Not Praying for the Redskins Tomorrow

FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Not Praying for the Redskins Tomorrow

I would like to state for the record that I will not be praying for the Redskins to win tomorrow.  Therefore, if the Redskins lose, which they will, it will be y'alls fault because you don't believe in G-d and you didn't pray for them to win.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

You wrote "All G-d demands of you is that you not be a putz".

If that's true , why did he provide such piss-poor examples of how not to be a putz in the Torah?

Because we're not Christians =or= Muslims.

We aren't supposed to emulate the flawed people in the Torah, we're supposed to learn from their mistakes and NOT repeat them.  But unlike Christians and Muslims, we simply don't pretend that people are perfect.  You make a mistake, you clean up after your mistake, you learn from your mistake, you do your best not to repeat the mistake.

I'm not talking about the flawed people - I'm talking about the flawed God.

You don't follow a "belief" religion but you believe in a God? How the heck does that work?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

You wrote "All G-d demands of you is that you not be a putz".

If that's true , why did he provide such piss-poor examples of how not to be a putz in the Torah?

Because we're not Christians =or= Muslims.

We aren't supposed to emulate the flawed people in the Torah, we're supposed to learn from their mistakes and NOT repeat them.  But unlike Christians and Muslims, we simply don't pretend that people are perfect.  You make a mistake, you clean up after your mistake, you learn from your mistake, you do your best not to repeat the mistake.

YOU don't behave that way because we have had 200 plus years of secular pluralism in the west, not because of your holy book or any for that matter.  Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson  had more to do with why you behave in a civil manor than any holy book.

Those stories reflected the morality of the people of that time. Which is why that God character gave permission to the Hebrews of that time permission to invade opposing tribes AND take their women and girls as sex slaves or slaves because that was the reality in most of the ancient cultures of that time, even outside the Hebrews, that is what you did when you defeated an enemy.

Seems to me you ARE CLAIMING to be better than Christians or Muslims by virtue of saying "I am not one of them" Yes you are, you all have the same head character and you all have the same literary bloodline, and even your literary myth is not original. They stole their characters and stories from the Hebrews and the Hebrews stole their Character names and motifs from prior polytheism.

And the attitude all three of you have in saying "I'm not like the others" is exactly what is causing our current mess. Talk about repeating mistakes.

None of the major three want to consider that since those three major holy books are vastly interpreted so differently, and all three claim "chosen people" like gang minions, all three of you don't want to face how inherently divisive it is. Talk about repeating mistakes.

"CHOSEN PEOPLE" is what the  problem is and all three of you, and don't lie to me and say Israel isn't important and Jews should not have their own land. 

Religion is merely a magical superstitious form of politics. It sets humans up to be divided. Considering that Jews and Muslims and Christians have never had one lick of peace in any of their history, you have got to be joking if you think you aren't at least trying to claim you are better than they are.

Quote:
But unlike Christians and Muslims, we simply don't pretend that people are perfect

YES YOU DO which is why you fight and cant get along. Don't try to swap terms and think I wont catch that. "pefect" no what you mean to say is "I make mistakes, BUT I am better than they are because I am Jewish".

ALL of you think you are better than the other. You all think daddy loves you best and all of you think falsely that there really is a god up in the sky who values you fighting over him. And all three of you base it on the same god of Abraham. You claiming to be first and they copied you only makes you sound more sanctimonious and smug which is what you think they are.

And your god is ALSO a spin off of the Canaanite polytheist god Yahweh who was a lesser god under the head god El in the divine family of the Canaanites.

You think you are better than Christians AND Muslims otherwise you wouldn't be Jewish. They think the same way about you otherwise they would be Jewish and all of you are screwed in the head because you let your books of myth rule you.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5879
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Furry, you do pretend that

Furry, you do pretend that your imagined G-d is perfect, do you not? Or at least some sort of reference or guide as to what is 'good' or 'right'?

Or else what is your basis for deciding what sort of behaviour makes you a "putz"?

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
And when I say "screwed in

And when I say "screwed in the head" it is a societal climate on all parts over the history of the three in the failure to see that what is supposed to be a cure all(each claims) has not born out at all ever.

That is because human evolution is at work here, not a magical god. People flock to like minded people and they make up myths to center themselves around and rally around.

It has only been in the past couple of centuries that governments in the west  have put laws in place to force religion to be civil to each other.

It is why you and I and a Muslim and a Christian, here in the states and many western countries can live side by side without killing each other. Unlike Israel and Palistine and even unlike Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq. It is because we base our laws, not on religion, we base it on common law. When Israel and their Jews and Palestine and their Muslims get to that point, you have much more peace.

Give up on thinking you are special or chosen. I would tell them the same.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Because we're not Christians =or= Muslims.

We aren't supposed to emulate the flawed people in the Torah, we're supposed to learn from their mistakes and NOT repeat them.  But unlike Christians and Muslims, we simply don't pretend that people are perfect.  You make a mistake, you clean up after your mistake, you learn from your mistake, you do your best not to repeat the mistake.

I'm not talking about the flawed people - I'm talking about the flawed God.

You don't follow a "belief" religion but you believe in a God? How the heck does that work?

Do you really think that belief in some supreme being matters in the least for what should be good and proper behavior?  Like, "I'm sorry, I don't believe in your god, so I get to treat people like dirt and that's perfectly okay because I don't believe in your god!"

Or are their standards of ethical conduct that should apply to all people, regardless of whether or not they believe in some god or other?

If you agree that there are standards of ethical conduct that should apply =regardless= of ones belief (or not) in god and/or gods, we're on the same page.  I just happen to believe G-d exists.  You don't.  Same universally applicable standards of ethical conduct, different beliefs about the existence (or not) of G-d.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:Furry, you

BobSpence wrote:

Furry, you do pretend that your imagined G-d is perfect, do you not? Or at least some sort of reference or guide as to what is 'good' or 'right'?

Or else what is your basis for deciding what sort of behaviour makes you a "putz"?

Well, let's see.  One of the Seven Laws of Noah that applies to you, whether you like it or not, is not murdering people.  Plan on murdering anyone any time soon?  If you can refrain from murdering anyone, whether you've planned to or not, you've managed to nail one of the seven laws you're not allowed to break.

There are six more.  If you can agree that murdering people is a bad idea, we can tackle the other six, but first we have to agree that you think murder is a bad idea.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:"CHOSEN

Brian37 wrote:

"CHOSEN PEOPLE" is what the  problem is and all three of you, and don't lie to me and say Israel isn't important and Jews should not have their own land.

LOL!  Quit being a fucking anti-Semite.

Jews are "chosen" for this task -- telling you that you have to treat people with respect and dignity, regardless of what you happen to think about you and your pet god, gods, or no-god.

That's it!  That's what we're "chosen" for.

If you want to be "chosen", you too can be "chosen".  It's not a closed club.  It's just one that tends to get you killed for standing up to tyrants, kinda like the current holiday season -- the Greeks occupied Israel and tried to force us to become more "Greek".  We kicked their asses 2,100+ years ago and I'd be more than happy to assist doing it again today.

Happy Hannukah.

Go Judah Maccabi!

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Because we're not Christians =or= Muslims.

We aren't supposed to emulate the flawed people in the Torah, we're supposed to learn from their mistakes and NOT repeat them.  But unlike Christians and Muslims, we simply don't pretend that people are perfect.  You make a mistake, you clean up after your mistake, you learn from your mistake, you do your best not to repeat the mistake.

I'm not talking about the flawed people - I'm talking about the flawed God.

You don't follow a "belief" religion but you believe in a God? How the heck does that work?

Do you really think that belief in some supreme being matters in the least for what should be good and proper behavior?  Like, "I'm sorry, I don't believe in your god, so I get to treat people like dirt and that's perfectly okay because I don't believe in your god!"

Or are their standards of ethical conduct that should apply to all people, regardless of whether or not they believe in some god or other?

If you agree that there are standards of ethical conduct that should apply =regardless= of ones belief (or not) in god and/or gods, we're on the same page.  I just happen to believe G-d exists.  You don't.  Same universally applicable standards of ethical conduct, different beliefs about the existence (or not) of G-d.

There are standards of ethical conduct such as you describe and your holy book is full of examples of your God not following them.  You're saying that your god gets to treat people like dirt and that's perfectly okay because he's God.

This is why I and others have said that the majority of humans are more moral than the Abrahamic God.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5879
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
My starting point for

My starting point for minimal morality would be "Do NOT do to others what you would NOT wish done to you" - The negative "Golden Rule".

A minimum for a functional social group. 

A naturally evolved behaviour driven by our "mirror neurons", among other brain structures.

This encompasses all the special and extreme cases such as "murder". It also covers rape and torture, which divine edicts typically do not. 

So it is a more soundly based and universal starting point than some God crap, and is almost self-evident.

====

So, Furry, where you believe the "Seven Laws of Noah" came from? That is the question.

What is their basis, their justification.

I see no point in making a 'sin' of idolatry.

Blasphemy is entirely fine with me - the virtue of throwing insults rather than stones is so fundamental, that "G-d" should set an example and ignore such things.

"Sexual Immorality" is not a well-conceived concept. Sexual behaviour should also be covered by the NGR. 

Those aspects that are not should not be considered wrong. That includes adultery - what makes it 'wrong' is if is known by the parties involved that a third party would be distressed if they knew. That conditionality could be applied as an extension generally. IOW, if real consent is guaranteed in such matters, and all significant unwanted consequences are avoided, "anything goes". Making that a 'sin' just demonstrates a 'hang-up' on the part of the one who sees it as such.

"Eating a living animal" should  be addressed by reasonable extension of the NGR to encompass other living creatures, and should apply not just to eating, but causing any sort of unnecessary distress.

Obviously we need to keep 'tweaking' and extending the principle, to cover the case of necessary restraint, maybe violent restraint, of someone who appears determined to inflict pain and suffering on another, or even yourself.

Of course, a 'system of justice' is the most fully defensible 'law' of the lot.

The rest are either too narrow, or based too much on primitive taboos.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:My starting

BobSpence wrote:

My starting point for minimal morality would be "Do NOT do to others what you would NOT wish done to you" - The negative "Golden Rule".

A minimum for a functional social group. 

A naturally evolved behaviour driven by our "mirror neurons", among other brain structures.

This encompasses all the special and extreme cases such as "murder". It also covers rape and torture, which divine edicts typically do not. 

So it is a more soundly based and universal starting point than some God crap, and is almost self-evident.

Well, if you think G-d is a bunch of crap, kindly refrain from quoting Rabbi Hillel.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5879
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

My starting point for minimal morality would be "Do NOT do to others what you would NOT wish done to you" - The negative "Golden Rule".

A minimum for a functional social group. 

A naturally evolved behaviour driven by our "mirror neurons", among other brain structures.

This encompasses all the special and extreme cases such as "murder". It also covers rape and torture, which divine edicts typically do not. 

So it is a more soundly based and universal starting point than some God crap, and is almost self-evident.

Well, if you think G-d is a bunch of crap, kindly refrain from quoting Rabbi Hillel.

G-d IS a 'bunch of crap', as a BELIEF.

That rule in various forms is not original with Hillel, and I wasn't aware that that expression of it was copyright...

And anyway, I never said or implied that everything that people say, who accept God, or G-d, or Allah, etc, is inherently a bunch of crap, so your comment is a non-sequiter.

So if you can show me where that sentiment is expressed in the Torah in some plausible and fairly explicit form, I will be interested. Truly.

Whatever, doesn't make Noah's stuff adequate as a moral code, as an alternative to what I described.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence

BobSpence wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Well, if you think G-d is a bunch of crap, kindly refrain from quoting Rabbi Hillel.

G-d IS a 'bunch of crap', as a BELIEF.

That rule in various forms is not original with Hillel, and I wasn't aware that that expression of it was copyright...

And anyway, I never said or implied that everything that people say, who accept God, or G-d, or Allah, etc, is inherently a bunch of crap, so your comment is a non-sequiter.

So if you can show me where that sentiment is expressed in the Torah in some plausible and fairly explicit form, I will be interested. Truly.

Whatever, doesn't make Noah's stuff adequate as a moral code, as an alternative to what I described.

Trying really hard to avoid getting "Torah" kooties!

Rabbi Hillel's quote was his summation of the entire Torah -- you'd have to hide your head in a large pile of dirt to avoid knowing the origins.

You'd make a fine Jew -- you write "G-d" with a dash, quote Hillel, have a beard, wear hats,  like to argue with Jews and don't believe in G-d.  That would describe a lot of Yeshivish guys I've run into.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Well, if you think G-d is a bunch of crap, kindly refrain from quoting Rabbi Hillel.

G-d IS a 'bunch of crap', as a BELIEF.

That rule in various forms is not original with Hillel, and I wasn't aware that that expression of it was copyright...

And anyway, I never said or implied that everything that people say, who accept God, or G-d, or Allah, etc, is inherently a bunch of crap, so your comment is a non-sequiter.

So if you can show me where that sentiment is expressed in the Torah in some plausible and fairly explicit form, I will be interested. Truly.

Whatever, doesn't make Noah's stuff adequate as a moral code, as an alternative to what I described.

Trying really hard to avoid getting "Torah" kooties!

Rabbi Hillel's quote was his summation of the entire Torah -- you'd have to hide your head in a large pile of dirt to avoid knowing the origins.

You'd make a fine Jew -- you write "G-d" with a dash, quote Hillel, have a beard, wear hats,  like to argue with Jews and don't believe in G-d.  That would describe a lot of Yeshivish guys I've run into.

Furry, we think ALL diety claims be they Thor or Isis or Allah or Yahweh are all crap claims. We think any form of woo is crap. Your Torah is merely a rip off of prior polytheism. It is NOT special to us so no, we are not afraid of getting cooties from it anymore than we could get cooties reading Harry Potter.

And there is no way around it if you are basing your life on a book of myth, regardless of how you spin it you are STILL basing your life on a myth.

At least when I look at that Redskin's facepalm avatar I don't pretend that the NFL is my God or that the Redskins are it's "chosen people".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Furry, we

Brian37 wrote:

Furry, we think ALL diety claims be they Thor or Isis or Allah or Yahweh are all crap claims. We think any form of woo is crap. Your Torah is merely a rip off of prior polytheism. It is NOT special to us so no, we are not afraid of getting cooties from it anymore than we could get cooties reading Harry Potter.

And there is no way around it if you are basing your life on a book of myth, regardless of how you spin it you are STILL basing your life on a myth.

At least when I look at that Redskin's facepalm avatar I don't pretend that the NFL is my God or that the Redskins are it's "chosen people".

The Torah was beyond revolutionary in its day.  There are rights in the Torah that very few countries =today= have embraced that would make the planet a far better place than it is 3,500 years after G-d gave it to us.

But, if its a myth, it's a myth worth believing and bringing into reality, so myth or not, I'll stick with the Torah and you stick with hoping people figure out how to treat each other with no "myth" to guide them and no G-d to tell them to do it.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5879
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Thanks, Furry, for

Thanks, Furry, for effectively confirming that it isn't in the Torah, but only some individual's subjective attachment of an already established principle onto it.

It certainly doesn't make the Laws of Noah a decent moral code.

Your persistent dodging or ignoring of the substantive issues I raise is becoming just a touch irritating. 'Clever' comments don't really make up for that.

BTW, the skipper of the dive boat that took us a diving holiday on the Red Sea in the early 1990's was a David Hillel, IIRC. The boat worked out of Eilat.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:Thanks,

BobSpence wrote:

Thanks, Furry, for effectively confirming that it isn't in the Torah, but only some individual's subjective attachment of an already established principle onto it.

It certainly doesn't make the Laws of Noah a decent moral code.

Your persistent dodging or ignoring of the substantive issues I raise is becoming just a touch irritating. 'Clever' comments don't really make up for that.

BTW, the skipper of the dive boat that took us a diving holiday on the Red Sea in the early 1990's was a David Hillel, IIRC. The boat worked out of Eilat.

Bob,

I don't "dodge" anyones posts, unless they are buried under too many other replies.

Remember -- I'm just one little Jew.  There are a fuck-load of Atheists here who seem to enjoy a nice rousing game of "Pile On The Jew!"

And I'm unclear on what I was confirming wasn't in the Torah -- was that a good thing or a bad thing?!?

As for the Laws of Noach, no, they really are a very good moral code, not that my opinion on the subject matters since I'm not G-d.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

Furry, you do pretend that your imagined G-d is perfect, do you not? Or at least some sort of reference or guide as to what is 'good' or 'right'?

Or else what is your basis for deciding what sort of behaviour makes you a "putz"?

Well, let's see.  One of the Seven Laws of Noah that applies to you, whether you like it or not, is not murdering people.  Plan on murdering anyone any time soon?  If you can refrain from murdering anyone, whether you've planned to or not, you've managed to nail one of the seven laws you're not allowed to break.

There are six more.  If you can agree that murdering people is a bad idea, we can tackle the other six, but first we have to agree that you think murder is a bad idea.

These 7 laws generally apply to those that believe in your god but are not Jews.

Most atheists would not be able to meet at least one of these laws; Blasphemy of the god.

Many would fail on the adultery law as well.

The others are mostly incorporated one way or the other.

If you do not buy into your god, then it matters little. In addition, following these rules does not do anything for you if you don't become a Jew in any event other than possibly improving interrelationships with others.

Many 100s of years before these laws appear, there was Hammurabi's Code. Much more complex with penalties as well. Based on earlier ideas in Sumer and Akkad.

Generally my view is if someone needs to follow a god to get through life I rather it be from Judaism. It does present a good way to live despite having the belief in a fantasy being.

Don't take this to mean I agree with accepting the belief in fantasy, rather it is recognition that some people are weak willed unable to grasp how to live amicably with others.

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Once again the Redskins

Once again the Redskins wheels come off in the 4th quarter against the Vikings. I hope Grossman's interception spells the end of his stay after this season.

I am glad that the Eagles beat the Cowboys. I'd hate to think how much worse it will be next week when we play the Eagles if they had lost, even though I am not holding my breath.

The Skins have some hope for next year. We have some awesome running backs. We simply need a decent offensive line, a better 3rd down defense and better passing defense, and better 4th quarter play. But I am so sick of the Skins not having a balanced game and not winning when we really need to.

I am sick of "Maybe next year".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5879
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

Thanks, Furry, for effectively confirming that it isn't in the Torah, but only some individual's subjective attachment of an already established principle onto it.

It certainly doesn't make the Laws of Noah a decent moral code.

Your persistent dodging or ignoring of the substantive issues I raise is becoming just a touch irritating. 'Clever' comments don't really make up for that.

BTW, the skipper of the dive boat that took us a diving holiday on the Red Sea in the early 1990's was a David Hillel, IIRC. The boat worked out of Eilat.

Bob,

I don't "dodge" anyones posts, unless they are buried under too many other replies.

Remember -- I'm just one little Jew.  There are a fuck-load of Atheists here who seem to enjoy a nice rousing game of "Pile On The Jew!"

And I'm unclear on what I was confirming wasn't in the Torah -- was that a good thing or a bad thing?!?

As for the Laws of Noach, no, they really are a very good moral code, not that my opinion on the subject matters since I'm not G-d.

I was not referring to you dodging posts, but dodging particular questions in posts you did respond to in some way.

By not pointing to a passage in the Torah which expressed the sentiment of the Negative Golden Rule, also called the 'Silver Rule', ie "Do not do ...", you make me think there isn't any such passage. Why would you not if you knew there was such a passage? Most the other "laws", of which there are 613 in one group, as I understand, are fairly explicit.

It is explicit in Hinduism:

Quote:

One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. — Brihaspati, Mahabharata (Anusasana Parva, Section CXIII, Verse Cool

and from Confucius:

Quote:

Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself. - Analects XV.24 (tr. David Hinton)

And: 

Wikipedia wrote:

The Old Testament Deuterocanonical books of Tobit and Sirach, accepted as part of the Scriptural canon by Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the Non-Chalcedonian Churches, also express a negative form of the golden rule:

"Do to no one what you yourself dislike."

—Tobit 4:15

"Recognize that your neighbor feels as you do, and keep in mind your own dislikes."

—Sirach 31:15

At the time of Hillel, an elder contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth, the negative form of the golden rule already must have been proverbial, perhaps because of Tobit 4:15. When asked to sum up the entire Torah concisely, he answered:

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."

—Talmud, Shabbat 31a

So I will say Hillel was NOT the origin of that 'rule'. And it is NOT in the Torah, but is in other texts. So thumbs down to your Torah, although kudos to Hillel for expressing what does indeed deserve to be regarded as the first principle of moral behavior, and had even then been long acknowledged as such in many cultures.

EDIT: Seems to me he was perceptive enough to realize it was not expressed explicitly in the Torah, so he tried to cover it in that way, which is not completely wrong, but a bit of a stretch, IMHO. IOW he is saying that the Torah was inspired by the same core basis of morality as other codes. Which itself is easily accounted for as a natural instinct, no God or G-d required. Ideas of 'God' are apparently a workable psychological mechanism which can make it easier to build a narrative encouraging what is considered moral behaviour in various cultures. IOW, God, and G-d, are derivative from nature, not the other way round.

Maybe there are good reasons why Judaism is way the smallest belief group among major categories across the world, including the varieties of 'non-belief' (about the third largest)...

=======

Now to the more fundamental issue, assuming their is a 'G-d', how do you distinguish what ideas are from him, and what are not? And what makes G-d automatically 'right'? Argument from Authority?

We have empathy. Even 'higher' non-human creatures have it to varying extents. Both 'rules', positive and negative, are expressions of that fact, which is pretty much essential for a higher functional social species. From a naturalist perspective, their origin is a 'no-brainer'.

Why do feel you need  a 'g-d' to prescribe it to you? Even when it seems he didn't express either version in clear terms, unlike appeared in some other traditions.

Seems I have to do my own research on your cult, especially if I want something with a bit of depth and context. Pity.

====

Now to get back to more serious topics, about the Redskins - they do seem to have a problem, but I will have to have further discussions with Brian37 about this....

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence

BobSpence wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Bob,

I don't "dodge" anyones posts, unless they are buried under too many other replies.

Remember -- I'm just one little Jew.  There are a fuck-load of Atheists here who seem to enjoy a nice rousing game of "Pile On The Jew!"

And I'm unclear on what I was confirming wasn't in the Torah -- was that a good thing or a bad thing?!?

As for the Laws of Noach, no, they really are a very good moral code, not that my opinion on the subject matters since I'm not G-d.

I was not referring to you dodging posts, but dodging particular questions in posts you did respond to in some way.

Sorry -- I have limited time and the general tendency here is towards these giant mega-posts, which seem to serve only one purpose: drowning ones opponents.

Quote:
By not pointing to a passage in the Torah which expressed the sentiment of the Negative Golden Rule, also called the 'Silver Rule', ie "Do not do ...", you make me think there isn't any such passage. Why would you not if you knew there was such a passage? Most the other "laws", of which there are 613 in one group, as I understand, are fairly explicit.

Because we don't just have a WRITTEN Torah, we also have an ORAL one.  The oral tradition started being written down in the 3rd century of the common era by Rabbi Judah Ha'Nasi ("Rabbi Judah the Prince" for English-speakers) when it started to look like the Roman might manage to kill too many of us for the =oral= tradition to be passed down.

There's also the matter than "Torah" has a number of meanings -- it can mean the five books Moses wrote, the entire Tanakh ("Hebrew Bible&quotEye-wink, the Tanakh and Talmud, etc.  Now, a story.

One Sabbath night the local Rabbi and his wife are engaged in conjugal relations when the Rabbi hears a noise from underneath bed.  The Rabbi gets out of bed, gets down on the floor, and sees that one of his students is under the bed, scribbling notes.  The Rabbi asks his student what the heck he's doing and the student responds "This too is Torah".

Quote:
It is explicit in Hinduism:

It's explicit in Judaism as well, and far more explicit than in Hinduism, which is a horribly backwards religion, littered with caste-based inequities.

Num 15:15   One ordinance [shall be both] for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth [with you], an ordinance for ever in your generations: as ye [are], so shall the stranger be before the LORD.

 

Quote:
One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. — Brihaspati, Mahabharata (Anusasana Parva, Section CXIII, Verse 8)

Unless they are the wrong caste.  Don't forget that part.

BobSpence wrote:

and from Confucius:

Quote:

Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself. - Analects XV.24 (tr. David Hinton)

Unless they were in a different social class.

It's easy to have nice platitudes.  Try living them.

Quote:
So I will say Hillel was NOT the origin of that 'rule'. And it is NOT in the Torah, but is in other texts. So thumbs down to your Torah, although kudos to Hillel for expressing what does indeed deserve to be regarded as the first principle of moral behavior, and had even then been long acknowledged as such in many cultures.

Sure.  Acknowledged and =ignored= by them.  The Hindu caste system is still used -- 2,000 years after Hillel -- as a way to oppress the oppressible, even if it is illegal in modern India.

Quote:
EDIT: Seems to me he was perceptive enough to realize it was not expressed explicitly in the Torah, so he tried to cover it in that way, which is not completely wrong, but a bit of a stretch, IMHO. IOW he is saying that the Torah was inspired by the same core basis of morality as other codes. Which itself is easily accounted for as a natural instinct, no God or G-d required. Ideas of 'God' are apparently a workable psychological mechanism which can make it easier to build a narrative encouraging what is considered moral behaviour in various cultures. IOW, God, and G-d, are derivative from nature, not the other way round.

Well ... I'd argue that G-d is =essential= to expressing moral and ethical values, otherwise "Might Makes Right", "Eat The Poor" and "I Got Mine, F*ck You" might also be produced.  Nature only requires that one pass their genes along, not that Society as whole evolves.  So long as the Haves make sure their loin-fruit get to Have Theirs, genes get to do the gene thing.  THAT is Nature.

Quote:
Now to the more fundamental issue, assuming their is a 'G-d', how do you distinguish what ideas are from him, and what are not? And what makes G-d automatically 'right'? Argument from Authority?

G-d created the Universe, G-d gets to make the rules.  Don't like them?  Move to a different Universe.

Quote:
We have empathy. Even 'higher' non-human creatures have it to varying extents. Both 'rules', positive and negative, are expressions of that fact, which is pretty much essential for a higher functional social species. From a naturalist perspective, their origin is a 'no-brainer'.

I'd argue that =some= people have Empathy.  See much "Empathy" among the American Tea Party?  See much Empathy in NAZI Germany?  The Spanish Inquisition?  Islamic Conquests?  Roman Empire?  Jews have really long memories -- the Greeks, Persians, Assyrians, Babylonians =and= Egyptians didn't seem to have all that much Empathy.  Even Hammurabi, who gets drug out from time to time, seemed more concerned with bizarre proxy punishments -- if a merchant sells something and the buyer's daughter dies, the daughter of the merchant is killed.  Yeah, lots of that Empathy stuff.

Quote:
Why do feel you need  a 'g-d' to prescribe it to you? Even when it seems he didn't express either version in clear terms, unlike appeared in some other traditions.

Because we said it with a lot more words?  I dunno -- "Do not oppress the poor, the widow or the orphan" and "Do not oppress the stranger who lives in your midst" seems a lot better than the Hindu caste system.

Judaism has built-in Socialist values.  Found them much in Hinduism or Confucianism?  There are no basic human rights in Confucianism -- the poor should be "content".  As the Apostle James said,

Jam 2:15  

If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food

Jam 2:16  

And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed

and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit?

That's the Confucian approach -- "Be content to follow the way" ...

Quote:
Seems I have to do my own research on your cult, especially if I want something with a bit of depth and context. Pity.

If all you look for is fault, all you'll ever find is fault.

Quote:
Now to get back to more serious topics, about the Redskins - they do seem to have a problem, but I will have to have further discussions with Brian37 about this....

True, that.

As for the Saints, how about that Drew Brees?!?

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I am sick of

Brian37 wrote:

I am sick of "Maybe next year".

I've been a Saints fan since the late 1960's.

You'll live.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Brian37

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I am sick of "Maybe next year".

I've been a Saints fan since the late 1960's.

You'll live.

Says you.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder said: "G-d

FurryCatHerder said: "G-d created the Universe, G-d gets to make the rules.  Don't like them?  Move to a different Universe."

Do you enjoy being obnoxious?

FurryCatHerder said: "Well ... I'd argue that G-d is =essential= to expressing moral and ethical values, otherwise "Might Makes Right", "Eat The Poor" and "I Got Mine, F*ck You" might also be produced.  Nature only requires that one pass their genes along, not that Society as whole evolves.  So long as the Haves make sure their loin-fruit get to Have Theirs, genes get to do the gene thing.  THAT is Nature."

The three you mentioned already have been produced and, in many cases, religion was used to justify them. Because social groups exist in many species, we can infer that they provide an evolutionary advantage. For a social group to function and give that advantage, certain rules must be established and followed. Additionally, it is not always necessary to use force to ensure that these rules be obeyed. In fact, it may not be necessary to use force at all. For example, chimpanzees have been observed aiding each other despite not being forced to do so.

FurryCatHerder said: "I'd argue that =some= people have Empathy.  See much "Empathy" among the American Tea Party?  See much Empathy in NAZI Germany?  The Spanish Inquisition?  Islamic Conquests?  Roman Empire?  Jews have really long memories -- the Greeks, Persians, Assyrians, Babylonians =and= Egyptians didn't seem to have all that much Empathy.  Even Hammurabi, who gets drug out from time to time, seemed more concerned with bizarre proxy punishments -- if a merchant sells something and the buyer's daughter dies, the daughter of the merchant is killed.  Yeah, lots of that Empathy stuff."

Very few people are incapable of feeling empathy. I imagine the vast majority of the people you mentioned were/are capable of feeling empathy, they just did not feel empathy for the groups of people they oppressed, enslaved, and/or killed. There are a number of reasons for why they didn't. One of the most prevalent (especially during war) is the spread of propaganda claiming that the other side is somehow less than human. People are also very willing to obey authority--even to the point where they would kill someone else merely because they're told to. Look up the "Milgram Experiments" for proof of this.

Unfortunately, I am rather tired right now so sorry if my arguments are substandard.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915

blacklight915 wrote:

FurryCatHerder said: "G-d created the Universe, G-d gets to make the rules.  Don't like them?  Move to a different Universe."

Do you enjoy being obnoxious?

FurryCatHerder said: "Well ... I'd argue that G-d is =essential= to expressing moral and ethical values, otherwise "Might Makes Right", "Eat The Poor" and "I Got Mine, F*ck You" might also be produced.  Nature only requires that one pass their genes along, not that Society as whole evolves.  So long as the Haves make sure their loin-fruit get to Have Theirs, genes get to do the gene thing.  THAT is Nature."

The three you mentioned already have been produced and, in many cases, religion was used to justify them. Because social groups exist in many species, we can infer that they provide an evolutionary advantage. For a social group to function and give that advantage, certain rules must be established and followed. Additionally, it is not always necessary to use force to ensure that these rules be obeyed. In fact, it may not be necessary to use force at all. For example, chimpanzees have been observed aiding each other despite not being forced to do so.

FurryCatHerder said: "I'd argue that =some= people have Empathy.  See much "Empathy" among the American Tea Party?  See much Empathy in NAZI Germany?  The Spanish Inquisition?  Islamic Conquests?  Roman Empire?  Jews have really long memories -- the Greeks, Persians, Assyrians, Babylonians =and= Egyptians didn't seem to have all that much Empathy.  Even Hammurabi, who gets drug out from time to time, seemed more concerned with bizarre proxy punishments -- if a merchant sells something and the buyer's daughter dies, the daughter of the merchant is killed.  Yeah, lots of that Empathy stuff."

Very few people are incapable of feeling empathy. I imagine the vast majority of the people you mentioned were/are capable of feeling empathy, they just did not feel empathy for the groups of people they oppressed, enslaved, and/or killed. There are a number of reasons for why they didn't. One of the most prevalent (especially during war) is the spread of propaganda claiming that the other side is somehow less than human. People are also very willing to obey authority--even to the point where they would kill someone else merely because they're told to. Look up the "Milgram Experiments" for proof of this.

Unfortunately, I am rather tired right now so sorry if my arguments are substandard.

 

Just a little helpful advice, use the quote function it helps readers separate you from the person you are quoting.

Quote:
Did I think this, or type it

It should look like that.

You can either hit "quote" at the bottom of each post to quote them. Or you can copy select text and past it in your reply between the following code,

[quote.......]Put sentence here.[/quote.....]

Remove the periods above, keep the brackets and it should look like this

Quote:
Put sentence here

It seriously helps others read your posts better.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915

blacklight915 wrote:

FurryCatHerder said: "G-d created the Universe, G-d gets to make the rules.  Don't like them?  Move to a different Universe."

Do you enjoy being obnoxious?

How is that obnoxious?

You distinguish between physical and ethical laws.  I don't.  You don't like gravity much either?  Because there =are= Atheists who claim that the tendency to break bones (or die ...) when falling from great heights is proof that G-d is somehow "mean", but don't much think that failing to fly off into space if you jump really, really hard is a proof that G-d is somehow "nice".

blacklight915 wrote:
FurryCatHerder said: "Well ... I'd argue that G-d is =essential= to expressing moral and ethical values, otherwise "Might Makes Right", "Eat The Poor" and "I Got Mine, F*ck You" might also be produced.  Nature only requires that one pass their genes along, not that Society as whole evolves.  So long as the Haves make sure their loin-fruit get to Have Theirs, genes get to do the gene thing.  THAT is Nature."

The three you mentioned already have been produced and, in many cases, religion was used to justify them. Because social groups exist in many species, we can infer that they provide an evolutionary advantage. For a social group to function and give that advantage, certain rules must be established and followed. Additionally, it is not always necessary to use force to ensure that these rules be obeyed. In fact, it may not be necessary to use force at all. For example, chimpanzees have been observed aiding each other despite not being forced to do so.

"Religion" has been used to justify them because "Atheism" is a fairly modern concept.  And chimpanzees have also been observed killing each other.  Consistency, please.  Oh, and a cite --

http://mnmuller.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/19_muller_2007.pdf

Nature is horribly brutal.

blacklight915 wrote:
FurryCatHerder said: "I'd argue that =some= people have Empathy.  See much "Empathy" among the American Tea Party?  See much Empathy in NAZI Germany?  The Spanish Inquisition?  Islamic Conquests?  Roman Empire?  Jews have really long memories -- the Greeks, Persians, Assyrians, Babylonians =and= Egyptians didn't seem to have all that much Empathy.  Even Hammurabi, who gets drug out from time to time, seemed more concerned with bizarre proxy punishments -- if a merchant sells something and the buyer's daughter dies, the daughter of the merchant is killed.  Yeah, lots of that Empathy stuff."

Very few people are incapable of feeling empathy. I imagine the vast majority of the people you mentioned were/are capable of feeling empathy, they just did not feel empathy for the groups of people they oppressed, enslaved, and/or killed. There are a number of reasons for why they didn't. One of the most prevalent (especially during war) is the spread of propaganda claiming that the other side is somehow less than human. People are also very willing to obey authority--even to the point where they would kill someone else merely because they're told to. Look up the "Milgram Experiments" for proof of this.

Sounds like an excuse to me.  Or rather, sounds like "Empathy" is pretty weak if "Just following orders" is an excuse for not having any.

Milgram's experiments were aimed at determining if NAZI era behavior -- a pretty extreme example of NOT having empathy -- was an aberration or not.  What he claims was that it wasn't at all an aberration, that people are more interested in obeying orders than in demonstrating empathy.

(As an aside, having received shocks more than 100 times what Milgram set up in his experiments, I'd have gone all the way to the maximum voltage (450 volts), but only after asking what the current was.  Being shocked by 80,000 volts =hurts=, but I'm obviously still here ...)

I'm not convinced the Milgram experiments have anything to do with NAZI era behavior, or measuring "empathy" -- real people really were murdered, starting very early in NAZI Germany, as well as in the other examples I gave of people lacking empathy.  One married couple I know traces their family history, thanks to the Spanish Inquisition.  It seems the various governments which were involved liked to track Jews to make sure they stayed good little Catholics.  If they failed to stay good little Catholics, they were murdered.  My son has ancestors (obviously not on my side of the family ...) who were part of the largest mass burning at the stake in North America.  Very hard to say people who were burned alive weren't going to be harmed, which is what Milgram's participants were told.  In my family, I have branches of my family tree that disappear because the parts of Europe they lived in were utterly destroyed.  Another example where "no one is going to be harmed" is pretty hard to claim.

blacklight915 wrote:
Unfortunately, I am rather tired right now so sorry if my arguments are substandard.

That's okay.  I've not had coffee yet, so I'm not up to speed yet, either.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:FurryCatHerder

Brian37 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I am sick of "Maybe next year".

I've been a Saints fan since the late 1960's.

You'll live.

Says you.

You really =are= a whiner.  How many Superbowls have the Redskins won?  How many have the Saints?

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Brian37

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I am sick of "Maybe next year".

I've been a Saints fan since the late 1960's.

You'll live.

Says you.

You really =are= a whiner.  How many Superbowls have the Redskins won?  How many have the Saints?

If whining is good enough for Jews it is good enough for Redskins fans. We can be just as self deprecating. I am the Mel Brooks of Redskins fans. That was then and this is now, and the Saints right now make it to the playoffs far more often. 

I am the Redskins version of Fran Fine of "The Nanny". Oy and might I add, Vey! I am the Luis Black of Redskins fans.

I have a right to bitch about my Skins. M-Kay. You stick to the guilt trip motif and I'll stick to the paper bag. I'll gladly trade a playoff game for our sucksmanship.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Brian37

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I am sick of "Maybe next year".

I've been a Saints fan since the late 1960's.

You'll live.

From the womb, eh? Smiling

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I am sick of "Maybe next year".

I've been a Saints fan since the late 1960's.

You'll live.

From the womb, eh? Smiling

No, I was an Eagles fan from the womb.

I'm fickle that way.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:FurryCatHerder

Brian37 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

You really =are= a whiner.  How many Superbowls have the Redskins won?  How many have the Saints?

If whining is good enough for Jews it is good enough for Redskins fans. We can be just as self deprecating. I am the Mel Brooks of Redskins fans. That was then and this is now, and the Saints right now make it to the playoffs far more often. 

I am the Redskins version of Fran Fine of "The Nanny". Oy and might I add, Vey! I am the Luis Black of Redskins fans.

I have a right to bitch about my Skins. M-Kay. You stick to the guilt trip motif and I'll stick to the paper bag. I'll gladly trade a playoff game for our sucksmanship.

Dude.  The entire NFL draft system designed to insure that teams that win, stop winning, and teams that lose, stop losing.

How do you think I felt when I still lived in New Orleans and the Superbowl would come to town and WE WERE NEVER IN IT?  We'd get great draft picks, and our stupid coaches and management never did anything with them, then they'd leave and win Superbowls somewhere else?  Hmmmmm?

I'm convinced that if it weren't for Katrina, we'd still be an also-ran.  New Orleans has something to prove to the rest of the world.  I'm seriously thinking about moving back, after 26 years of not living there.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Brian37

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

You really =are= a whiner.  How many Superbowls have the Redskins won?  How many have the Saints?

If whining is good enough for Jews it is good enough for Redskins fans. We can be just as self deprecating. I am the Mel Brooks of Redskins fans. That was then and this is now, and the Saints right now make it to the playoffs far more often. 

I am the Redskins version of Fran Fine of "The Nanny". Oy and might I add, Vey! I am the Luis Black of Redskins fans.

I have a right to bitch about my Skins. M-Kay. You stick to the guilt trip motif and I'll stick to the paper bag. I'll gladly trade a playoff game for our sucksmanship.

Dude.  The entire NFL draft system designed to insure that teams that win, stop winning, and teams that lose, stop losing.

How do you think I felt when I still lived in New Orleans and the Superbowl would come to town and WE WERE NEVER IN IT?  We'd get great draft picks, and our stupid coaches and management never did anything with them, then they'd leave and win Superbowls somewhere else?  Hmmmmm?

I'm convinced that if it weren't for Katrina, we'd still be an also-ran.  New Orleans has something to prove to the rest of the world.  I'm seriously thinking about moving back, after 26 years of not living there.

Can we try something here. Can we be silly when we are being silly and serious when we are being serious?

The NFL to me is merely a pass time. The Skins are merely my arbitrary flavor. What happens happens. I would love to see them get better, but it isn't life or death for me. It is just an escape. Just a distraction.

I take debate seriously, but not life. None of us will get out of it alive.

In all seriousness, I do hate it when even atheists cant laugh at life. It sucks sometimes and is great sometimes but no matter what in the end labels don't matter to me. I bring up the NFL just like I bring up books or movies or tv shows. It is a way for humans to find overlap and connect despite differences.

I take deity debate deadly seriously, but just as a debate. Outside debate, humans need the ability to escape and find distractions in entertainment. The NFL is one form of escape.

Now my Skins suck, I am going to say they suck, until they stop sucking. They to me are like the family member who farts at the Thanksgiving table and thinks it's funny. But if they keep sucking, that's life. My life wont end.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Telling people to move to a

Telling people to move to a different universe when you know they cannot is being deliberately irritating.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
 You distinguish between physical and ethical laws. I don't. 

Do you at least understand that when most people refer to "the laws of Physics" they use the word "law" in a different way than when they refer to "State law" or "Federal law". Also, I find it very unlikely that there is some moral or ethical law that is inherent in the universe.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
 "Religion" has been used to justify them because "Atheism" is a fairly modern concept.  And chimpanzees have also been observed killing each other.  Consistency, please.

Are you saying that atheism is used to justify these moral codes? The word "atheist" means a person who doesn't have a belief in God(s); It says nothing about their morals. Additionally, atheists follow many different moral codes: some of which you agree with (BobSpence), and some of which you don't. Chimpanzees, like people, have been observed both helping and hurting each other. Both things which we consider "bad" and things we consider "good" have been observed in nature.

Do you really think that moral and ethical values can't be properly expressed without God?

FurryCatHerder wrote:
 Nature is horribly brutal.

Since most theists claim that God created nature, is it not reasonable to claim that God is horribly brutal for having created nature this way?

FurryCatHerder wrote:
 What he claims was that it wasn't at all an aberration, that people are more interested in obeying orders than in demonstrating empathy.

Correct. However, the fact that most volunteers were initially reluctant shows that they were capable of feeling empathy.

Also, I don't recall saying anything about "no one being harmed". Death and torture are pretty damn harmful.

What is it about atheists that irritates you so much?

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Telling

blacklight915 wrote:

Telling people to move to a different universe when you know they cannot is being deliberately irritating.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
 You distinguish between physical and ethical laws. I don't. 

Do you at least understand that when most people refer to "the laws of Physics" they use the word "law" in a different way than when they refer to "State law" or "Federal law". Also, I find it very unlikely that there is some moral or ethical law that is inherent in the universe.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
 "Religion" has been used to justify them because "Atheism" is a fairly modern concept.  And chimpanzees have also been observed killing each other.  Consistency, please.

Are you saying that atheism is used to justify these moral codes? The word "atheist" means a person who doesn't have a belief in God(s); It says nothing about their morals. Additionally, atheists follow many different moral codes: some of which you agree with (BobSpence), and some of which you don't. Chimpanzees, like people, have been observed both helping and hurting each other. Both things which we consider "bad" and things we consider "good" have been observed in nature.

Do you really think that moral and ethical values can't be properly expressed without God?

FurryCatHerder wrote:
 Nature is horribly brutal.

Since most theists claim that God created nature, is it not reasonable to claim that God is horribly brutal for having created nature this way?

FurryCatHerder wrote:
 What he claims was that it wasn't at all an aberration, that people are more interested in obeying orders than in demonstrating empathy.

Correct. However, the fact that most volunteers were initially reluctant shows that they were capable of feeling empathy.

Also, I don't recall saying anything about "no one being harmed". Death and torture are pretty damn harmful.

What is it about atheists that irritates you so much?

 

Thats what all believers don't get, not just Furry, but all believers.

"Jew" is a label. Yet Israel like all countries has prisons. Iran too has prisons. Our majority here in the states being Christian as well, has prisons. China has prisons.

"Jew" makes a statement about tradition and or god, it says nothing about HOW the person will behave throughout their life while holding the label "Jew"

Same with the word "atheist". It is merely a statement about the on/off position on the god claim, specifically taking the "off" position. An atheist can be a serial killer or a philanthropist. That is because morals are evolutionary and not the invention of a label. Evolution will continue no matter what. Once you accept yourself as part of nature and not above nature, you understand this.

Furry falsely thinks by claiming the label "Jew" that somehow evolution magically makes her special, when no human of our 7 billion are special by proxy of label.

And the argument about the word "law" we've had countless times on this board with Christians and Muslims and all sorts of quackery claims.

"Law" in the scientific sense is not dependent on belief in Yahweh/Jesus/Allah or Vishnu.

It is merely a word scientists use to say "When we observe this, we see this pattern and take note that it is a solid pattern" It is not a "law" like believers falsely claim like a magic invisible super friend "hands down" to humans. It is not a law like congress makes.

It is the same stupid argument no matter who is making it. It is just as stupid as "every painting has a painter".

And even if Furry never accepts this, I do hope someone else might read this who has another label of some other deity and go "humn, never thought of it like that".

But a simple challenge I like to make to believers of all labels is this.

If someone else were making your same argument for a different deity, would you accept their argument, since it is the same one you make? If not, then maybe the believer needs to stop trying to use it to prop up their own god.

Science as a tool is universal, it does not require a deity belief or religious litmus test to learn or use. If one is not willing to accept scientific arguments for other's gods then please refrain from trying to use this bad tactic yourself.

Scientific method does NOT prop up claims of deities. Scientific method has proven beyond doubt that the only place we find cognition is within evolution. As such claims of super heros can only be rightfully called the absurd claims they are. The reality is that it is the same old anthropomorphic gap filling to replace our parents and ignore our finite existence.

Gods are the mere product of wishful thinking as a psychological sugar pill that merely reflects human desires.

Furry is merely a different flavor of wishful thinking. Nothing new to humanity, but unfortunately far too frequent and mundane.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Telling

blacklight915 wrote:
Telling people to move to a different universe when you know they cannot is being deliberately irritating.

Expecting me to pretend G-d doesn't exist is about as annoying.  If you get to know me, you'll find that I'm perfectly willing, for the sake of argument, to pretend G-d doesn't exist, but my arguments seem to invariably end with the conclusion that G-d exists.  I'm like that.

blacklight915 wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
 You distinguish between physical and ethical laws. I don't. 

Do you at least understand that when most people refer to "the laws of Physics" they use the word "law" in a different way than when they refer to "State law" or "Federal law". Also, I find it very unlikely that there is some moral or ethical law that is inherent in the universe.

That's a Western problem, not one I have have.  I don't view "Laws" as "No, really -- that IS a Law" just because if you fall off a tall building (been there, done that) you get hurt, but if you steal rubber bands from the fish store when the owner isn't looking (been there, done that when I was 11 or 12 ...) you only get hurt if your father finds out, beats you with a belt, and sends you back to return any undamaged rubber bands and pay for the rest.

blacklight915 wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
 "Religion" has been used to justify them because "Atheism" is a fairly modern concept.  And chimpanzees have also been observed killing each other.  Consistency, please.

Are you saying that atheism is used to justify these moral codes? The word "atheist" means a person who doesn't have a belief in God(s); It says nothing about their morals. Additionally, atheists follow many different moral codes: some of which you agree with (BobSpence), and some of which you don't. Chimpanzees, like people, have been observed both helping and hurting each other. Both things which we consider "bad" and things we consider "good" have been observed in nature.

I'm saying that Atheism is used to justify NOT having any form of "Absolute Moral Code" -- one major byproduct of the advance of Atheism has been moral relativism, or "F*ck You, I Got Mine, Tough Luck."

blacklight915 wrote:
Do you really think that moral and ethical values can't be properly expressed without God?

As absolutes?  No, absolutely not Smiling

Without an Authority to Appeal To, there is no, well, there is no =authoritative= "Morality" and anyone who claims that someone else is behaving immorally or unethically, or even Just Being Mean, is full of hot air.  "Might" really does make "Right" because that value set is just as valid (and easier to enforce by people =with= "Might&quotEye-wink as anything else, including anything else propounded by people who don't have the ability to enforce their value set.

So.  You are left with two possibilities -- either "Theists" are right, G-d exists, and there =are= moral absolutes, or there is nothing at all wrong with someone breaking into your house, murdering you, and taking all your stuff.  You can appeal to all manner of bullsh*t, but those are the choices, and those really are the only two choices -- either G-d made the rules, or whoever has the biggest stick (and/or gun) makes the rules.  Take your pick.

blacklight915 wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
 Nature is horribly brutal.

Since most theists claim that God created nature, is it not reasonable to claim that God is horribly brutal for having created nature this way?

G-d created Nature.  What we do with Nature, including making stupid arguments that G-d must be "horribly brutal" because you don't fly off into space if you jump really hard, is up to us.

Try imaging a Universe in which Gravity doesn't work reliably.  Try imaging a life in which you are a puppet on the string of whichever god you don't believe in.  I prefer the Universe we have, just fine.  Stuff decays and rots and returns to its base chemical constituents -- it doesn't just pile up forever, with the planet becoming increasingly crowded by every cute puppy that was ever born.  The god you don't believe in, I don't believe in either.  The G-d who created my Universe isn't stupid, or arbitrary, or a big meanie.

blacklight915 wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
 What he claims was that it wasn't at all an aberration, that people are more interested in obeying orders than in demonstrating empathy.

Correct. However, the fact that most volunteers were initially reluctant shows that they were capable of feeling empathy.

No, what he SHOWED was that EMPATHY is fairly weak, to the point of being non-existent.  People are seldom more than one bad decision removed from animals.

blacklight915 wrote:
Also, I don't recall saying anything about "no one being harmed". Death and torture are pretty damn harmful.

The "teachers" in the experiment were reassured that the "learners" were not going to be harmed and would not suffer any form of permanent injury.  If you're going to present an example, at least study it before you present it to me, because I promise you that I =will=.

blacklight915 wrote:
What is it about atheists that irritates you so much?

They don't.  Some of my closest friends, and all of my natural and step-children are Atheists.  The second person I said "Hi" to this morning was an Atheist.

What irritates me most is stupid people, but I'm here to help make you less stupid Eye-wink

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Scientific

Brian37 wrote:
Scientific method does NOT prop up claims of deities. Scientific method has proven beyond doubt that the only place we find cognition is within evolution. As such claims of super heros can only be rightfully called the absurd claims they are. The reality is that it is the same old anthropomorphic gap filling to replace our parents and ignore our finite existence.

Science has proven no such thing.  Please, if you're going to attack my belief in G-d at least don't lie about what Science has or hasn't proven.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3683
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:I'm

FurryCatHerder wrote:

 

I'm saying that Atheism is used to justify NOT having any form of "Absolute Moral Code" -- one major byproduct of the advance of Atheism has been moral relativism, or "F*ck You, I Got Mine, Tough Luck."

                                                                  

                                                                               Do you believe that your moral behavior is better than an atheist's ? 

"Most people are ass holes." Jesus of Nazareth


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Brian37

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
Scientific method does NOT prop up claims of deities. Scientific method has proven beyond doubt that the only place we find cognition is within evolution. As such claims of super heros can only be rightfully called the absurd claims they are. The reality is that it is the same old anthropomorphic gap filling to replace our parents and ignore our finite existence.

Science has proven no such thing.  Please, if you're going to attack my belief in G-d at least don't lie about what Science has or hasn't proven.

YES IT HAS

Evolution IS THE ONLY PLACE cognition exists.

A fly has more of a brain than your fictional God.

You are merely defending a myth and a tradition of a myth. Trying to prop uo ANY invisible friend by any name is bull. It is bull when you do it too.

Thoughts are the result of evolution, nothing more. You can believe in your fantasy all you want but I did not discover evolution, nor did I make up the facts about evolution.

"Poof" "My god did it" is merely your fantasy you fell for. Capolskia tries his bull woo of "metaphysicis" trying to pass of that claptrap as science as well to prop up his magic baby /zombie god. He's been here for 5 years trying to prop up his Jesus myth.

I do not care what deity you claim. You are NOT special and neither is your pet god claim. It is merely all in your head just like his super hero fantasy is merely in his head.

Claims of god/s are human inventions, yours, his and all that have been claimed in the past and all still claimed today.

YOU ARE MERELY sucked into a mental trap, a delusion.

There IS a very natural reason as to why people believe false things. There was no god, there never will be a god. This is it, all there is.

Now again, you know damned well you would not be a Christian based on Caposkia's arguments so don't try to use science to pretend you can prop up your myth with it either.

Humans make up gods because of their own ignorance and own flaw of gap filling. That is the reason you believe. That is what you are in denial of. Having an elaborate imagination in trying to retrofit science to prop up your myth will not change the fact that that  is all you are doing in reality.

Your Jewish invisible super hero is merely the product of prior polytheism, human invented myth. Christianity is also a myth based on your myth. Islam is another myth based on your myth. There is no conspiracy to science, nor can any of you use it to claim rights to it.

I don't pray to DNA. I don't pray to gravity. I don't pray to non existent fictional Jewish gods or Christian gods or Muslim gods anymore than you pray to the sun.

Figure out why you don't pray to the sun and you'll figure out why I don't pray to your fictional invisible friend either.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
I'm saying that Atheism is used to justify NOT having any form of "Absolute Moral Code" -- one major byproduct of the advance of Atheism has been moral relativism, or "F*ck You, I Got Mine, Tough Luck."

Do you believe that your moral behavior is better than an atheist's ?

No, of course not.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Without

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Without an Authority to Appeal To, there is no, well, there is no =authoritative= "Morality" and anyone who claims that someone else is behaving immorally or unethically, or even Just Being Mean, is full of hot air.  "Might" really does make "Right" because that value set is just as valid (and easier to enforce by people =with= "Might&quotEye-wink as anything else, including anything else propounded by people who don't have the ability to enforce their value set.

So.  You are left with two possibilities -- either "Theists" are right, G-d exists, and there =are= moral absolutes, or there is nothing at all wrong with someone breaking into your house, murdering you, and taking all your stuff.  You can appeal to all manner of bullsh*t, but those are the choices, and those really are the only two choices -- either G-d made the rules, or whoever has the biggest stick (and/or gun) makes the rules.  Take your pick.

Actually, we have only one choice. You claim that God gets to make the rules because he made the universe. I claim that this is actually "might makes right" taken to the extreme: God's rules are valid because he has ultimate power.

Furthermore, large groups of people can and will choose to follow a value set even if the creator of that value set doesn't have the power to enforce it.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

 

G-d created Nature.  What we do with Nature, including making stupid arguments that G-d must be "horribly brutal" because you don't fly off into space if you jump really hard, is up to us.

Try imaging a Universe in which Gravity doesn't work reliably.  Try imaging a life in which you are a puppet on the string of whichever god you don't believe in.  I prefer the Universe we have, just fine.  Stuff decays and rots and returns to its base chemical constituents -- it doesn't just pile up forever, with the planet becoming increasingly crowded by every cute puppy that was ever born.  The god you don't believe in, I don't believe in either.  The G-d who created my Universe isn't stupid, or arbitrary, or a big meanie.

You said nature was "horribly brutal". I agreed. You said God created nature. I asked if it was reasonable to conclude that an entity that creates a horribly brutal system is horribly brutal itself. You responded that it was unreasonable: a "stupid argument".

Your reasoning for this is that the benefits of gravity and death outweigh the consequences. My response: the fact that the universe is not worse than it is does not make God good.

So yes, I do make the claim that the God you believe in is either incompetent or malicious.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

The "teachers" in the experiment were reassured that the "learners" were not going to be harmed and would not suffer any form of permanent injury.  If you're going to present an example, at least study it before you present it to me, because I promise you that I =will=.

I read an account of his first conducted experiments in my psychology textbook. It states that they were reassured after the experiment had already taken place. It also stated that teachers were often genuinely disturbed by the learners begging, pleading and (fake) cries of pain and agony. 

FurryCatHerder wrote:

What irritates me most is stupid people, but I'm here to help make you less stupid

So far, you've only succeeded in convincing me of your arrogance. I may not think your God exists, but I also know I could be wrong.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

No, what he SHOWED was that EMPATHY is fairly weak, to the point of being non-existent.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the compulsion people feel to obey authority is just very strong.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

People are seldom more than one bad decision removed from animals.

Biologically, people ARE animals. The only difference is species. In addition, calling animal "bad" and human "good" is an oversimplification.

 

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3683
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
I'm saying that Atheism is used to justify NOT having any form of "Absolute Moral Code" -- one major byproduct of the advance of Atheism has been moral relativism, or "F*ck You, I Got Mine, Tough Luck."

Do you believe that your moral behavior is better than an atheist's ?

No, of course not.

 

                                                The same types of behavior can be found among both theists and atheists.  What is the significance of your observation ?

"Most people are ass holes." Jesus of Nazareth


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:FurryCatHerder

Brian37 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
Scientific method does NOT prop up claims of deities. Scientific method has proven beyond doubt that the only place we find cognition is within evolution. As such claims of super heros can only be rightfully called the absurd claims they are. The reality is that it is the same old anthropomorphic gap filling to replace our parents and ignore our finite existence.

Science has proven no such thing.  Please, if you're going to attack my belief in G-d at least don't lie about what Science has or hasn't proven.

YES IT HAS

Evolution IS THE ONLY PLACE cognition exists.

SCIENCE absolutely, positively, 100% confidence level, cannot and will not, EVER, in a trillion years, prove that cognition only exists in evolution.  It's a fundamental limitation of Science.  The Universe will have long since experienced Heat Death, or the Big Rip, or the Big Crunch and Science will STILL not have proven what you've claimed.  It won't because it CAN'T.

And I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but there are a great many things well outside the domain of "Science" and that's just one of them, so you can either learn to deal with it, or I'll keep reminding you of it.  "Doing" Science means being comfortable with what is known, what is unknown, and what is unknowable and knowing the difference between them.  And I assure you, that while I may be, in fact, suffering from some sort of "mental delusion" (ad hominems aren't proofs, by the way), on this one point I am not delude (or wrong) in the least.

Don't make Science a religion.  And especially don't make a seriously flawed understanding of Science a religion.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
I'm saying that Atheism is used to justify NOT having any form of "Absolute Moral Code" -- one major byproduct of the advance of Atheism has been moral relativism, or "F*ck You, I Got Mine, Tough Luck."

Do you believe that your moral behavior is better than an atheist's ?

No, of course not.

There you go, your words not mine. Further proof that a god belief is not required to live life.

Our actions are a result of evolution, both our good actions and our bad actions which is why you are forced to accept that your moral behavior IS NOT better OR WORSE than any other label. THAT is precisely because morals are a human quality and emergent and changing quality because of evolution, not some made up fictional god.

If I can live my life without your book of myth and silly rules about everything from marriage to food to government, so can you.

"Cant" and "don't want to" are two different things. Once you realize that you reject the claims of other deity believers as being a "moral code" then you should not have a problem seeing why we say you don't need your book of myth either.

IF we as atheists are capable of being moral, we are living proof that a god is not needed to believe in.

The only label having to do with morality that is rational is that of evolution, not any fictional god. Not yours, not the Christian god, not the Muslim god, not any.

Our morals have constantly changes as a species and will continue to change. We will always display some sort of range to some degree of both good and bad behavior. No superstition needed to explain the good or bad that happen in reality.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Brian37

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
Scientific method does NOT prop up claims of deities. Scientific method has proven beyond doubt that the only place we find cognition is within evolution. As such claims of super heros can only be rightfully called the absurd claims they are. The reality is that it is the same old anthropomorphic gap filling to replace our parents and ignore our finite existence.

Science has proven no such thing.  Please, if you're going to attack my belief in G-d at least don't lie about what Science has or hasn't proven.

YES IT HAS

Evolution IS THE ONLY PLACE cognition exists.

SCIENCE absolutely, positively, 100% confidence level, cannot and will not, EVER, in a trillion years, prove that cognition only exists in evolution.  It's a fundamental limitation of Science.  The Universe will have long since experienced Heat Death, or the Big Rip, or the Big Crunch and Science will STILL not have proven what you've claimed.  It won't because it CAN'T.

And I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but there are a great many things well outside the domain of "Science" and that's just one of them, so you can either learn to deal with it, or I'll keep reminding you of it.  "Doing" Science means being comfortable with what is known, what is unknown, and what is unknowable and knowing the difference between them.  And I assure you, that while I may be, in fact, suffering from some sort of "mental delusion" (ad hominems aren't proofs, by the way), on this one point I am not delude (or wrong) in the least.

Don't make Science a religion.  And especially don't make a seriously flawed understanding of Science a religion.

Nothing can be proven to that level of certainty.

Yet the majority of adherents of the Abrahamic God claim just that level of certainty where its existence is concerned.

You, however, simultaneously clam that you believe in a god and that belief in that god is not essential to your religion.

Sounds like an unnecessary god. 

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:SCIENCE absolutely,

Quote:
SCIENCE absolutely, positively, 100% confidence level, cannot and will not, EVER, in a trillion years, prove that cognition only exists in evolution.

Too late, it already has. You simply don't want to face that fact. Your baggage, not mine.

You merely want a fictional super hero to exist which is why you cling to this absurdity.

You'd seriously have me believe that all this was the result of a non material super hero? And you'd also have me believe this while at the same time quoting a book of myth written by tribal ignorant people thousands of years ago?

I can play that game too.

I can fart a full sized Lamborghini out of my ass because my invisible snarfwidget says I can.

Naked assertions can be soo much fun and imaginative.

"The Jewish God did it"

Yea yea yea yea yea, funny, when I took science classes, I didn't need a Torah or Talmud to do so. I also wasn't required to study the bible or Reg Vedas either.

Now, the only thing Science cannot do is create a time machine , but it is a damned good filter for bullshit which can and does help humanity find knowledge and discard bad claims. ALL invisible friend claims are bad claims and do not serve science well as an explanation as to what we have yet to discover.

You merely have a myth you fell for, you are not special and you ARE in the same boat ad Christians, Muslims. Hindus and Scientologists and every other form of woo superstition.  You are also even in the same Titanic boat of superstition as the modern woo of pantheism which claims the universe itself is some sort of "entity".

Now again, you are being a hypocrite and flat out lying to yourself by knowing that science is a universal tool and still are unwilling to buy your same arguments if other people with other deity claims used those same arguments.

Cognition only exists in the context of evolution. The best it MIGHT FIND is evolution occurring in some range somewhere else. What it will not do is justify a comic book written back in an age of ignorance.

Right now Lee who is a Christian is trying to convince us that the magic baby virgin story is true because of thermodynamics yet you RIGHTFULLY don't blindly swallow his superstition because he too, like you, tries to claim his ancient book of myth proves his magic man.

Scientific method and ancient superstitions will never mix and are completely opposition of each other as to the claims of reality.

I do not need to see every corner of the universe to know there isn't a giant invisible teapot bigger than our galaxy floating around making invisible tea. And I don't need to be a brain surgeon to know that science will NOT and does not prop up any claim of human like super heros with magic wands.

You buy into an ancient myth, nothing more.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
All god claims are merely

All god claims are merely Santa for adults. It is merely sugar pill gap filling. It is nothing but "lets pretend" candy land fantasy for adults.

It would be laughable if it were not infecting global politics or education.

Children have invisible friends and make believe in the sand box. It is sad and deadly when adults do it.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:SCIENCE

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
SCIENCE absolutely, positively, 100% confidence level, cannot and will not, EVER, in a trillion years, prove that cognition only exists in evolution.

Too late, it already has. You simply don't want to face that fact. Your baggage, not mine.

Cite?

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:All god claims

Brian37 wrote:

All god claims are merely Santa for adults. It is merely sugar pill gap filling. It is nothing but "lets pretend" candy land fantasy for adults.

It would be laughable if it were not infecting global politics or education.

Children have invisible friends and make believe in the sand box. It is sad and deadly when adults do it.

Hamlet much?

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Brian37

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

All god claims are merely Santa for adults. It is merely sugar pill gap filling. It is nothing but "lets pretend" candy land fantasy for adults.

It would be laughable if it were not infecting global politics or education.

Children have invisible friends and make believe in the sand box. It is sad and deadly when adults do it.

Hamlet much?

No, but since you brought up Willy I think Macbeth Act 5 scene 5 "flurry of activity signifying nothing" was an insightful thought for it's time considering reality matches up with it quite well. I wouldn't claim Bill would have known back then scientific reality, but it doesn't take a genius to look at a dead tree and make the connection that all life is like that. The line refers to a relationship, but I highly suspect he also meant that about life as well. It was a risky line for his time and if he had written it about life and not about a relationship it never would have made it into that play.

The god/s of Abraham are all about the needless selfish drama. And on top of that the characters of Shakespeare's plays were much more well developed and the "drama" was rich in content. The drama in the bible is arbitrary and all the Characters are shallow props used to glorify the head dictator.

The common motif of the Shakespeare plays was hubris and the fall of that hubris. The head character god never loses his hubris or has any shame or humility in how he runs things. It's all about him.

The fall of hubris is also rich in the Greek tradition such as Oedpus and Media. Those too are much better written than your book of myth. Plato's apology also, too, has a character that has depth and richness that adds to the "drama".

All you have in your book is a dictator who throws fits and makes demands and threatens and bribes people, and the characters under him are merely lab rats used to glorify him.

Hamlet although I have not read it, that too I am quite sure is a much better piece of literature than your books or any holy book for that matter.

I find much better drama and character development and better morality in fiction than holy books. Star Wars, Star Trec. Charlotte's Web. 1984, Animal Farm(for their warnings about fascism. All those things have much better good guys and bad guys and better drama.

Even against the classics and modern fiction your books fail to be as rich or as well developed. Don't feel bad, I think the bible and Koran are equally as trivial in this context.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
I was thinking more along

I was thinking more along the lines of Act III, Scene II.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3683
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
I'm saying that Atheism is used to justify NOT having any form of "Absolute Moral Code" -- one major byproduct of the advance of Atheism has been moral relativism, or "F*ck You, I Got Mine, Tough Luck."

Do you believe that your moral behavior is better than an atheist's ?

No, of course not.

 

                                                The same types of behavior can be found among both theists and atheists.  What is the significance of your observation ?

 

                     

Sorry to interrupt your lengthy and contentious dialogue with Brian.....   ( strange, Furry when I addressed you in a civil manner you all but ignore me but when I was being really aggressive toward you you almost always replied )     .....but I was genuinely interested in what kind of answer you had.  

"Most people are ass holes." Jesus of Nazareth