reality of impermanence.
 
2011-04-14 04:46:24 AM  

sirbissel: The societal norms will create what is right or wrong. There are cultures that eat people, that believe it is moral to eat people. There are cultures that believe it is not moral to eat people. An atheist would (should) say that both are correct in the respective cultures.


I can only recommend you, as a matter of urgency, read Sam Harris' 'The Moral Landscape'

Atheists most certainly CAN believe in absolute morality without believing in God. Its such an enormous lie to say they cannot that it beggars belief that anyone would take it seriously.
 
2011-04-14 04:48:33 AM  
AverageAmericanGuy
I'm not sure how stabbing a cross on the back of someone's your own hand will prove the existence of God.

I'd like to see science explain how a total knobjob like that can be the end result of thousands of years of that so-called "survival of the fittest".
 
2011-04-14 04:48:42 AM  

Fuller: Link (new window)


Well shiat... that made my night! Thanks for the link!

untaken_name: So, morality is based on what you, personally, like?


No... Actually "morals" are established by the family we are raised in and the culture that family exists within. There are even some fairly common threads of morality that appear to bridge most societal and cultural differences... Such as not stealing and not murdering people. But even then there are some families and cultures that don't agree with that. A rational person might recognize those common morals as "common sense". They are things that generally help people get along with other people. They aren't handed down from on high by and unseen and unheard deity to man, they have developed through experience.

Let's look at not stealing... If one steals something from someone else in a society, there is a good chance that the person who was stolen from will be angry about it. Not having whatever was stolen could have a serious impact on that person's life. That person also might have worked very hard to obtain the thing that was stolen. It is easy to see, that stealing or having something stolen from you is a bad thing. It could lead to retribution, suffering, etc... so most societies view stealing as a generally bad thing. Hence, it is a widely accepted moral. Sometimes, we even write laws about them to make it easier to punish those that harm others. Interestingly enough, even the people who commit violations of these common sense morals tend to know that what they're doing is wrong, but just don't care. Those people we could accurately call, "amoral".

There are lots of other morals which religions have co-opted from society as "having originated from their deity". But what else would one expect from a creation of man (religion), it will be built around the experiences and societal wishes of those who wrote it initially.

The thing is... once some of these folks started convincing other people that these common sense morals came from their deity, they began to use that influence to create new "morals" that weren't based on common sense and were mostly based around their "likes" or "dislikes" as the case may be. Take homosexuality as an example. Realistically, there is nothing wrong with being attracted to someone of the same gender. One might try to make the argument that it doesn't help to continue the species, but lets face it, we don't have any shortage of people and we don't need everyone to breed and make more of us. Which is why homosexuality is not nearly as universally viewed as amoral among societies... Because it isn't common sense... it's bigotry being portrayed as a moral by people who simply "dislike it".

So... in a way... real morals are based on what we like, not what I or you like individually.

Perhaps if religious people were less apt to try and paint their personal 'dislikes' as 'morals' and try to impose them upon others, people wouldn't be so resistant to the existence of religions. Heck... perhaps religious people would even be able to get along with other religious and areligious people.

Things like common sense morals and why they exist really isn't that hard to understand if you take a little time to think about it without just falling back on the age old cop-out of, "God did it."
 
2011-04-14 04:50:24 AM  
Aw man, you give Farkers a hilarious article about atheists with quotes like:

The incident took place near a table promoting a local version of "Ask an Atheist Day."

Huppert borrowed a pen and drew a circle with a cross inside on the back of his hand. Huppert then asked students at the table to stab him in the cross with the pen to "prove to us God existed." The students declined.

"We don't believe in assaulting people," Schrand said. "We're very against assaulting people."


Do I get 'LOLWUT' pics? Maybe some /b/tard wishing the guy would become an hero? No, I get the old religion arguments being rehashed.

img585.imageshack.us

/No, atheism is not a religion
//Since we're sharing our personal opinions on topics people haven't been able to resolve in millenia: Russell's teapot
 
2011-04-14 04:52:03 AM  
Anyone who asserts that objective morality can't exist without religion is cherrypicking for their definition of objective.

Even religious people will admit that their idea of "God" is different from others. Religious texts were written by humans. Both of these things indicate subjective interpretations.
 
2011-04-14 04:54:09 AM  

untaken_name: Mock26: Right and Wrong exist because we (mankind) have decided that they exist.

Um, are you serious? By that logic, God exists, as does Zeus, Thor, the Easter bunny, and single, attractive, non-biatchy women. Give me a break.


You're either a very successful troll, or a very stupid person.
 
2011-04-14 04:55:50 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy:
A permanent state of impermanence? How interesting.

To address your claim, I suggest you contemplate what Dharma could be if not the underlying permanent reality of impermanence.


If everything changes, then even the Dharma changes.

gaspode:
I can only recommend you, as a matter of urgency, read Sam Harris' 'The Moral Landscape'

Atheists most certainly CAN believe in absolute morality without believing in God. Its such an enormous lie to say they cannot that it beggars belief that anyone would take it seriously.


If there is an absolute morality that is not based on cultural norms but is instead based on some rule from the universe, then how would it be possible for the various cultures to have differing cultural morals? Or, really, why wouldn't all other animals be afflicted with the same concepts of morality?
 
2011-04-14 04:55:54 AM  

Mock26: Surely Bevets would have some crappy quote that would not explain this in the least bit!


Shhhhhhut-up! I would like to see at least one religion/atheism thread that isn't crapped on by his pathetic quote mining and linking to complete and utter random bullshiat.
 
2011-04-14 04:56:55 AM  

StuartMcIntyre: I'd like to see science explain how a total knobjob like that can be the end result of thousands of years of that so-called "survival of the fittest".


Actually... There is a crucial portion of "survival of the fittest" that is often overlooked. It's more like, "survival of the fittest at surviving". You don't have to be the biggest and strongest to survive, heck... there are scenarios where being the biggest and strongest isn't the best route to survival. But essentially... that guy and his ancestors have managed to be good enough to survive. Which today, isn't really all THAT tough. It used to be much harder. These days... even really stupid people who would might have otherwise been eaten by wolves before they could breed manage to live long, full lives because we've destroyed the majority of direct threats from areas where we live.

Point is... survival and the adaptability has a lot more to do with evolution than a lot of people seem to realize.
 
2011-04-14 05:00:11 AM  

RodneyToady: doglover: Going to Church on Sundays and saying grace isn't nearly the same thing as actually being a Christian. Nor is squating down five times a day and growing a beard gonna make you an actual Muslim. You have to change your mind from closed to open and then try honestly without expectations in order to observe something property.

I'm an agnostic, not an atheist. I was raised Catholic, but it didn't take. By your standards, I know legitimate Catholics, other Christians, Jews, etc. I don't take issue with them. They embody the spiritual as well as nominal aspects of their faiths. But the vast majority of followers lack the spiritual aspect. They're born into their religion, or choose it out of desperation after illness or addiction. And they vote, and have political positions, and make laws. And they help drive whatever positive feelings I have about religion into the ground.

Many truly seek the divine, and some find it, and that's great. I'm fine with the concept of a deity, or many deities, in an abstract way. I'm fine with some people who believe in an interpersonal God who cares about them as an individual. I stop being fine when people tell me I should live my life, and we should base our laws, on some old book that claims to be the "Word of God."

Sorry. No.

A god or gods may or may not have created the universe. I don't know, and in a pretty fundamental way, I don't think it matters. But there's no way anyone is going to convince me that this god (or these gods) have any interest at all on the gender of the person I'm screwing, or whether or not I have a beard, or what I'm eating on any particular day of the week or year.


This.
Oh So Much This.
But please get out of my head.
 
2011-04-14 05:01:12 AM  

sirbissel: AverageAmericanGuy:
A permanent state of impermanence? How interesting.

To address your claim, I suggest you contemplate what Dharma could be if not the underlying permanent reality of impermanence.

If everything changes, then even the Dharma changes.


Can God create a stone so heavy that He could not lift it?
 
2011-04-14 05:02:13 AM  

sirbissel: If there is an absolute morality that is not based on cultural norms but is instead based on some rule from the universe, then how would it be possible for the various cultures to have differing cultural morals?


Determine for me as near as possible the circumference of a circle whose diameter is 4. Your answer will vary depending on if you know pi at all, if you recollect pi well, and how many decimals you are willing to use since "near as possible" is difficult to fulfill with an irrational number. Yet, there is an absolute value for what the circumference of the circle is. Same with if an absolute morality exists (not arguing this does); the lack of following this morality does not preclude its existence. People reject or subvert reality often.
 
2011-04-14 05:02:33 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: sirbissel: AverageAmericanGuy:
A permanent state of impermanence? How interesting.

To address your claim, I suggest you contemplate what Dharma could be if not the underlying permanent reality of impermanence.

If everything changes, then even the Dharma changes.

Can God create a stone so heavy that He could not lift it?


If an ultimate underlying creator doesn't exist, then no, because God wouldn't be able to create a stone due to his lack of existing.
 
2011-04-14 05:05:27 AM  

sirbissel: AverageAmericanGuy: sirbissel: AverageAmericanGuy:
A permanent state of impermanence? How interesting.

To address your claim, I suggest you contemplate what Dharma could be if not the underlying permanent reality of impermanence.

If everything changes, then even the Dharma changes.

Can God create a stone so heavy that He could not lift it?

If an ultimate underlying creator doesn't exist, then no, because God wouldn't be able to create a stone due to his lack of existing.


Why do you think the underlying truth of reality, which is called Dharma, should be something that can be implied to be related in any way to personhood?
 
2011-04-14 05:08:12 AM  

Vangor:

Determine for me as near as possible the circumference of a circle whose diameter is 4. Your answer will vary depending on if you know pi at all, if you recollect pi well, and how many decimals you are willing to use since "near as possible" is difficult to fulfill with an irrational number. Yet, there is an absolute value for what the circumference of the circle is. Same with if an absolute morality exists (not arguing this does); the lack of following this morality does not preclude its existence. People reject or subvert reality often.


Then what are the underlying moral codes? And why is it more than likely that the underlying moral codes are going to correspond with your concept of morality more than the tribe Piers Gibbon visited? Maybe there is an underlying moral code, but without any sort of guide to what it is, then how do you know that the one you're rejecting isn't the -actual- moral code, and the one you're following isn't the subversion? So either you follow the moral code that your culture, family, etc. has instilled in you, believing that to be the objective morality (although without proof of it being such) or you follow a random other morality, still lacking the proof. It's no different than claiming the existence (or nonexistence, really) of God. You believe in it because you believe it is true. Whether it is or isn't is something different.
 
2011-04-14 05:08:21 AM  

Skyfrog: untaken_name: Mock26: Right and Wrong exist because we (mankind) have decided that they exist.

Um, are you serious? By that logic, God exists, as does Zeus, Thor, the Easter bunny, and single, attractive, non-biatchy women. Give me a break.

You're either a very successful troll, or a very stupid person.


Considering he seems to have left the thread and yet still nearly every post is either replying to him or to his arguments, I'm thinking:

images.starcraftmazter.net
/hotlinked
 
2011-04-14 05:08:41 AM  

doglover: Religious groups are weird.

Humanism is a community, and just like; Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Daoists, Wiccans; they all have provisions in their religions that create an organization of other members.

But Religion merely requires you Have faith. And not all Christians are Christians for the same reason. Some approach it from a position of educated wisdom, but many more approach it out of reactionary ignorance. The whole "Evolution is just a theory." doesn't work when you don't actually go take a look at the proof which is found in reality, using scientific methodology. Oh, but wait, that takes physical and mental discipline to actually accomplish the proper depth of education so I'll just ignore 1,000,000,000s of years of direct evidence of something important being here and just call it GodisbeautifulTM.

If you've actually taken the time, put in the sweat, researched the facts and still decided you do not believe that there's anything worthwhile to science that's a commendable choice on your part, but STILL the group confuses me. You deny something for various reasons, so you don't care about it at all. It shouldn't even be a part of your life. Why waste time with declaring how much you don't believe in something with a bunch of people who feel the same way? Go play a sport or have another beer or something.

It would be like a group of people who were blind from birth getting together to discuss how they don't like the color of rooms in houses they've never been in or heard anyone describe to them.


I couldn't agree more.
 
2011-04-14 05:09:40 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy:

Why do you think the underlying truth of reality, which is called Dharma, should be something that can be implied to be related in any way to personhood?


Because the Christian God is related to personhood. So in order for Jesus to be God as Buddha is God, then the underlying creator must be related to personhood.
 
2011-04-14 05:12:00 AM  
...that should say Buddha to be God as Jesus is God... or something like that. I don't know, it's 4 and I should be asleep.
 
2011-04-14 05:12:20 AM  

sirbissel: AverageAmericanGuy:

Why do you think the underlying truth of reality, which is called Dharma, should be something that can be implied to be related in any way to personhood?

Because the Christian God is related to personhood. So in order for Jesus to be God as Buddha is God, then the underlying creator must be related to personhood.


Then is the Buddha not a person?
 
2011-04-14 05:15:53 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: sirbissel: AverageAmericanGuy: sirbissel: AverageAmericanGuy:
A permanent state of impermanence? How interesting.

To address your claim, I suggest you contemplate what Dharma could be if not the underlying permanent reality of impermanence.

If everything changes, then even the Dharma changes.

Can God create a stone so heavy that He could not lift it?

If an ultimate underlying creator doesn't exist, then no, because God wouldn't be able to create a stone due to his lack of existing.

Why do you think the underlying truth of reality, which is called Dharma, should be something that can be implied to be related in any way to personhood?


Ki?
 
2011-04-14 05:16:42 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: I'm not sure how stabbing a cross on the back of someone's hand will prove the existence of God.


www.dn3austin.com

Yeah, well, my hair is a bird, therefore, it WILL prove the existence of God.

images2.wikia.nocookie.net

Babel Fish, however, is a dead giveaway.

/i'm gonna lookout for zebra crossings for awhile
 
2011-04-14 05:16:46 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: sirbissel: AverageAmericanGuy:

Why do you think the underlying truth of reality, which is called Dharma, should be something that can be implied to be related in any way to personhood?

Because the Christian God is related to personhood. So in order for Jesus to be God as Buddha is God, then the underlying creator must be related to personhood.

Then is the Buddha not a person?


The Buddha is not the ultimate underlying creator, so the Buddha's personhood is irrelevant.
 
2011-04-14 05:17:38 AM  

sirbissel: So either you follow the moral code that your culture, family, etc. has instilled in you, believing that to be the objective morality (although without proof of it being such) or you follow a random other morality, still lacking the proof.


It's not an 'objective' reality in any way like a law of physics, but would you disagree that one could come up with an outcome based morality in which good is measured by the effect of an action upon an individual or a society?

Theoretically one could prove and measure the rightness or wrongness of an action, and therefore the morality rating of an individual, within such a framework; you could 'prove' that the morality itself is 'good' for a given (or agreed) value of good.

I get the impression that objectivism would fall into this category, though I don't know enough about it to say for sure.
 
2011-04-14 05:22:49 AM  

sirbissel: AverageAmericanGuy: sirbissel: AverageAmericanGuy:

Why do you think the underlying truth of reality, which is called Dharma, should be something that can be implied to be related in any way to personhood?

Because the Christian God is related to personhood. So in order for Jesus to be God as Buddha is God, then the underlying creator must be related to personhood.

Then is the Buddha not a person?

The Buddha is not the ultimate underlying creator, so the Buddha's personhood is irrelevant.


Does that make Jesus' personhood irrelevant? Surely even Jesus prayed to another.
 
2011-04-14 05:23:30 AM  

sirbissel: Then what are the underlying moral codes?


Again if an absolute morality exists (not arguing this does). You read far too much into my response beyond merely the fact of different groups having different beliefs on what absolute morality is or on the existence of absolute morality not being itself an argument against absolute morality.

"Absolute" constructs is a rather bizarre, almost oxymoronic notion.
 
2011-04-14 05:25:10 AM  

Gothnet: It's not an 'objective' reality in any way like a law of physics


Still "objective", merely not "absolute". Physics is "absolute". Physics is "objective"ly verified. Morality is not "absolute". Morality may be "objective"ly verified, though generally isn't.
 
2011-04-14 05:27:35 AM  

Gothnet:
It's not an 'objective' reality in any way like a law of physics, but would you disagree that one could come up with an outcome based morality in which good is measured by the effect of an action upon an individual or a society?

Theoretically one could prove and measure the rightness or wrongness of an action, and therefore the morality rating of an individual, within such a framework; you could 'prove' that the morality itself is 'good' for a given (or agreed) value of good.

I get the impression that objectivism would fall into this category, though I don't know enough about it to say for sure.


Although that still ends up being based on the society/individual. That is, take what I've been babbling about with eating people. In a society where they have no food, for whatever reason, stuck in the mountains after a plane crash. For them, the only way to survive was to eat another person. So eating a person would be considered good morally. However, it would generally be considered bad form to munch on your neighbor's roasted leg as a midnight snack.

So maybe if you think of morality not so much in a "Don't kill people." sort of way, but more in a "Do what you need to do to survive, but not more than what you need to do to survive" or something. Although even that, the homeless bum that can't seem to get a meal would be seen as immoral for killing and eating someone...

I dunno. *shrug*
 
2011-04-14 05:30:48 AM  

sirbissel: I dunno. *shrug*


Probably the best answer, and certainly one I can can agree with :)
 
2011-04-14 05:34:04 AM  

sirbissel:

If there is an absolute morality that is not based on cultural norms but is instead based on some rule from the universe, then how would it be possible for the various cultures to have differing cultural morals? Or, really, why wouldn't all other animals be afflicted with the same concepts of morality?


Then those people who adopt local moral codes contrary to this basic morality would be wrong. That is perfectly possible. Only a moral/cultural relativist approach says that all cultures are equally right, and that approach is not even faintly universal among atheists.

Certainly None of the currently famous prominent atheists subscribe to it.
 
2011-04-14 05:36:01 AM  

FishyFred: I wish my campus atheist group had seen crazy like this.


I wish my campus (20 years ago) had an atheist group. Heck, maybe it did. I was too immersed in religion to know...A bunch of science courses DID help, though.
 
2011-04-14 05:39:08 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy:
Does that make Jesus' personhood irrelevant? Surely even Jesus prayed to another.


If Jesus is God or if Jesus is 1/3rd God, or whatever, then no, because Jesus would be part of the ultimate creator.

Vangor:
Again if an absolute morality exists (not arguing this does). You read far too much into my response beyond merely the fact of different groups having different beliefs on what absolute morality is or on the existence of absolute morality not being itself an argument against absolute morality.

"Absolute" constructs is a rather bizarre, almost oxymoronic notion.


Ah, sorry. I must've skipped the "if an absolute morality" bit while reading your reply. I'll chalk it up to being tired. My point, though, is that even if there is an absolute morality, without some sort of thing beating us over the head saying what it is we'd have no idea, so does it really matter if it's there or not? Although I don't think that's worded quite right...
 
2011-04-14 05:39:57 AM  

sirbissel:

Theoretically one could prove and measure the rightness or wrongness of an action, and therefore the morality rating of an individual, within such a framework; you could 'prove' that the morality itself is 'good' for a given (or agreed) value of good.

I get the impression that objectivism would fall into this category, though I don't know enough about it to say for sure.

Although that still ends up being based on the society/individual. That is, take what I've been babbling about with eating people. In a society where they have no food, for whatever reason, stuck in the mountains after a plane crash. For them, the only way to survive was to eat another person. So eating a person would be considered good morally. However, it would generally be considered bad form to munch on your neighbor's roasted leg as a midnight snack.

So maybe if you think of morality not so much in a "Don't kill people." sort of way, but more in a "Do what you need to do to survive, but not more than what you need to do to survive" or something. Although even that, the homeless bum that can't seem to get a meal would be seen as immoral for killing and eating someone...


That is exactly the kind of question Harris tries to begin addressing in his book. The philosophical intelligensia have for 30 years been so immersed in relativism (one area where the right wings criticism of academia has merit) that this has until now been a woefully neglected subject.
 
2011-04-14 05:44:35 AM  

gaspode: That is exactly the kind of question Harris tries to begin addressing in his book. The philosophical intelligensia have for 30 years been so immersed in relativism (one area where the right wings criticism of academia has merit) that this has until now been a woefully neglected subject.


You might enjoy a book called Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science by Alan Sokal.
 
2011-04-14 05:48:06 AM  
Well, in any case, I'm off to sleep. Thanks for the bit of discussion on this.
 
2011-04-14 05:48:50 AM  

sirbissel: without some sort of thing beating us over the head saying what it is we'd have no idea, so does it really matter if it's there or not?


To a degree, I would say yes. We develop new means to measure at a dizzying rate anymore, doing what was previously thought impossible or correcting the long held consensus or intuition. Measuring absolute morality or finding a way to discover this seems to me impossible especially not being a believer in an absolute morality, but who knows, perhaps someone finds a way to truly detect this. It would really matter to say if this is there or not.

As well, the existence or lack of could have influence on believers of absolute morality regardless of knowing what this morality is. If absolute morality existed, believers could simply become less willing to change with their own morality somehow more ensconced. Or, a lack could cause a massive shift where those absolute moralists reflect upon themselves and the value of moral codes.

In reality, I suppose the existence or lack of is less important than what believers believe about this existence since you would not actually be able to draw a conclusion on whether or not absolute morality exists if you could not also figure out what this absolute morality contains.

I would find this interesting to know if an absolute morality exists or not even if I might not do anything with the information.
 
2011-04-14 05:50:42 AM  

sirbissel: AverageAmericanGuy:
Does that make Jesus' personhood irrelevant? Surely even Jesus prayed to another.

If Jesus is God or if Jesus is 1/3rd God, or whatever, then no, because Jesus would be part of the ultimate creator.


One who embodies the Truth, then is part of the Truth?
 
2011-04-14 05:50:43 AM  
gaspode: 30 years been so immersed in relativism

Funny thing about that, the idea of ethical relativism was first articulated in an academic sense by a professor of theology, one Reinhold Niebuhr.
 
2011-04-14 05:54:00 AM  
StuartMcIntyre: I'd like to see science explain how a total knobjob like that can be the end result of thousands of years of that so-called "survival of the fittest".

Any confusion you may be having is probably due to the misleading nature of the phrase "survival of the fittest", a phrase which Darwin didn't originally use, though he added it in later editions of "On the Origin..." at the behest of Wallace.

For one thing, "survival of the fit enough" would probably be a better phrase if you want to talk about evolution from an "organism-centric" point of view. Such confusion essentially disappears if you consider evolution from a "gene-centric" point of view (if you haven't read "The Selfish Gene", and if you really are interested in evolution, then you really should). For another thing, evolution generally deals with populations (or gene pools from the gene's point of view), so talking about a given individual in a population will often be misleading.

Given all of the possibilities of genetic recombination (during meiosis to make the gametes) and mixing due to sexual reproduction, it should not be surprising at all to see a range of many types across a population, including combinations of traits that you see (whether they actually are or not) as "unfit".

Just sayin'.
 
2011-04-14 05:54:05 AM  

Fuller: doglover - here's a short piece to help you understand skeptical/atheist philosophy. It's new, and it's funny and entertaining even if you (somehow) come away disagreeing with it.

Link (new window)


That's a great piece!

^_^
 
2011-04-14 05:55:16 AM  
Gunther: . If you honestly believe that morality is relative,

Well, is it always wrong to, say, take an apple from a tree that isn't your's? The idea that whether or not it's wrong depends on the circumstances, is a very very old idea. Indeed, depending on whose moral precepts you look at, you find different answers.
 
2011-04-14 05:55:29 AM  

Vangor:
To a degree, I would say yes. We develop new means to measure at a dizzying rate anymore, doing what was previously thought impossible or correcting the long held consensus or intuition. Measuring absolute morality or finding a way to discover this seems to me impossible especially not being a believer in an absolute morality, but who knows, perhaps someone finds a way to truly detect this. It would really matter to say if this is there or not.

As well, the existence or lack of could have influence on believers of absolute morality regardless of knowing what this morality is. If absolute morality existed, believers could simply become less willing to change with their own morality somehow more ensconced. Or, a lack could cause a massive shift where those absolute moralists reflect upon themselves and the value of moral codes.

In reality, I suppose the existence or lack of is less important than what believers believe about this existence since you would not actually be able to draw a conclusion on whether or not absolute morality exists if you could not also figure out what this absolute morality contains.

I would find this interesting to know if an absolute morality exists or not even if I might not do anything with the information.


Right, and at some point it might matter. But in the here and now, if we can't measure it, if we can't be sure if it does or doesn't exist (or even what it is) then its existence doesn't make a difference (outside of people debating it, or trying to find a way to measure it) -- and while it might be interesting to know if it does or doesn't exist, it makes as much difference as whether God does or doesn't exist (sans him popping up and slapping me around with a trout or something, as that would just be damned obnoxious) - It might at some later point make a difference, where it could be measured, but at this point we have to muddle through with what we've got.

And now, to bed. Really this time.
 
2011-04-14 05:58:07 AM  

mamoru: Any confusion you may be having is probably due to the


...fact he used "thousands of years" in his comment to probably troll. Maybe I give him too much credit.
 
2011-04-14 06:30:06 AM  
Meh... whatever. Just pointing out the fact that science can explain it, just in case anyone out there was nodding thoughtfully and thinking he was making an interesting point.

:-/
 
2011-04-14 06:52:40 AM  

untaken_name: Have fun rationalizing your faith in imaginary things. I only believe in the existence of one less objective moral code than you.


Neo-Nazi or troll. The only two ways you could be legit.
 
2011-04-14 06:54:09 AM  
If I were God, I definitely wouldn't reveal myself to this idiot.
 
2011-04-14 07:06:58 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: I'm not sure how stabbing a cross on the back of someone's hand will prove the existence of God.


...yeah, this.
 
2011-04-14 07:11:04 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: doglover: Atheist groups are weird.

And they get so offended if you point out that atheism is just another religion. If you spend your time in an atheist group talking about how much you love being an atheist and setting up tables to convert other people to atheism then for that person, atheism is a religion.


Yeah, I mean just like theism is a religion. Wait, what do you mean it's not, you mean, this guy clearly struggles with a basic understanding the English language?
 
2011-04-14 07:13:16 AM  
THERE IS NO DREW!
 
2011-04-14 07:15:38 AM  

zomega: AverageAmericanGuy: I'm not sure how stabbing a cross on the back of someone's hand will prove the existence of God.

...yeah, this.


The same way a guy I know thinks that if he prays, people's problems will be fixed. He once prayed that my wife's eyes would be better (she has poor vision)... needless to say, it didn't work; she still requires glasses/contacts to see well. He also believes that if you pray over someone their limbs, eyes, etc can grow back. They really believe that nonsense. So... maybe he thought that his God would give him no wounds or wouldn't let the pen hurt him... or something equally stupid.

Religious people, especially extremely devout and/or fundamentalists, tend to believe some rather strange and absurd things.
 
2011-04-14 07:26:09 AM  
Did a discussion about the validity of atheism just arise from an article about a religious whackaloon who stabbed himself in the hand at an atheist gathering?

This is not the thread to make a case for religion.
 
2011-04-14 07:33:52 AM  
www.dreamlandmagic.com
I don't think that's how that trick is supposed to work.

9oops.com
If you're going to stab yourself with a pen to prove religion, do it right, man!
 
2011-04-14 07:35:24 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2011-04-14 07:36:57 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2011-04-14 07:37:20 AM  
www.mtkilimanjarologue.com
 
2011-04-14 07:41:21 AM  

doglover: Why waste time with declaring how much you don't believe in something with a bunch of people who feel the same way? Go play a sport or have another beer or something.


Seeing various groups of people fight about whether 2+2 equals 5 or 6 gets to you after a while. The religious share their belief in a higher power, these people are sharing their belief in logic.
 
2011-04-14 07:41:53 AM  
Obviously you all just don't understand the complex theology behind cross-in-circle-hand-stabbing.
 
2011-04-14 07:48:45 AM  

doglover: Atheist groups are weird.


Not really weird, since religious groups have been determining how people should be governed for a very long time.
 
2011-04-14 07:51:37 AM  

sirbissel: AverageAmericanGuy:

Why do you think the underlying truth of reality, which is called Dharma, should be something that can be implied to be related in any way to personhood?

Because the Christian God is related to personhood. So in order for Jesus to be God as Buddha is God, then the underlying creator must be related to personhood.


What test can I do that will prove a God exists?

Buddha is a real person, Siddhattha Gautama. Buddha is not a god. He is a teacher. If you wish to find enlightenment, he can show you have to achieve it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha (new window)
 
2011-04-14 07:56:26 AM  
I shall show you the face of my god:

img857.imageshack.us

...-dess.
 
2011-04-14 08:00:48 AM  

doglover: If you've actually taken the time, put in the sweat, touched the divine and still decided you do not believe that there's anything worthwhile to religion that's a commendable choice on your part, but STILL the group confuses me. You deny something for various reasons, so you don't care about it at all. It shouldn't even be a part of your life. Why waste time with declaring how much you don't believe in something with a bunch of people who feel the same way? Go play a sport or have another beer or something.


Okay, one at a time:

If you've actually taken the time, put in the sweat, touched the divine and still decided you do not believe that there's anything worthwhile to religion that's a commendable choice on your part

You mind explaining what in the world you're talking about? Touch the divine? Life itself is divine, I don't need some fairy God father to tell me how to be a good person, especially since this fairy God father is some deity from the 1st century and there's not one speck of truth that he's real.

You deny something for various reasons, so you don't care about it at all.

We care enough to show people there is a more viable way to live your life without fairy God fathers that tell you to condemn certain people and not others. A true Just God wouldn't be like that in my eyes, in fact I find it down right evil the way some of these people act and I am happy to use my goodness to fight them.

It shouldn't even be a part of your life.

As soon as all religion is dismissed and not shoved in our faces daily by nuts who either are in my government or in my social circle or in my school then it won't be part of my life. I am stating the circle is round and I will not tolerate someone telling me the circle is blue and requires me to hate gay people on top of it or go to hell. Keep religion out of my life and then you can say it's not part of my life, until then we are forced to push back with reality.

Why waste time with declaring how much you don't believe in something with a bunch of people who feel the same way? Go play a sport or have another beer or something

Because it basically is a sport knocking down irrationality and bigotry and intolerance, and it's a moral sport on top of it. If we can make the world a better place by applying logic and reason and love without threats of violence then I see nothing wrong with being involved with fostering understanding between religious and non-religious people.
 
2011-04-14 08:02:14 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: And they get so offended if you point out that atheism is just another religion. If you spend your time in an atheist group talking about how much you love being an atheist and setting up tables to convert other people to atheism then for that person, atheism is a religion.


Just like telling the people the dangers of taking drugs means you're a druggie.
 
2011-04-14 08:04:20 AM  

kitryne: Buddhism is an atheistic religion


Hell, Buddhism is even better than that. Buddhism says believe whatever you want to believe, just make it for morally good reasons, celebrate what you want to celebrate, just don't hurt anyone/thing.

/Not really Buddhist so I may be off here
 
2011-04-14 08:09:03 AM  

sirbissel: I always assume that "basic humanity" is more or less empathy, being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes and understanding how you would feel. Although really that's somewhat of a learned trait, as children and babies are jerks, but in the end it seems to be one of the traits that comes with being a rational being.


Yes, it would be 'empathy,' also logic and reason, but those [logic and reason] are only partially (refined really, though they can be quite a bit) learned, "empathy" for what it's worth is innate and is an emergent result of mirror neurons, of course, like anything else dealing with neurons is plastic. But given that you carry a certain set of genes, only plastic to an extent (not nearly as much as the social sciences have spent their time trying to frame it as), you will have very universal things in common with every other human in the gene-pool majority. Logic and reason are ironically functions of the 'higher' regions of the (Paleomammalian brain structure) limbic system, it's ironic because it also controls/is-at-cause for your emotions (something often seen colloquially as oppositional to logic and reason). So it really does turn out to be true, something neurologist have known for about decade or so, that those who are more-so adept at thinking critically (in the vein of logic and reason) also feel much 'deeper' (think more Spock-ish) than those who express themselves in more readily emotional terms (think a histrionic attention whore), rather, really your base emotions are the forerunners to logic and reason based decision making. In the brain they are very inter-tangled.

People in the social science tend to want to make up more gibberish than do 'uncomfortable' studies that might end up having social consequences for people outside their immediate western culture. For the last century and some time now, I'd say the majority, have a gigantic guilt streak running in their academic circles as a result of what happened (happens) in early mid and late imperialism and in other failed social experiments. As a result they all tend to avoid studying things that makes us similar or "universals" (emergent universals, cultural or neurological, ergo still subject to the individual (their genes etc.), aka subjective) like fire, and tend more in the direction of hyper-focusing on markets, ignoring other cultural failings and promoting a sort of everyone is different and super-special (everyone gets a trophy) in their own way(excuse making).
 
2011-04-14 08:13:15 AM  

JohnnyC: zomega: AverageAmericanGuy: I'm not sure how stabbing a cross on the back of someone's hand will prove the existence of God.

...yeah, this.

The same way a guy I know thinks that if he prays, people's problems will be fixed. He once prayed that my wife's eyes would be better (she has poor vision)... needless to say, it didn't work; she still requires glasses/contacts to see well. He also believes that if you pray over someone their limbs, eyes, etc can grow back. They really believe that nonsense. So... maybe he thought that his God would give him no wounds or wouldn't let the pen hurt him... or something equally stupid.

Religious people, especially extremely devout and/or fundamentalists, tend to believe some rather strange and absurd things.


Then run this by him:
If God is all-knowing, wouldn't he be aware of the situation already?

If God has a plan for everything, and God has a reason for things happening the way they do, which involves bad things happening to people at times, aren't you questioning God's Will in this regard?

Is it really a "fair" world view that the more virtuous people "vote" a person to recover and live through acts of prayer, while a more obscure or less popular person goes blind or dies? Wouldn't this turn the mere act of living into a personality contest? If God heals and favors through prayer, how can you avoid the converse, that disease, accidents, and misfortune are the result of insufficient prayer, and that a "prayer economy" exists that trades favor with God?

Because, however humble the wording, it seems to be pointing out that he's overlooked something. Either suggesting that God did not notice that someone had cancer, or perhaps that God was not aware that this person was good and worthy of getting better. The third possibility is that God knows this person has cancer, and knows this person is worthy of being cured, but has a policy of holding back on curing them until others ask for it through prayer.

Some interpret prayer in that God's gifts of healing and good fortune REQUIRE the presence of worshipers on Earth praying to carry it out. That seems to be the "Holy Ghost" thing (was never clear on what the Holy Ghost was, even Wikipedia didn't make it much clearer to me). But the practice does not seem altogether consistent with that, as prayers are conventionally supposed to be humble and ask things of God in the nicest possible way. It asks God to do these things, as opposed to the worshiper taking God's power and willing it to someone in need. And in any case, the concept of God's Will NEEDING prayer to carry it out is still inconsistent with belief in the other aforementioned ways; it seems to assume God is unaware of the needs without prayer, or holds back on delivering good things to people known to be in need until a third person with higher "status" with God asks it.

Of course, not all prayer asks God to deliver personal favors. AFAIK, Muslim prayers are always rote recitations. Our family was Presbyterian and I recall it always being a rote recitation also, the gist of which was generally "please give us the strength to do these things". Not that I asked people about what they prayed for personally.
 
2011-04-14 08:17:30 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2011-04-14 08:20:03 AM  
farm1.static.flickr.com
Can't believe this hasn't been played yet.
 
2011-04-14 08:21:56 AM  

TigerStar: sirbissel: AverageAmericanGuy:

Why do you think the underlying truth of reality, which is called Dharma, should be something that can be implied to be related in any way to personhood?

Because the Christian God is related to personhood. So in order for Jesus to be God as Buddha is God, then the underlying creator must be related to personhood.

What test can I do that will prove a God exists?

Buddha is a real person, Siddhattha Gautama. Buddha is not a god. He is a teacher. If you wish to find enlightenment, he can show you have to achieve it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha (new window)


Not only that but no one has to die. When is the last time a Buddhist blew up people/buildings?
 
2011-04-14 08:27:50 AM  

untaken_name: Where do atheist morals come from?


Intelligence and common sense. Common sense dictates that I shouldn't harm others, now, how far do we take that? Me? I'm a huge environmentalist and animal person, not only do I feel it is immoral to harm people I feel it is also immoral to harm the Earth and the animals that live on it. See, I'm already more moral than most religious people I know. You should be able to deduce the rest for yourself. Or perhaps not.
 
2011-04-14 08:31:15 AM  

Fuller: When you look at the data, you'll find that atheists/agnostics know more about religion than any other group (new window).


so much this. So many of the faithful know so little about the faith they put their time and money into.

Some here, like every other atheism thread, argue that atheism is the absence of something. I'd argue that for so many Christians and other faithful, there is a much greater absence, an absence of any effort put into their faith and atheists are quite the opposite. They go to church, they sing the songs, they put their $5 in basket. That's not faith, thats entertainment. Its also hard not to notice how religious participation goes up the older we get. Are these actions of a born out of boredom or wisdom? Or are they simply hedging their bets as they get closer to the grave. That's for them to decide. Atheists notice things like this but dont always comment on them because any questioning of faith is seen not as a discussion but an attack by many faithful.

As Fuller points out, generally atheist do their research and are more well versed in the stories and tenants that make up a particular religion than most that profess to follow it.
 
2011-04-14 08:31:26 AM  

sirbissel: Society. The societal norms will create what is right or wrong. There are cultures that eat people, that believe it is moral to eat people. There are cultures that believe it is not moral to eat people. An atheist would (should) say that both are correct in the respective cultures.


I wouldn't, not unless the person being eaten wants to be eaten, then you are doing something against their will and well-being. That is not moral. This is the crux of why atheists speak out because we see the immorality in some cultures and religions. Hating gays is immoral, killing women for daring to get raped is immoral, letting people die because they don't have money but the means is there is immoral.
 
2011-04-14 08:31:47 AM  
I like how Christians immediately set about complaining about atheists in a thread concerning a Christian student who flipped out on atheists and then assaulted a police officer.

Literally every article about Christian misbehavior on Fark is full of Christians complaining about atheists. When this is pointed out one or two will issue a half-hearted single sentence condemnation of the Christian nutbar in question and then quickly return to complaining about atheists.
 
2011-04-14 08:35:56 AM  

InfidelSavant: untaken_name: Gawdzila: Who says there is no right or wrong just because we don't believe in a God?

No, I say there is no right and wrong because no one can prove the existence of right and wrong. They can provide only subjective definitions. Sorry, but as a rational person I don't believe in imaginary concepts. I only believe in what I can prove, or what someone else can prove that I could, with enough time and inclination, replicate. Any other position is irrational.

You're not a rational person. You're a troll. Otherwise known as a dick.


^This^ Anyone that says there is no right or wrong is either a sociopath or a troll, I'm reluctant to call it pure stupidity but it could be that as well.
 
2011-04-14 08:36:43 AM  
Example:

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: "And they get so offended if you point out that atheism is just another religion. If you spend your time in an atheist group talking about how much you love being an atheist and setting up tables to convert other people to atheism then for that person, atheism is a religion."

No condemnation of the Christian nutter, complaints about atheism following a prime example of Christian misbehavior. It's also the sort of language that convinces me he's a douchebag with no interest in understanding what atheists think, only in shiatting all over them from a great height. When someone says something like this I lose all respect for them and go out of my way to avoid ever interacting with them again.
 
2011-04-14 08:37:26 AM  

Zamboro: I like how Christians immediately set about complaining about atheists in a thread concerning a Christian student who flipped out on atheists and then assaulted a police officer.

Literally every article about Christian misbehavior on Fark is full of Christians complaining about atheists. When this is pointed out one or two will issue a half-hearted single sentence condemnation of the Christian nutbar in question and then quickly return to complaining about atheists.


If their natural reaction to contrary information wasn't some form of active dissonance, how else could they maintain their belief in ineffectual religious superstition?
 
2011-04-14 08:39:49 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: doglover: Atheist groups are weird.

And they get so offended if you point out that atheism is just another religion. If you spend your time in an atheist group talking about how much you love being an atheist and setting up tables to convert other people to atheism then for that person, atheism is a religion.


By your definition, if I like hockey, set up tables to recruit people to play hockey, then hockey is a religion.

Except it isn't. Words mean something.
 
2011-04-14 08:43:24 AM  

untaken_name: Where do atheist morals come from?


Where do religious morals come from? A book? The Bible says that if you marry, and the woman is not a virgin, the man is commanded to murder her. Does anyone believe this anymore? No. Both Christians and Jews reject this idea, so they don't get their morality form the Bible either.

So where do religious morals come from? It's not the Bible. They reject the Bible. So where do they come from?
 
2011-04-14 08:44:29 AM  
iollow: "Words mean something."

Yeah, but the more we defend themselves the more they'll dance about madly, shrieking in delight at our attempts to defend ourselves and how it must mean they're right. It's farking playground tactics.

These are rotten people. There is no reasoning with them. The mere mention of atheism makes their deep seated insecurities about the validity of their belief system flare up. Rather than deal with that through introspection and reconsideration of the evidence, they interpret it as offense, such that no matter how mildly our arguments are stated they'll react as if we ran over their dog. Hence their habit of dumping on atheists at the drop of a hat even when the article is about another Christian just like them dumping on atheists. :\
 
2011-04-14 08:45:21 AM  
Me "Yeah, but the more we defend themselves ourselves"

farking 5:45 in the morning, how does it work.
 
2011-04-14 08:49:24 AM  

Space_Poet: untaken_name: Where do atheist morals come from?

Intelligence and common sense. Common sense dictates that I shouldn't harm others, now, how far do we take that? Me? I'm a huge environmentalist and animal person, not only do I feel it is immoral to harm people I feel it is also immoral to harm the Earth and the animals that live on it. See, I'm already more moral than most religious people I know. You should be able to deduce the rest for yourself. Or perhaps not.


A person doesn't need religion to understand morality. Some of the morals the Abrahamic religions (Christian, Judaism, Islam) teach are to not murder people, don't steal, don't lie, and don't commit adultery. However, anyone who is a member of a community knows these ideas. Take the idea of murdering a person. There are only 2 options for a society...either murdering a person is acceptable or murdering a person is not acceptable. In every society on Earth, murdering a person is not acceptable. It is not acceptable in Korea, Japan, China, Singapore, Thailand, India, Russia, Iran, the Middle East, Europe, Africa, North America, South America, and Hawaii. A person doesn't need to be a member of a religious group to understand this. Who wants to live with a murder?...or a thief?...or a liar?...or a adulter? It is a simple idea. Further, anyone who does bad behavior would be ostracized from the group. Their behavior will have negative consequences.

Humans (homo sapiens) have been on Earth and living in groups for ~150,000 years. For 99% of the time humans have been on Earth, they did not have the Abrahamic religions to teach them morality (they learned morality on their own), but somehow they survived...praying to the wrong Gods and living immoral lives. Funny!
 
2011-04-14 08:51:55 AM  

iollow: untaken_name: Where do atheist morals come from?

Where do religious morals come from? A book? The Bible says that if you marry, and the woman is not a virgin, the man is commanded to murder her. Does anyone believe this anymore? No. Both Christians and Jews reject this idea, so they don't get their morality form the Bible either.

So where do religious morals come from? It's not the Bible. They reject the Bible. So where do they come from?


Who wants to live with a murder, or a thief? A person doesn't need a twisted rulebook to figure this out.
 
2011-04-14 08:58:37 AM  
Wade Duvall, who was also working at the table, walked away from the table to call police. Duvall, a graduate student studying physics, first called the Tech Police non-emergency number.

"They told me to hang up and call 911," Duvall said.


Really? Someone is stabbing himself with a pen and you don't first consider that an emergency situation?
 
2011-04-14 09:04:31 AM  

Gunther: untaken_name: I don't care that they're subjective. I'm just tired of people telling me they're somehow objective when they aren't. If everyone just admitted that they were moral relativists subject to situational ethics I wouldn't have any problem. I'm just tired of people who reject one imaginary concept only to replace it with another.

Moral relativism doesn't exist, though. If you honestly believe that morality is relative, then you have to agree that my belief that morality is objective is just as true as your belief that morality is relative. If you don't, it proves you think that moral relativism is objectively more true than moral objectivism, and are thus a moral objectivist yourself. Hence; there is no such thing as moral relativism, and morality is objective.


Hoooold on chief, I have to call you on that one. Morality is clearly relative.

All morality is a product of the period and culture in which it exists. There are those who say slavery, human sacrifice, and cannibalism are all "immoral", but really it is a product of our current culture.

Like many things, morality evolves. What used to be acceptable behavior in society no longer is, and just because something is moral/immoral in modern society does not make it absolutely so. One example I would cite is "child sexual abuse". In early society, women were often married (or the contemporary societal equivalent) not long after the onset of puberty. Even as late as the Victorian age, marriage at ages under 18 was more the rule than the exception, and generally to an older male partner. Today that would in many cases be seen as abuse or molestation.

Likewise, holding hands in public was a big deal in Victorian England, and to do so before a proper period of engagement was considered immoral. So was an unmarried couple spending time together unchaperoned. Today, not so much.

Now, most core concepts of morality remain largely unchanged throughout time. Murder, Theft, Deception, for example have always been immoral, though under some circumstances allowed (dueling for example). Rape is immoral by western standards, but in some cultures it is an accepted legal punishment. I think it's ridiculous, but to those cultures it is not. They view my lack of respect for God as immoral, so we're even I suppose.

We view concepts like slavery, human sacrifice, etc. through the lens of history. I wonder what practices we have in modern society which will be viewed similarly in 2000 years. Capital punishment? Capitalism? Gambling? Obesity? Who knows?
 
2011-04-14 09:05:37 AM  

iollow: untaken_name: Where do atheist morals come from?

Where do religious morals come from? A book? The Bible says that if you marry, and the woman is not a virgin, the man is commanded to murder her. Does anyone believe this anymore? No. Both Christians and Jews reject this idea, so they don't get their morality form the Bible either.

So where do religious morals come from? It's not the Bible. They reject the Bible. So where do they come from?


You're not serious, are you? Have you read the same book you promote, how, pray tell, did you come to preach/like the passages you like, and abhor and rationalize the ones you don't, since it was not always the practice to rationalize all that you do? How pray tell is it that the phenomena, so many follow, of the "living (basically culturally evolving) word" works? I'd say slowly but surely reason and logic cause religious infighting which changes the inner culture that over the ages rationalizes once accepted , now barbaric, practices of their own religion as now "incorrect." If it were a de-facto book of rules written by a supreme intelligence about things that are objective, this wouldn't happen, ever, but it's not even close to that, its not even mediocre, and it typically changes in the conservative majority only after other elements of society have already deemed that something is inequitable or accused of inequity when it's equitable, how is that a guide instead of a following?
 
2011-04-14 09:10:45 AM  

Kome: Wade Duvall, who was also working at the table, walked away from the table to call police. Duvall, a graduate student studying physics, first called the Tech Police non-emergency number.

"They told me to hang up and call 911," Duvall said.

Really? Someone is stabbing himself with a pen and you don't first consider that an emergency situation?


To be fair, he probably reasoned that the campus cops were closer and might actually DO something more quickly
 
2011-04-14 09:11:06 AM  

Kome: Really? Someone is stabbing himself with a pen and you don't first consider that an emergency situation?


This is Virginia Tech, they've seen some S that better defines "emergency situation" than a wackjob jabbing himself with a pen.
 
2011-04-14 09:12:15 AM  

untaken_name: Where do atheist morals come from?


Same place they came from before the 1000's of religions were invented by man. From society.

/when a man wrote your magic book he used societies morals of the time
//that is why slavery is supported in both the old and new testaments of the bible
/current society does not need cave man morals
 
2011-04-14 09:13:12 AM  
So will this wackadoodle be put on a list to not be able to buy a gun? Or will we be reading about his shooting rampage at a later date?

/member of the don't-let-crazy-people-have-guns coalition
 
2011-04-14 09:14:01 AM  

sip111: iollow: untaken_name: Where do atheist morals come from?

Where do religious morals come from? A book? The Bible says that if you marry, and the woman is not a virgin, the man is commanded to murder her. Does anyone believe this anymore? No. Both Christians and Jews reject this idea, so they don't get their morality form the Bible either.

So where do religious morals come from? It's not the Bible. They reject the Bible. So where do they come from?

You're not serious, are you? Have you read the same book you promote, how, pray tell, did you come to preach/like the passages you like, and abhor and rationalize the ones you don't, since it was not always the practice to rationalize all that you do? How pray tell is it that the phenomena, so many follow, of the "living (basically culturally evolving) word" works? I'd say slowly but surely reason and logic cause religious infighting which changes the inner culture that over the ages rationalizes once accepted , now barbaric, practices of their own religion as now "incorrect." If it were a de-facto book of rules written by a supreme intelligence about things that are objective, this wouldn't happen, ever, but it's not even close to that, its not even mediocre, and it typically changes in the conservative majority only after other elements of society have already deemed that something is inequitable or accused of inequity when it's equitable, how is that a guide instead of a following?


I've read it three times and I still don't see how you're countering his point, or even addressing his point. Did you quote the right person?
 
2011-04-14 09:20:33 AM  
Did anyone else notice that the kids at the atheist table major in things like physics and psychology, while the Christian kids major in bullshiat like communications and "university studies"?