Atheist Jihad!

RationalRespons...
Moderator
RationalResponseSquad's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Atheist Jihad!

We have been called. Capn Awesome has declared Atheist Jihad!

We have our own levels for Jihad:
1. If you are a mod, add to this page. If you are a user, visit this page.

2. As part of Operation Spread Eagle we want our community to respond to more youtube vids, outlining the problems with theistic arguments. Look for videos that are responses to ours on Youtube, and send your counter response. We rarely engage community debate on youtube, we want you in on this. Not only are we addressing censorship, but we'll take this opportunity to address the huge holes in religion. During this time Operation Spread Eagle will be bringing press to our site, and they should see just how crazy and radical we are... we actually want better for humanity! Sue us.

3. Setting forth yet again that theism is a mind disorder! When Sapient asked a few questions on youtube, he never expected for everyone to dodge the questions and attack only one. By attacking only the question about theistic delusional disorder, some people illustrated their possession of this disorder. We will not back down now. We now hold that almost all theists have Grandiose Delusional Disorder and that theism itself should be listed in future versions of the DSM. And each time that someone with this disorder whines about our tactics, we will remind them with another video why in fact all forms of theism have some form of delusion embedded within them.

Welcome to the new Rational Response Squad... special shout outs to CSE Ministries who made this backlash possible.

"I want you to be 100 times angrier than you are now, I think the anger is great. The squeeky wheel gets the grease, and you're getting the grease" - Ellen Johnson of American Atheists on Brian Sapient

"Yeah, I've been negatively impacted...it pisses me off that you guys are way toooo polite." - Entomophilia after Sapient asked if we should address more haters.

Yet again we got critiqued today for needing money to exist on this planet. Just to spite those that try to diminish our worth by claiming the obvious about us (we need money to live) please send huge gigantic massive chunks of money through this link. (have no fear, none of the electronic money has that load of horseshit "In God We Trust" on it) Yeah, we're pissed, and you should be too. Religion needs to go.

"The time has come for people of reason to say: Enough is Enough! Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's divisive and it's dangerous." - Richard Dawkins

Minor Skirmishes in Operation Spread Eagle and Atheist Jihad:
Bill O'Reilly proves theism is dangerous, and that you should run from all theists because they are irrational, and they'll hurt you and everyone around you! It's just a matter of when, not if. It's the most true thing that he can ever tell you!!
Sablechicken goes down for the count.
The entire Way of the Masterbaters crew hits the floor.
The only post you ever need to read about Frank Walton, and the only 2 blogs (Frank Walton, Frank Walton) you ever need to read about him.
Kathy Griffin: http://suckitjesus.com/
Some arabs are pissed off about subtitles!

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


22jesus22
22jesus22's picture
Posts: 208
Joined: 2006-12-18
User is offlineOffline
...is this real?

...is this real?


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
You cannot defeat the

You cannot defeat the Flying Spaghetti Monster, his noodlyness based not only on faith but logic as well.

 He will meet reason with beer

Debate with Pasta

Ninjas with Pirates

 

With allies like us how could lesser made up religions like Christianity fail


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13526
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
I think this should go

I think this should go without saying, but for any idiot theist or atheist reading the title of this thread, IT IS TOUNGE AND CHEEK.

I am only speaking for myself as a board partisipant only. But "Atheist Jihad" is serious in the sense that Brian and Rational Responders wants people to get involved.

IT IN NO WAY IS A CALL TO ANY TYPE OF PHYSICAL VIOLANCE!

It is probibly safe for me to say that the message is to get more involved and take on theistic claims and pulpit politics.

It is also safe to say that Rational Responders are not looking for lawless people to support them or use their name.

Yes, get angry and get involved. Help turn the tide away from theocracy and protect the universal tool of science. But also remember that WE, both atheist and theist still have one planet to live on and no matter the debate or how heated it can get, that no one need to use violence be it atheist or theist.


The atheists at this site are not Hell's Angels. They dont sell crack on the street corner. They are not "Barny Bad Asses". We are your family members, co-workers, loved ones and friends. We are simply tired of being demonized and marginalized. We are tired of the favortism that our goverment gives to Chrisitanity while ignoring all other voters NOT JUST ATHEISTS.

So dont let the name fool you. I am sure "atheist Jihad" doesnt spook most, nor should it. But just a friendly reminder to all that it merely is a call to be more active and debate more and open society up to our community of atheists to show them that WE are part of society. 

"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


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
22jesus22 wrote: ...is this

22jesus22 wrote:
...is this real?

 

Dawkins Akbar, Dawkins Akbar, Dawkins Akbar! 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: IT IN NO

Brian37 wrote:

IT IN NO WAY IS A CALL TO ANY TYPE OF PHYSICAL VIOLANCE!

Holy shit, violence!???

 We said Atheist Jihad, not Jihad!!!   God damnit, no violence!

An atheist jihad is when we laugh, mock you, pwn you, show the world you make ridiculous arguments, mock you some more, then make some youtube videos, and all of this sorts of stuff.  NO VIOLENCE!  We're atheists, we're better than that. 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


croath
Theist
Posts: 100
Joined: 2007-05-05
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: VIOLENCE!

Sapient wrote:

VIOLENCE! We're atheists, we're better than that.

Is that some sort of joke? Or is the line "We're atheists, we're better than that" tongue in cheek too? Atheists are just as capable of violence as their theistic friends.

Brian, tell me, by what standard you mean "better"? By what moral code or system of ethics do you measure whether atheists are better or worse than anyone who is not? You take a moral high ground, but you seem blissfully ignorant of the one glaringly true fact - on your worldview morals are nothing more than evolved socio-biological mores. I can't even comprehend why you think there is a fight that needs winning, except to think that you're borrowing from the theistic parts of our western culture. An atheistic world would be an amoral world.

You're fighting for the very thing that your worldview opposes - objective good. Hate theists as much as you want, you look ridiculous claiming that you're "better", or fighting the good fight, or serving a good cause for a better world. You can't even define words like 'good', 'right', 'moral', 'better', without resorting to a subjective standard which no-one has any compelling reason to agree with. A world of atheists would tear themselves apart without someone to fight, some common enemy, when it gets down to the task of daily living. That is, if atheists were men enough to take their beliefs to their obvious conclusion. You borrow from theism. Objective moral values and duties do exist - you just compartmentalise your beliefs so the contradiction isn't apparent. On the one hand you believe there is no God. On the other hand you believe that certain actions are objectively wrong. This is a contradiction - you are irrational. Atheism and objective morality are incompatible. Your pleas to rid the world of theism in the name of some 'good' are unjustified.

Why would you even care if theists were eating babies and running over school children, so long as it's not *your* children? You're a hypocrite who doesn't live his worldview consistently. You accuse theists of irrationality, but you're blind to your own failures in logic. There is no good fight for you to win, because there is no 'good'.

Here's a challenge for you, from someone else: Do you have a naturalistic ethic that enables you to make moral demands
upon others (including theists)?


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
croath wrote: Sapient

croath wrote:
Sapient wrote:

VIOLENCE! We're atheists, we're better than that.

Is that some sort of joke? Or is the line "We're atheists, we're better than that" tongue in cheek too? Atheists are just as capable of violence as their theistic friends.

Well sorry but the prison statistics would indicate otherwise. In fact if that stats are to be believed the 20% atheist population in the USA make up only 1% of the prison population making them roughly 20 times less likely to comit crimes (including violence) than the 80% theist population which account for the other 99% of the prison population.

Quote:
Brian, tell me, by what standard you mean "better"?

We are generally more intelligent there is a strong correlation between higher IQ and atheism.

We are better educated again theres is stong correlation

We are more ethical (see above)

We have lower divorce rates.

Quote:
By what moral code or system of ethics do you measure whether atheists are better or worse than anyone who is not? You take a moral high ground, but you seem blissfully ignorant of the one glaringly true fact - on your worldview morals are nothing more than evolved socio-biological mores. I can't even comprehend why you think there is a fight that needs winning, except to think that you're borrowing from the theistic parts of our western culture. An atheistic world would be an amoral world.

Well one reason would be, if the prison stats are to be beleieved, if we elimiated theism and every one was an atheist crime would drop, IQ's would rise, education would rise and the family unit would be stronger. On top of that there would be more scientific research, less money and effort woudl be wasted building usless buildings like churches, less pedophile priests woudl be protected by their church, there would be less war, less persecution of homosexuals and less mysogonism.

Quote:
You're fighting for the very thing that your worldview opposes - objective good. Hate theists as much as you want, you look ridiculous claiming that you're "better", or fighting the good fight, or serving a good cause for a better world. You can't even define words like 'good', 'right', 'moral', 'better', without resorting to a subjective standard which no-one has any compelling reason to agree with.

We are better in any sensible definition of the word. By every sensible moral standard in practically every culture.

Quote:
A world of atheists would tear themselves apart without someone to fight,

Yep thats right because all those atheist countries like Sweeden, france, finland switzerland, denmark, australia and japan are well known for being in state of constant civil war.

Quote:
some common enemy, when it gets down to the task of daily living. That is, if atheists were men enough to take their beliefs to their obvious conclusion. You borrow from theism. Objective moral values and duties do exist - you just compartmentalise your beliefs so the contradiction isn't apparent. On the one hand you believe there is no God. On the other hand you believe that certain actions are objectively wrong.

No we don't. Well I can't speak for all atheists but I certainly do not think there is an objective "wrong" or objective "evil".

Quote:
This is a contradiction - you are irrational.

Only if that is what we actually thought. The fact that we don't think this kind of renders your argument irrelevant really.

Quote:
Atheism and objective morality are incompatible.

Not necessarily. Atheism and objective morality sourced from God are incompatible certainly. But there are non theist arguments for an objective morality. I don't happen to agree with them but they are out there.

Quote:
Your pleas to rid the world of theism in the name of some 'good' are unjustified.

Well the stats speak for them selves. You guys are the bad guys sorry to break it to you thats just the way it is.

Quote:
Why would you even care if theists were eating babies and running over school children, so long as it's not *your* children?

Because we are better people than you. We care about others regardless of what they believe.

Quote:
You're a hypocrite who doesn't live his worldview consistently. You accuse theists of irrationality, but you're blind to your own failures in logic. There is no good fight for you to win, because there is no 'good'.

Hahahahahhaha. Oh the irony.

Quote:
Here's a challenge for you, from someone else: Do you have a naturalistic ethic that enables you to make moral demands
upon others (including theists)?

In our society we have evolved certain rules. Some things are deemed bad some are deemed good. These rules are somewhat arbitary but generally they tend to evolve towards that which will produce the overall greater happiness and well being for the scoiety in question. The process by which morals evolve is complex but they do change over time due to new technologies, advances in thinking, advances in our understanding of human psychology, advances in our living conditions. This is a good process that gradually refines and adapts our rules towards the greater good.

Unfortunatly religion gets in the way of this process. As soon as one accepts that certain moral rules are absolute and can not be changed (becasue god said so) the process of refinement and moral evolution ends. Regardless of the new knowledge or change of circumstances that says we should change our morals the moral rule remains thus the greater good is no longer served. The continued persecution of homosexuals on religious grounds is an example of religion preventing moral progress.

It is no coicidence that countries with the highest standards of living tend to have the lowest levels of religion. Countries that are more tollerent with lower crims, better education and equality tend to have a larger atheist freethinking population. This is because the evolving moral zeitgeist is no longer held back by relious dogma.

So in conclusion theists are stuck in a moral rut. You are holding back the rest of us with your bronze age morality. Things have moved on, we have progressed, its time you caught up. That is why we hold the moral high ground. If you don't like the facts, if you don't like belonging to the group that is holding back humanities moral development then you kow what you need to do. Ditch the God nonsense and come over to the side of the good and just. I know the "dark side" is quicker, easier and more seductive but it does not take much effort to start thinking for yourself and you will be a better person for it.

 

Sorry Brian I just seem to have butted in and answered for you! But I'm fairly certain we are signing from the same non-religious sheet of lyrics. 


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
I realize that the title of

I realize that the title of this is supposed to be toungue in cheek, but I can only imagine what others are going to think.  I can see the rally cries of 'see, atheism IS religion!!' along with the references to terrorism.

I suppose if some people actually took the time to read before reacting, it would be different.   

If god takes life he's an indian giver


croath
Theist
Posts: 100
Joined: 2007-05-05
User is offlineOffline
You failed completely to

You failed completely to answer the core question of my post. Your own explanation at the end simply moves the question down a level. You claim that morals evolve and that we make advances for "greater hapiness and well being for the society in question". This doesn't answer my question.

Why do you think that it is good to have greater happiness and well being? Why do you think that this is " a good process"? You've answered nothing, and again borrow from theism. By your own words, you say morals are subjective. How then can you call this process "good"? Why do you even think it's good that humans exist at all? Would it be bad if somehow all life in the universe was instantly wiped out? Would it be "evil" if there was found a "theism" gene, and it became so ingrained that all humans were always only ever theists? Would it be evil if a trait that resulted in less happiness and well being for a society produced a greater chance of survival? Why? What is this imaginary goal you think evolution works towards, and why do you think it has some moral value?

You haven't answered the question at all, and perpetuate this "blindspot" of atheists. I don't understand why you care that theists exist at all, unless it somehow inhibits you - and then your motive would be, "we must be rid of theism because it inhibits me", not "we must be rid of theism because it is evil". Selfish motives without any moral grounding.

No comment on your back-patting about how much smarter atheists are purported to be other than that it's irrelevant to the argument I made, which was clearly regarding morality and not intelligence. Being intelligent doesn't prohibit violence. I wanted to know Brian's moral grounds for thinking atheists were better morally.  For him to claim that, he would have to have some non-arbitrary standard by which he measures morality.

Quote:

But there are non theist arguments for an objective morality. I don't happen to agree with them but they are out there.


I'd love to see these.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
croath wrote: Sapient

croath wrote:
Sapient wrote:

VIOLENCE! We're atheists, we're better than that.

Is that some sort of joke?

No.

 

Quote:
Brian, tell me, by what standard you mean "better"? By what moral code or system of ethics do you measure whether atheists are better or worse than anyone who is not? You take a moral high ground, but you seem blissfully ignorant of the one glaringly true fact - on your worldview morals are nothing more than evolved socio-biological mores.

 

How about we start by judging how moral we are, by how well we can adhere to the rules of law?

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm 

 "Not unexpected as a result. Note that atheists, being a moderate proportion of the USA population (about 8-16%) are disproportionately less in the prison populations (0.21%)."

 

We're simply more moral within the confines of the law, and we've got science to back it.  I proudly state atheists are much more moral with evidence, and theists will rationalize and squirm to figure out a way to claim it's theism that's more moral.  Guess what... when they do so... they are lying... and being immoral.  I'm not joking, I'm serious as cancer.

 Dawkins Akbar!

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: I

pariahjane wrote:

I realize that the title of this is supposed to be toungue in cheek, but I can only imagine what others are going to think. I can see the rally cries of 'see, atheism IS religion!!' along with the references to terrorism.

I suppose if some people actually took the time to read before reacting, it would be different.

 

We are known for setting our users up, and making them think their way out of a box.   

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
croath wrote: I wanted to

croath wrote:
I wanted to know Brian's moral grounds for thinking atheists were better morally. For him to claim that, he would have to have some non-arbitrary standard by which he measures morality.

Agreed.  Which is why I presented proof to back up my statement.

 Apology accepted.  Unless of course you choose to figure out some sort of way of countering this with a rationalization... for doing so would be dishonest with both us and yourself, and would yet again prove... 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Dawkins Akbar! We'll google

Dawkins Akbar!

We'll google bomb the crap out of them.

We'll shoot them down with logic and reason.

We'll... refute every point they try to make, call them out on all the crap they try to spew and generally make a good ruckus of things.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Sapient

Sapient wrote:

 

Quote:
Brian, tell me, by what standard you mean "better"? By what moral code or system of ethics do you measure whether atheists are better or worse than anyone who is not? You take a moral high ground, but you seem blissfully ignorant of the one glaringly true fact - on your worldview morals are nothing more than evolved socio-biological mores.

 

How about we start by judging how moral we are, by how well we can adhere to the rules of law?

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

"Not unexpected as a result. Note that atheists, being a moderate proportion of the USA population (about 8-16%) are disproportionately less in the prison populations (0.21%)."

 

We're simply more moral within the confines of the law, and we've got science to back it. I proudly state atheists are much more moral with evidence, and theists will rationalize and squirm to figure out a way to claim it's theism that's more moral. Guess what... when they do so... they are lying... and being immoral. I'm not joking, I'm serious as cancer.

Dawkins Akbar!

 

Whenever I post stats like these people nitpick, so I'll go ahead and do that too.

People 'convert' when they go to prison. Micheal Vick, for example, said he found Jesus and religion after he was arrested. So those stats could be off.  


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
croath wrote: You failed

croath wrote:
You failed completely to answer the core question of my post. Your own explanation at the end simply moves the question down a level. You claim that morals evolve and that we make advances for "greater hapiness and well being for the society in question". This doesn't answer my question.

Why do you think that it is good to have greater happiness and well being? Why do you think that this is " a good process"?

Because that is how we define Good in this society.

Quote:
You've answered nothing, and again borrow from theism.

No I have not. Why is it good to follow God rules?

Quote:
By your own words, you say morals are subjective. How then can you call this process "good"?

Because the word good refers to a subjective thing.

Quote:
Why do you even think it's good that humans exist at all?

I don't. The question is meaningless. "Good" is a term that refers to rules within a human society to say something is good outside of this context is meaningless. So saying "human existence" is good is just a nonsense.

Quote:
Would it be bad if somehow all life in the universe was instantly wiped out?

Yes. Because we define death as bad, mass death as worse. Within the context of our society its generally held that continued life is good and therfore the mass extinction of all life would be bad.

Quote:
Would it be "evil" if there was found a "theism" gene, and it became so ingrained that all humans were always only ever theists?

In the context of my thinking withing our scoiety yes it would be evil.

In the context of the society that was populated purely by these genetic theists then no it would not be evil.

Quote:
Would it be evil if a trait that resulted in less happiness and well being for a society produced a greater chance of survival?

I don't know. There are too many variables here to make a snap judgement.

Quote:
Why? What is this imaginary goal you think evolution works towards, and why do you think it has some moral value?

Because thats what I think and thats what scoiety agrees upon. This is all there is to good and evil. I consider religion bad becasue it prevents our morals from adapting to serve the greater good. This means that our morality can often derail, stangante and actually make things worse. Without religion our morality changes and adapts and tends towards making people happy. It does not always achive that, we don;t always get it right BUT the process of moral evolution will tend towards this. I think most societies agree that the greater good is well a good thing. If you think differently then please do pray tell why?

 

Quote:
You haven't answered the question at all, and perpetuate this "blindspot" of atheists. I don't understand why you care that theists exist at all, unless it somehow inhibits you - and then your motive would be, "we must be rid of theism because it inhibits me", not "we must be rid of theism because it is evil". Selfish motives without any moral grounding.

I care about other human beings.

Why? Because thats the morals I have been brought up with. There is nothing more to it than that.

Quote:
No comment on your back-patting about how much smarter atheists are purported to be other than that it's irrelevant to the argument I made, which was clearly regarding morality and not intelligence. Being intelligent doesn't prohibit violence.

Nope but it tends to mean you get less of it.

Quote:
I wanted to know Brian's moral grounds for thinking atheists were better morally. For him to claim that, he would have to have some non-arbitrary standard by which he measures morality.

I think if you look at the moral rules of most societies, including ours, you will find atheist are morally superior to theists. The criminal and penal system is basically based upon our underlying morality. Theist are far more likely to comit crime and end up in prison than atehists. Hence atheists are generally more moral. End of story.

This patern is actuallu repeated in other countries as well.

Also coutries with higher levels of atheism tend to have lower overall crime i.e. the populations tend to act more morally.

Quote:
Quote:

But there are non theist arguments for an objective morality. I don't happen to agree with them but they are out there.


I'd love to see these.

I'm not going to bother with them because as I said I don't actually agree with any of them. They are out there trust me but I'm not going to waste time expounding an argument that I think is false.


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Whenever I post stats like these people nitpick, so I'll go ahead and do that too.

People 'convert' when they go to prison. Micheal Vick, for example, said he found Jesus and religion after he was arrested. So those stats could be off.

So location matters? 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

People 'convert' when they go to prison. Micheal Vick, for example, said he found Jesus and religion after he was arrested. So those stats could be off.

And Michael Vick is also on the record as having "found Jesus" in 1999. He also grew up "finding Jesus." "Finding Jesus" is the excuse of immoral people who don't take responsibility for their actions.

I will agree on one thing... I'd imagine they're are at least a few atheists that say their Christian in jail just to avoid abuse, or convert in jail so they can get free time in the Chapel, or potentially off early. It's done dishonestly, nevertheless we have no stats on that, we can only guess. And my guess is that the number of atheists getting to prison to make the choice of becoming religious, is extremely low.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
CrimsonEdge

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Whenever I post stats like these people nitpick, so I'll go ahead and do that too.

People 'convert' when they go to prison. Micheal Vick, for example, said he found Jesus and religion after he was arrested. So those stats could be off.

So location matters?

 

My point was when I post stats about that the vast majority of Canadians are Christian and Canada is a moral society, people nitpick

"But pineapple, people could just be saying they're Christian!"

I was merely applying the same logic here. 


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: pariahjane

Sapient wrote:
pariahjane wrote:

I realize that the title of this is supposed to be toungue in cheek, but I can only imagine what others are going to think. I can see the rally cries of 'see, atheism IS religion!!' along with the references to terrorism.

I suppose if some people actually took the time to read before reacting, it would be different.

 

We are known for setting our users up, and making them think their way out of a box.

True enough.  I was just thinking about all the 'visitors' who are unfamiliar with how this forum operates. 

However, those people are only here looking for the negative and will be unable to see the positive in all of this anyway. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
CrimsonEdge wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Whenever I post stats like these people nitpick, so I'll go ahead and do that too.

People 'convert' when they go to prison. Micheal Vick, for example, said he found Jesus and religion after he was arrested. So those stats could be off.

So location matters?

 

My point was when I post stats about that the vast majority of Canadians are Christian and Canada is a moral society, people nitpick

"But pineapple, people could just be saying they're Christian!"

I was merely applying the same logic here.

 I don't deny there are Christians capable of living in a harmonious way with society.  I don't deny that a Christian society can have some benefits.

However I see nothing that a Christian can do, that an atheist can't... not in the good morals department anyway.  And so therefore I'm saying, maybe it's time to give it a chance.  It's time to see what the world would look like without religion, and hopefully it'll happen slowly......... over the next 50 years.  (but it probably wont) 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: True

pariahjane wrote:

True enough. I was just thinking about all the 'visitors' who are unfamiliar with how this forum operates.

However, those people are only here looking for the negative and will be unable to see the positive in all of this anyway.

 But wont it be cool to see some people figure out the puzzle and others accuse us of ridiculous things like violence?

For example anyone who thinks this is violent, we will know hasn't either listened or had paid close enough attention to Capnoawesome in reference to the fact that atheist jihads are nonviolent.  And the obverse may be a few atheists who manage to search for a few minutes, do their research, and join this forum.  I look forward to meeting those "good thinkers."  And I've got my "weed out" device in place.

This is always how it's been Pariah... you might just be noticing it now. 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Tomcat
Posts: 346
Joined: 2006-10-24
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: I

pariahjane wrote:

I realize that the title of this is supposed to be toungue in cheek, but I can only imagine what others are going to think. I can see the rally cries of 'see, atheism IS religion!!' along with the references to terrorism.

I suppose if some people actually took the time to read before reacting, it would be different.

Look, Brian just had a major victory against CSE Ministries and, like I've said many times in the past, he is DOING something.  This is the Rational Response Squad, largely Brian's work, and unlike what atheists have been doing forever he isn't just talking the talk, he's walkin' it too.  He deserves that credit, and the aknowledgement that this is HIS website and HIS work.  And you are just as welcome not to participate as you were in joining. 

The Enlightenment wounded the beast, but the killing blow has yet to land...


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Tomcat wrote: pariahjane

Tomcat wrote:
pariahjane wrote:

I realize that the title of this is supposed to be toungue in cheek, but I can only imagine what others are going to think. I can see the rally cries of 'see, atheism IS religion!!' along with the references to terrorism.

I suppose if some people actually took the time to read before reacting, it would be different.

Look, Brian just had a major victory against CSE Ministries and, like I've said many times in the past, he is DOING something. This is the Rational Response Squad, largely Brian's work, and unlike what atheists have been doing forever he isn't just talking the talk, he's walkin' it too. He deserves that credit, and the aknowledgement that this is HIS website and HIS work. And you are just as welcome not to participate as you were in joining.

 

Pariah, please forgive Tomcats blunt response.  He is currently building google bomb mortar in the basement for jihad that will please Lord Dawkins.  It's stressful, if his google bombs don't hit their target it could mean less virgins for him in heaven.  

DAWKINS AKBAR!   

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Tomcat wrote: pariahjane

Tomcat wrote:
pariahjane wrote:

I realize that the title of this is supposed to be toungue in cheek, but I can only imagine what others are going to think. I can see the rally cries of 'see, atheism IS religion!!' along with the references to terrorism.

I suppose if some people actually took the time to read before reacting, it would be different.

Look, Brian just had a major victory against CSE Ministries and, like I've said many times in the past, he is DOING something. This is the Rational Response Squad, largely Brian's work, and unlike what atheists have been doing forever he isn't just talking the talk, he's walkin' it too. He deserves that credit, and the aknowledgement that this is HIS website and HIS work. And you are just as welcome not to participate as you were in joining.

I don't think I said once that I didn't appreciate what RRS is doing.  I've supported RRS for quite some time and I am always singing it's praises. I NEVER said that he shouldn't be doing this.  

 Just for the record, don't be so fucking quick to assume that I'm not doing anything to help educate people about atheism.  Right now I'm trying to put on a show with the intent on making this information more available to people. 

I expressed my opinion, that's all.  Brian answered. I have a lot respect for Sapient and his team and for this forum.  I was under the impression that this forum is about discussing topics and issues. Apparently I was wrong. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Tomcat wrote: pariahjane

Tomcat wrote:
pariahjane wrote:

I realize that the title of this is supposed to be toungue in cheek, but I can only imagine what others are going to think. I can see the rally cries of 'see, atheism IS religion!!' along with the references to terrorism.

I suppose if some people actually took the time to read before reacting, it would be different.

Look, Brian just had a major victory against CSE Ministries and, like I've said many times in the past, he is DOING something. This is the Rational Response Squad, largely Brian's work, and unlike what atheists have been doing forever he isn't just talking the talk, he's walkin' it too. He deserves that credit, and the aknowledgement that this is HIS website and HIS work. And you are just as welcome not to participate as you were in joining.

Wow Tomcat, way to have a rational discussion. A slightly differing opinion really sets you off huh? I don't think she was saying she totally disagreed and even if she did, so what? Why is she not allowed to voice concerns also, she is a part of the community.

I know Sapient apologized for Tomcat, I would like to see if he is capable of a 'rational' apology also. 


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Tomcat

Sapient wrote:
Tomcat wrote:
pariahjane wrote:

I realize that the title of this is supposed to be toungue in cheek, but I can only imagine what others are going to think. I can see the rally cries of 'see, atheism IS religion!!' along with the references to terrorism.

I suppose if some people actually took the time to read before reacting, it would be different.

Look, Brian just had a major victory against CSE Ministries and, like I've said many times in the past, he is DOING something. This is the Rational Response Squad, largely Brian's work, and unlike what atheists have been doing forever he isn't just talking the talk, he's walkin' it too. He deserves that credit, and the aknowledgement that this is HIS website and HIS work. And you are just as welcome not to participate as you were in joining.

 

Pariah, please forgive Tomcats blunt response. He is currently building google bomb mortar in the basement for jihad that will please Lord Dawkins. It's stressful, if his google bombs don't hit their target it could mean less virgins for him in heaven.

DAWKINS AKBAR!

 Thanks, Sapient. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote: DAWKINS

Quote:

DAWKINS ACKBAR!

 

 

 

 

 

O_o

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote:

pariahjane wrote:

I was under the impression that this forum is about discussing topics and issues. Apparently I was wrong.

Tomcat please forgive Pariah's sarcasm. She is currently building google bomb mortar in the basement for jihad that will please Lord Dawkins. It seems as if she is seperated from the company of your efforts, and therefore our sexual tensions are highest, all praise be to Dawkins. It's stressful, if her google bombs don't hit their target it could mean that she wont have a chance to be a virgin who will be raped in heaven by some other guy who receives her as a reward.

 

DAWKINS AKBAR!

 (sorry Pariah, you forced me)

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Rambo Kitty will be very

Rambo Kitty will be very mad if you make him stop this car.

DON'T MAKE RAMBO KITTY STOP THE CAR, CHILDREN!

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13526
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Sapient wrote: Brian37

Sapient wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

IT IN NO WAY IS A CALL TO ANY TYPE OF PHYSICAL VIOLANCE!

Holy shit, violence!???

We said Atheist Jihad, not Jihad!!! God damnit, no violence!

An atheist jihad is when we laugh, mock you, pwn you, show the world you make ridiculous arguments, mock you some more, then make some youtube videos, and all of this sorts of stuff. NO VIOLENCE! We're atheists, we're better than that.

I know what I said was redundant to people with brains. But atheist websites, not just this one, get loons that come in thinking we'll go for anything "just because we are atheists".

BTW Dawkins Akbar, to you too. Me-lova bacon.

"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


22jesus22
22jesus22's picture
Posts: 208
Joined: 2006-12-18
User is offlineOffline
how old are we all?   I

how old are we all?

 

I will fight with reason on my side?

Google Bombs?

Shoot them down with logic?

 

I love you guys! 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
22jesus22 wrote: how old

22jesus22 wrote:

how old are we all?

Our ages all vary. I'm 30. 

 

Quote:
I will fight with reason on my side?

Don't worry about it, I got it.

 

Quote:
Google Bombs?

Consider it, leveling out the playing field.

 

Quote:
Shoot them down with logic?

Did I actually say that? Shit... how old am I?

 

Quote:
I love you guys!

Awesome, I don't even sense sarcasm!  I don't even get the sense that you don't like having your beliefs being subject to public ridicule.  We love you too!

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


22jesus22
22jesus22's picture
Posts: 208
Joined: 2006-12-18
User is offlineOffline
I'm glad you didn't feel I

I'm glad you didn't feel I was being sarcastic, because I truly wasn't.  Who doesn't love some good Drama?


Tomcat
Posts: 346
Joined: 2006-10-24
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote:

pariahjane wrote:
Tomcat wrote:
pariahjane wrote:

I realize that the title of this is supposed to be toungue in cheek, but I can only imagine what others are going to think. I can see the rally cries of 'see, atheism IS religion!!' along with the references to terrorism.

I suppose if some people actually took the time to read before reacting, it would be different.

Look, Brian just had a major victory against CSE Ministries and, like I've said many times in the past, he is DOING something. This is the Rational Response Squad, largely Brian's work, and unlike what atheists have been doing forever he isn't just talking the talk, he's walkin' it too. He deserves that credit, and the aknowledgement that this is HIS website and HIS work. And you are just as welcome not to participate as you were in joining.

I don't think I said once that I didn't appreciate what RRS is doing. I've supported RRS for quite some time and I am always singing it's praises. I NEVER said that he shouldn't be doing this.

Just for the record, don't be so fucking quick to assume that I'm not doing anything to help educate people about atheism. Right now I'm trying to put on a show with the intent on making this information more available to people.

I expressed my opinion, that's all. Brian answered. I have a lot respect for Sapient and his team and for this forum. I was under the impression that this forum is about discussing topics and issues. Apparently I was wrong.

I'm sorry to have offended you, I didn't mean for my post to do that. I am very zealous around defending Brian's actions on atheists behalf, sometimes overly so. I hope you will understand that I don't wish to squelch discussion, and that I don't want to berate people undeservingly. I apologize for making that post seemingly directed at you, when in fact you weren't the one that needed to hear it all.

The Enlightenment wounded the beast, but the killing blow has yet to land...


Tomcat
Posts: 346
Joined: 2006-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Tomcat

Sapient wrote:
Tomcat wrote:
pariahjane wrote:

I realize that the title of this is supposed to be toungue in cheek, but I can only imagine what others are going to think. I can see the rally cries of 'see, atheism IS religion!!' along with the references to terrorism.

I suppose if some people actually took the time to read before reacting, it would be different.

Look, Brian just had a major victory against CSE Ministries and, like I've said many times in the past, he is DOING something. This is the Rational Response Squad, largely Brian's work, and unlike what atheists have been doing forever he isn't just talking the talk, he's walkin' it too. He deserves that credit, and the aknowledgement that this is HIS website and HIS work. And you are just as welcome not to participate as you were in joining.

 

Pariah, please forgive Tomcats blunt response. He is currently building google bomb mortar in the basement for jihad that will please Lord Dawkins. It's stressful, if his google bombs don't hit their target it could mean less virgins for him in heaven.

DAWKINS AKBAR!

Yes, YES! Master must haves his google bombs! See, when they BOOM, we gets glorious BOOBS

May Dawkins and all whom he touches be blessed. 

The Enlightenment wounded the beast, but the killing blow has yet to land...


croath
Theist
Posts: 100
Joined: 2007-05-05
User is offlineOffline
First a response to Brian,

First a response to Brian, whom I mostly wanting to hear from. As a leader of this squad, he should at the least be capable of giving reason for his actions and not resort to the defenses of his followers.

Sapient wrote:

How about we start by judging how moral we are, by how well we can adhere to the rules of law?


Way to miss the point. So we're now measuring "good" as being "the ability to adhere to a set of arbitrary rules"? Such that the better someone is able to adhere to those rules the more "good" they are? I'm asking you, Brian, why you think it is good to adhere to the rules of the law? I'll bet you can't answer without resorting to selfish reasons, or contradicting your worldview.

What if the law said, "All citizens must worship God"? Or "all who disbelieve in the existence of God must commit suicide"? Would that make you evil if you then disobey the law? If "good" is merely adhering to the law, then I don't see any reason for your anger. You have a bankrupt approach to morality. The law in many places prohibits abortion. Is that a "good" law in your opinion? If you make a judgement about the laws themselves, then obviously adhering to the law is not the definition of good.

The fact is that an atheist could be the most lawless man in history and he would not be doing anything contradictory to his worldview. Who cares if atheists do follow the law? The question is why you think it is good to do so.

Sapient wrote:

We're simply more moral within the confines of the law, and we've got science to back it.


The *science* to back it? What does that even mean in this context? Are you referring to research that shows atheists as being more law-abiding than theists? That's not even relevant to my point.

Sapient wrote:

"Finding Jesus" is the excuse of immoral people who don't take responsibility for their actions.


Responsibility? What a joke. You, I am quite sure, believe that the mind is no more than the brain, a physical entity. Our actions are all determined by antecedent causes, or random quantum changes. Where does responsibility fit in a world with no freedom? What makes you think that you are free to do the things you do? Perhaps you do what you do simply because you evolved this way, and that's the way the neurons in your brain fire. There's no freedom in a computer, there's no freedom in you. So there's no responsibility.

Your atheistic worldview is bereft of meaning or value. You think you are fighting a good fight, but you're deluded. There is no "good", no greater goal worth pursuing. Your self-righteous crusade is based on delusional beliefs.

And to "evil religion":

evil religion wrote:

Because thats what I think and thats what scoiety agrees upon. This is all there is to good and evil. I consider religion bad becasue it prevents our morals from adapting to serve the greater good.


You and Brian do not read from the same sheet of lyrics. At least you understand, mostly, the implications of an atheist worldview. But you are still confused, holding on to remnants of sanity that you aren't entitled to.

Make up your mind. Is morality the "majority vote" definitions by society of good and evil? Or is good that which leads to greater happiness? You can't have both of these. Pick one - they're both arbitrary choices, and one as good as the next. You can't have both though, since they can contradict. Then again, the atheist has no a priori commitment to rationality or consistency.

If you picked the "majority vote" option, tell me: If you lived in a society where atheism was outlawed as evil, and theism was good, would you tow the line. Or would you reject societies' definitions of good and evil in that case?

Or maybe you'll pick the option of "that which leads to greater happiness". What then would you make of a world where theism grants a happier life? Even if you knew theism was wrong, you'd still be right to encourage belief in God, so long as it made people happier. There's no duty here to reason or truth - only to happiness. Ignorance is bliss.

If you picked greater happiness, what would you say to an atheist who picked personal happiness? Imagine I'm an atheist who likes to rape and torture children, and then kill them. I know it doesn't make them happy, but it makes *me* happy. I realise others disapprove, and I think I'm clever enough to evade ever being caught. What reasons would you offer me for saying that I shouldn't do what makes me happy? Why should I care about the happiness of the majority?

You can pick whatever abritrary foundation for morality that you want - but you have no grounds for objecting to another person picking any other arbitrary foundation. Your worldview permits any action. Just because most atheists are too blind to see this and instead conform to societies' rules, doesn't make this untrue.

evil religion wrote:
I think if you look at the moral rules of most societies, including ours, you will find atheist are morally superior to theists. The criminal and penal system is basically based upon our underlying morality. Theist are far more likely to comit crime and end up in prison than atehists. Hence atheists are generally more moral. End of story.


This is completely irrelevant to the argument. If I agreed with you that atheists are less likely to commit what theists call sins, less likely to break the law, etc, it wouldn't change my argument one bit. It's up to you to show me why this claim weakens my argument.

evil religion wrote:

I'm not going to bother with them because as I said I don't actually agree with any of them. They are out there trust me but I'm not going to waste time expounding an argument that I think is false.


Any reason you mentioned it then? So far the conversation looks like:
Theist: Under atheism, objective morality does not exist
Atheist: Some atheists think that it does, but not I
Theist: Show me
Atheist: Why? I don't believe it.

Well fine, you're just telling you agree with what I said originaly - that under atheism objective morality does not exist. Don't bring up irrelevant tangents, pretending to contradict me, unless you have a point to make.


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
croath wrote: evil

croath wrote:


evil religion wrote:

Because thats what I think and thats what scoiety agrees upon. This is all there is to good and evil. I consider religion bad becasue it prevents our morals from adapting to serve the greater good.


You and Brian do not read from the same sheet of lyrics. At least you understand, mostly, the implications of an atheist worldview.

Indeed the implications are that the our moral zeitgeist will be able to adapt unhindered by religion. It will adapt for teh greater good of humanity rather than the greater good of small selection of priests. 

Quote:
But you are still confused, holding on to remnants of sanity that you aren't entitled to.

Make up your mind. Is morality the "majority vote" definitions by society of good and evil? Or is good that which leads to greater happiness?

Both 

Quote:
You can't have both of these.

Yes I can they are not mutually exclusive. There can easily be more than one element to morality. 

Quote:
Pick one - they're both arbitrary choices, and one as good as the next. You can't have both though, since they can contradict.

There may be some conflict I agree but that does not mean that they are not both important elemenets in making up our morality.  

Quote:
Then again, the atheist has no a priori commitment to rationality or consistency.

Unlike the theist who answers any tricky questions with "it was dun by magic by god" hmmmm yes very rational. 

Quote:
If you picked the "majority vote" option, tell me: If you lived in a society where atheism was outlawed as evil, and theism was good, would you tow the line. Or would you reject societies' definitions of good and evil in that case?

Me personally? I would reject it. But I would be considered evil by most people and in fact I would be evil by the definition of that society. 

Quote:
Or maybe you'll pick the option of "that which leads to greater happiness". What then would you make of a world where theism grants a happier life? Even if you knew theism was wrong, you'd still be right to encourage belief in God, so long as it made people happier. There's no duty here to reason or truth - only to happiness. Ignorance is bliss.

If this where the case then I would probably opt for theism being a good thing one that should remain within our society.

Quote:
If you picked greater happiness, what would you say to an atheist who picked personal happiness? Imagine I'm an atheist who likes to rape and torture children, and then kill them. I know it doesn't make them happy, but it makes *me* happy.

Thats why morality is a consensus of the society. Individuals will always break with that consensus but we do not allow them to do so because consensus is an important part of morality. 

Quote:
I realise others disapprove, and I think I'm clever enough to evade ever being caught. What reasons would you offer me for saying that I shouldn't do what makes me happy? Why should I care about the happiness of the majority?

If you don't care about the happiness of the majority then you are immoral. If you are an imoral bad person then what am I suposed to do? I can't change the way your mind works but society will put in place various measures to curb your behaviour. This is why we have laws.

Quote:
You can pick whatever abritrary foundation for morality that you want - but you have no grounds for objecting to another person picking any other arbitrary foundation.

Yes I do. I object because they break with consensus I object becasue I find their actions to be wrong. If society is with me on this then generally that persons morailty will be deemed evil and prevented.  

Quote:
Your worldview permits any action. Just because most atheists are too blind to see this and instead conform to societies' rules, doesn't make this untrue.

No it does not permit any action.

If we break the consensus then the actions are not permited. This why we have laws. Laws are the enforcement of scoial contracts upon whcih we all broadly agree. Some people may disagree with the laws and the morals of society well thats up to them but there are consiquences put in place for those taht break the moral rules agreed upon.  

Quote:
evil religion wrote:
I think if you look at the moral rules of most societies, including ours, you will find atheist are morally superior to theists. The criminal and penal system is basically based upon our underlying morality. Theist are far more likely to comit crime and end up in prison than atehists. Hence atheists are generally more moral. End of story.


This is completely irrelevant to the argument. If I agreed with you that atheists are less likely to commit what theists call sins, less likely to break the law, etc, it wouldn't change my argument one bit. It's up to you to show me why this claim weakens my argument.

Because IF thesit absolute morality where true and there was an OBJECTIVE right and wrong for all to know then those that follow  the correct religion would be better people, they aren't this is evidence that any notions of objective morality are nonsense.

Quote:
evil religion wrote:

I'm not going to bother with them because as I said I don't actually agree with any of them. They are out there trust me but I'm not going to waste time expounding an argument that I think is false.


Any reason you mentioned it then? So far the conversation looks like:

I was just correcting you on technial error you made in morla philsophy thats all.

 

Quote:
Theist: Under atheism, objective morality does not exist

Correct

Quote:
Atheist: Some atheists think that it does, but not I

Correct

Quote:
Theist: Show me
Atheist: Why? I don't believe it.

 Well fine, you're just telling you agree with what I said originaly - that under atheism objective morality does not exist. Don't bring up irrelevant tangents, pretending to contradict me, unless you have a point to make.

You made an erronious claim that all atheists think that morality is subjective or that without God all morality is subjective, or words to that effect. It was a sweeping statement that many far better thinkers than you or I would disagree with you on.

 

 

Anyway back to the point. The problem you are having in accepting a subjective view of morality is that you are stuck in an objective way of thinking. You are stuck in thinking that there must be a set of objetive morals otherwise people can just make them up. To some extent this is true. We do all define our own set of morals, but this process comes from living within a society where we interact with other human beings, a whole host of environmental factorsm social conditionings affect our moral development and consensus is a very  important part of this. So we can't just "make up our morals" neither is one set of morals as valid as another. In fact comparring conflicting moral codes in this way is meaningless. If we compare moral code A with moral code B then we are presumposing that there is some yard stick to compare it with - this is precicely what I am saying does not exist, the question is therfore meaningless.

All we can do is say part X or moral code B is imoral within moral code A. For example the part of the Christian moral code that calls for the persecution of homosexuals is now largely considered to be inconflict with the general moral code adopted by westren liberal democracies. There is no OBJECTIVE right and wrong on this only right and wrong within the context of each moral code. Within the Chrsitian moral code  they are right to persecute homosexuals, within the "liberal" moral code christians are acting imorally when they do this. What will ultimately decide which moral code is adopted on the whole really boils down to a "survival of the fitest morals" whcih ones appeal to people the most? Which ones make people happy? Which ones appear sensible? Which ones cause misery? This process will regulate which morals "win" over time and are adopted by scoiety at large. BUT it is this process that religion and any objective morality stagnates, this is why religious morality seems to cause so much pain and suffering.

 

 


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
  In reply to

 

In reply to Croath:

*edit*

Damn, got beaten by the above post. He possibly answered this much better than me, but here's mine anyway.

*/edit* 

 

I don't mean to speak for Brian, but I saw your reply and I wanted to throw in my two cents.

I think you might be misinterpreting what Brian meant when he said "laws". I don't think he was necessarily referring only to legality.

 

Morality is a complex phenomenon, but it does not require a religion or deity to exist. There are at least two sides to the morality coin, if not more:

1) Biological. Humans are social creatures, having evolved in social groups over millions of years. We recognize the value in helping other people and we enjoy receiving help from others. It doesn't take a super intelligent creature to help out one of its own with the expectation that the one being helped will reciprocate. It's the golden rule. Do as you would have done to you: good or bad.

A basic form of this simple understanding of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" grew into something more complex, which we refer to as empathy. Humans aren't the only mammals that have it. And since animals apparently don't have souls... well... there ya go.

To put it as simply as possible, I'm not going to shoot you in the face because I don't want someone to do that to me. I can also imagine that I would not like someone doing that to one of my friends or relatives. Most of us are of a common mind when it comes to basic moral concepts like these, so we all agree that killing is bad.

"Killing is bad and wrong... there should be a new better word for killing... like bad-wrong... or... badong... yes... killing is badong..."

Sorry. Compulsive movie quoter.

 

2) Social. Another aspect of morality is social consequences. If one of my friends steals $20 from my wallet, that friend will quickly lose my trust. Since we are social creatures and place such value on our social ties, and since we would therefore see those sorts of consequences as bad, we are naturally discouraged from doing these sorts of things.

However, societies have grown much larger since the days when we clustered in small bands. We now have a legal system in which the most basic laws are simply based on the basic morals we agreed on a long time ago for very natural reasons.

There are many other types of laws that are simply in place to promote safety and order though, and aren't necessarily rooted in agreements about morality (i.e. Don't jay walk, only smoke in designated areas, don't park in this spot after 6pm, etc).

Also, different societies have different needs, so not every society's morality will be the same.

 

All of that being said, morality is arbitrary in the sense that things are only good and bad because we as a society agree on them. The morals that all socieites tend to share (i.e. don't kill, don't steal, etc) tend to be more basic, golden-rule type morals, while the more diverse morals (i.e. polygamy vs monogamy, age of consent, what kind of clothing is appropriate, what kind of language is inappropriate, etc) tend to be idiosyncratic to the cultures to which they belong.

 

This isn't to say that no moral rules are ever products of religion, because some of them are (Don't use God's name in vain, don't masturbate, etc) but those are victimless crimes in that they are only bad "because God said so" whereas the others have very definite implications on your immediate social situation. Atheists and Theists will tend to split on the morals that are only moral because a god said so, because if the crime doesn't have a victim, the atheist doesn't see how it's all that bad.

I stress that this only applies to actions that have no victim.

 

Atheists have morals just like everyone else. We can choose to obey them or waive them, just like everyone else. It's maybe hard to wrap your head around, but it makes perfect sense.

 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Due to time constraints

Due to time constraints with Operation Spread Eagle intact I will be resting on the arguments of evil religion.

 

I would have taken a slightly different approach, pointing out the correlations between your rationalization process and the indicators of delusional disorder.  I would have also exposed more of your backwards thinking process due to the fact that religion has corrupted your mind. But that's just me.  I'm pissed, and the more I hear people whining about how they don't have a disorder, the more likely I am to point out the delusional disorder indicators.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


croath
Theist
Posts: 100
Joined: 2007-05-05
User is offlineOffline
Quote: There may be some

Quote:
There may be some conflict I agree but that does not mean that they are not both important elemenets [sic] in making up our morality.


They are not the same things. You've picked two definitions of morality which are on their own neither sufficient nor necessary, by your own answers. They are completely unhelpful as definitions on their own.

Quote:
Unlike the theist who answers any tricky questions with "it was dun by magic by god" hmmmm yes very rational.

This is irrelevant. The point is that the atheistic worldview has no a priori commitment to rationality or consistency. Individual theists may be irrational or inconsistent, but this says nothing about the theistic worldview itself. I was commenting on the system, you were commenting on the people in that system. Two different things. You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between a worldview, and those who claim to follow that worldview.

Quote:
Me personally? I would reject it. But I would be considered evil by most people and in fact I would be evil by the definition of that society.


Then you are immoral, surely? Because you're not interested in doing what is right or good - instead you're following your own subjective system of morality that allows conflicts with the moral system of "majority vote". How can you call yourself moral if you're not interested in doing good? You're only interested in following your own personal system.

Quote:
Thats why morality is a consensus of the society. Individuals will always break with that consensus but we do not allow them to do so because consensus is an important part of morality.


And now you come back to the majority vote system! You're not acting consistently. You say earlier that you would do "evil" by opposing the consensus of society in some circumstances, but in others you say that it's perfectly good to condemn someone purely on the basis that they defy majority vote of morality. You're describing conditions for good and evil that are not sufficient or necessary. I see no sanity or consistency to be applauded. If you feel free to reject majority vote in some circumstances, then so should the atheist who wants to rape, torture and kill children be given the same perogative.

Quote:
Because IF thesit [sic] absolute morality where true and there was an OBJECTIVE right and wrong for all to know then those that follow the correct religion would be better people, they aren't this is evidence that any notions of objective morality are nonsense.


There are two flaws with your argument:
1. Even if I accept your conclusion that if theists were right they'd be more moral than atheists, that doesn't destroy my argument against atheism - namely, it doesn't prove that atheism provides a good ground for morality. It is still irrelevant to my argument
2. IF theists are correct, then what is good and moral includes not just the golden rule, but also loving, serving and honouring God. Atheists are incapable of this, and therefore sinful in that regard.

Quote:
I was just correcting you on technial [sic] error you made in morla [sic] philsophy [sic] thats [sic] all[...]You made an erronious claim that all atheists think that morality is subjective or that without God all morality is subjective, or words to that effect.


The exact claim I made was Atheism and objective morality are incompatible. This is not a claim about the beliefs of individual atheists, but rather a statement about the logical conclusions of an atheist worldview. That is true, regardless of whether or not every atheist is capable of thinking through his own beliefs consistently. I know many atheists think that objective morality exists. They are wrong. You agree. I made no "technial [sic]" error. Again you fail to distinguish between the worldview itself and those that support it.

Quote:
All we can do is say part X or moral code B is imoral within moral code A.


This is precisely the point I have been making, and you'll find no disagreement from me. What I say is that Brian Cutler's outrage at theism is a fantasy. He doesn't have the support of society, theists are arguably happier than their non-believing counterparts, and has offered no moral system that justifies his crusade. You, contradicting yourself, say that we should care about majority rule, and that we should care about the greater good. But you offer no reason why. I am arguing that there is no reason. You pick an arbitrary truth - eg, greater happiness - and you form a system of morality around that. Brian hates theists with a passion, and gets pissed when they don't share a love for the light that shines from him. So what? He can't offer any reason why his fight is good. He could just as easily adhere to a moral system that says the greatest good is to blend in with the majority opinion, or another where everyone who's last name ends with 'k' must be killed.

Quote:

If we compare moral code A with moral code B then we are presumposing that there is some yard stick to compare it with - this is precicely what I am saying does not exist, the question is therfore [sic] meaningless.


Exactly! So the atheist who favours hamster happiness over human happiness is justified equally well - ie, he has no justification. There is no justification for any moral system under atheism. Only personal likes and dislikes, and complex social interactions that *just are*. Brian is an idiot to say theists are evil, because he uses evil in an objective sense. His views, however, have no justification. His moral outrage is a joke, completely unjustified.


croath
Theist
Posts: 100
Joined: 2007-05-05
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Due to time

Sapient wrote:
Due to time constraints with Operation Spread Eagle intact I will be resting on the arguments of evil religion.


Pity he didn't address the portions I sent against you. At least he's spent more than five minutes thinking about what he believes.

Sapient wrote:
I would have taken a slightly different approach, pointing out the correlations between your rationalization process and the indicators of delusional disorder. I would have also exposed more of your backwards thinking process due to the fact that religion has corrupted your mind. But that's just me. I'm pissed, and the more I hear people whining about how they don't have a disorder, the more likely I am to point out the delusional disorder indicators.


I would have ignored your references to delusional disorder as overhyped examples of severe irrational arguing, and ad-hominem to the extreme. I would have then pointed out bluntly and precisely the idiocy that allows you to again miss the point of my argument, instead dodging the question with all the grace of an elephant. I would have then exposed your narrow-minded inability to apply what you believe consistently, and think through your own beliefs.

Imaginary debates are fun:
http://www.bash.org/?23396

Who cares if you're pissed, just because another atheist told you what you wanted to hear? You're irrational, and can't even give a foundation for your outrage. You're depending on the morality that you were raised on by a society founded on theistic morality.


croath
Theist
Posts: 100
Joined: 2007-05-05
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for the reply,

Thanks for the reply, Archeopteryx. You'll notice from my posts that I disagree with you less than you suppose, and that the points you address are not relevant to my argument. I'll just comment on your last sentence:

Archeopteryx wrote:
Atheists have morals just like everyone else. We can choose to obey them or waive them, just like everyone else. It's maybe hard to wrap your head around, but it makes perfect sense.


I never claimed atheists themselves are bereft of morals. What I claimed was that the atheist worldview was bereft of morals. As an atheist, you can still be moral - but if you think through your beliefs you'll realise that you have no reason to be as such.

I believe atheists can be moral because God exists and there is a moral system that people can adhere to.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
croath wrote: I would have

croath wrote:

I would have ignored your references to delusional disorder as overhyped examples of severe irrational arguing, and ad-hominem to the extreme. I would have then pointed out bluntly and precisely the idiocy that allows you to again miss the point of my argument, instead dodging the question with all the grace of an elephant. I would have then exposed your narrow-minded inability to apply what you believe consistently, and think through your own beliefs.

 

I would be pointing out delusional disorder indicators here, but it's bed time. 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
croath wrote:

croath wrote:
Quote:
There may be some conflict I agree but that does not mean that they are not both important elemenets [sic] in making up our morality.


They are not the same things. You've picked two definitions of morality which are on their own neither sufficient nor necessary, by your own answers. They are completely unhelpful as definitions on their own.

I am explaining why we have morality and where it comes from. There isn't one simple explanation, one single element to it. Morality is a complex subject. Its a complex part of human socila evolution and psychology. Why on earth would you think that is has one simple easy explanation?

Quote:
Quote:
Unlike the theist who answers any tricky questions with "it was dun by magic by god" hmmmm yes very rational.

This is irrelevant. The point is that the atheistic worldview has no a priori commitment to rationality or consistency.

Indeed. So what? It has no aprioricommitment. But at least it does not rest on an irrationally held premis i.e. "god exists".

Quote:
Individual theists may be irrational or inconsistent,

All theists are irrational. Theism is irrational. Most are also inconsistent as they rarely actually act as if they really believe in the God that they claim they believ in (But thats another topic)

Quote:
but this says nothing about the theistic worldview itself.

The theist world view is irrational from its basic premise "God exists" is irrational. Anything relying on an irrational premise is also irrational.

Quote:
I was commenting on the system, you were commenting on the people in that system. Two different things. You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between a worldview, and those who claim to follow that worldview.

 

The theistic world view rests on an irrational premis. This means that the system itself is irrational.

The atheist world view (if such a thing even exists) eliminates the irrationally held premis God exists. It is therefore a better starting point than the theistic one.

Quote:
Quote:
Me personally? I would reject it. But I would be considered evil by most people and in fact I would be evil by the definition of that society.


Then you are immoral, surely?

In the context of the hypotheticla society you bring up yes I am.

Quote:
Because you're not interested in doing what is right or good - instead you're following your own subjective system of morality that allows conflicts with the moral system of "majority vote".

Indeed. In the context of that society I am indeed imoral.

In the context of the Christain world view I am imoral as are homosexuals.

Quote:
How can you call yourself moral if you're not interested in doing good? You're only interested in following your own personal system.

My personal system IS good. That is all there IS to goodness. Once you get this things will be easier for you.

Quote:
Quote:
Thats why morality is a consensus of the society. Individuals will always break with that consensus but we do not allow them to do so because consensus is an important part of morality.


And now you come back to the majority vote system! You're not acting consistently.

Yes I am. Both are important in teh complex issue of morality.

Quote:
You say earlier that you would do "evil" by opposing the consensus of society in some circumstances,

Correct. But it would not be evil for me.

Quote:
but in others you say that it's perfectly good to condemn someone purely on the basis that they defy majority vote of morality.

Correct

Quote:
You're describing conditions for good and evil that are not sufficient or necessary. I see no sanity or consistency to be applauded. If you feel free to reject majority vote in some circumstances, then so should the atheist who wants to rape, torture and kill children be given the same perogative.

If they think their actions are good then thats up to them. But they will be punished for it because the consensus is that it is not good. In the context of our society they are evil and wil be punsihed and in my morality I agree entirely with that punishment

Quote:
Quote:
Because IF thesit [sic] absolute morality where true and there was an OBJECTIVE right and wrong for all to know then those that follow the correct religion would be better people, they aren't this is evidence that any notions of objective morality are nonsense.


There are two flaws with your argument:
1. Even if I accept your conclusion that if theists were right they'd be more moral than atheists, that doesn't destroy my argument against atheism - namely, it doesn't prove that atheism provides a good ground for morality. It is still irrelevant to my argument

No it just proves that theism is not a good ground for morality. In fact it would tend to show that it hinders moral behaviour as defineid within our society.


Quote:
2. IF theists are correct, then what is good and moral includes not just the golden rule, but also loving, serving and honouring God. Atheists are incapable of this, and therefore sinful in that regard.

Indeed. In the context of the theistic morality atheists are imoral and evil. This is one example of stupid irrational beliefs preventing change. These imoral atheists apparently are far less likely to comit crime, have divorces and end up in prison. Yet they are "imoral" once we ditch the religion we can see why this theistic world view is just daft.

Quote:
Quote:
I was just correcting you on technial [sic] error you made in morla [sic] philsophy [sic] thats [sic] all[...]You made an erronious claim that all atheists think that morality is subjective or that without God all morality is subjective, or words to that effect.


The exact claim I made was Atheism and objective morality are incompatible.

Fair enough. I would tend to agree with you on this. Although there are atheists and moral philosphers who would take issue with both of us on that.

Quote:
This is not a claim about the beliefs of individual atheists, but rather a statement about the logical conclusions of an atheist worldview.

There is not atheist world view. Atheism is merely a lack of beleif in God. I think you are making far to many assumptions about what all atheists think.

Quote:
That is true, regardless of whether or not every atheist is capable of thinking through his own beliefs consistently. I know many atheists think that objective morality exists. They are wrong.

I would tend to agree with you. But I really do not know many of these atheists they are in the minority I assure you.

Quote:
You agree. I made no "technial [sic]" error. Again you fail to distinguish between the worldview itself and those that support it.

There is not atheist world view. Trying to say "all atheists think this or that" is pointless. There is nothing intrinsic within the lack of beleif in a God which necessarily preculde and absolute morality. Lack of beleif in God DOES NOT NECESSARILY entail a lack of absolute morality. There is no NECESSARY relationship here. That is all I was saying. You seem to think that there IS you are wrong to do so.

Quote:
Quote:
All we can do is say part X or moral code B is imoral within moral code A.


This is precisely the point I have been making, and you'll find no disagreement from me. What I say is that Brian Cutler's outrage at theism is a fantasy. He doesn't have the support of society, theists are arguably happier than their non-believing counterparts, and has offered no moral system that justifies his crusade.

This will change trust me. If we just accept the morality of the time we would still

Have slavery

Woman would be second class citizens

Homosexuality would be criminal

There is nothing wrong with trying to change the morality of a society. Things move on. We move on. Religion may well have been important for well being in the past, maybe the dogma, the power abuses, the tortures, the burnings and wars where all a price we had to pay for some greater good for society. Maybe? But now thats changes we do not need this nonsense anymore. Its time to change it.

Quote:
You, contradicting yourself, say that we should care about majority rule, and that we should care about the greater good. But you offer no reason why.

This is how morality is defined. There is no greater reason why. Thats the point. Morality IS subjective and thats all there is to it.

Quote:
I am arguing that there is no reason.

Correct. Outside the context of a society there IS no reason for one morality over another. The very idea that there would be a reason is a nonsense as it is effectivly trying to definine a subjective thing with an objective thing whcih simply does not exist.

Quote:
You pick an arbitrary truth - eg, greater happiness - and you form a system of morality around that.

Yep

Quote:
Brian hates theists with a passion, and gets pissed when they don't share a love for the light that shines from him. So what? He can't offer any reason why his fight is good. He could just as easily adhere to a moral system that says the greatest good is to blend in with the majority opinion, or another where everyone who's last name ends with 'k' must be killed.

He could do but he does not. So what?

Quote:
Quote:

If we compare moral code A with moral code B then we are presumposing that there is some yard stick to compare it with - this is precicely what I am saying does not exist, the question is therfore [sic] meaningless.


Exactly! So the atheist who favours hamster happiness over human happiness is justified equally well - ie, he has no justification.

Yep. Now your getting it. Morality is a convention thats all.

Quote:
There is no justification for any moral system under atheism. Only personal likes and dislikes, and complex social interactions that *just are*.

There is no objective justifcation of course not because that is exactly what I am denyng exists! There is plenty of subjective justfications though. If we agree that the greater good is a must then some moralities are justifiable some are not.

Quote:
Brian is an idiot to say theists are evil,

Nope. They are evil to him if he indeed thinks this.

Quote:
because he uses evil in an objective sense.

No he does not. There is no objective sense of the word "evil". The word evil does not mean what you think it does. The word "evil" means something along the lines of "the act goes against my moral code"

Quote:
His views, however, have no justification. His moral outrage is a joke, completely unjustified.

It is justfied if we take certain base premises to be true.

If we believe that we should "serve the greater good" for example. Or to

"Act to eliminate human suffering" then he may be justified within the contexts of such a system. As too the justification for those base premises well I would say that they work well as base premises. They tend to serve our needs. Its a system that works. Past experiance tells us that morals derived from these assumptions tend to work out well and lead to a workable, more peaceful society. This is afterall the function of morality. Its purpose is to allow us to interact and live together in relative harmony.

Let me ask you

What is the justification for following the word of God?

Why should we do what God says?

There is no justification is there? You just have to say "well thats the way it is". You can't even say that it works well and leads to a more peacful and ordered society (well not anymore). It quite clearly does not - if the crime stats are anything to go by.

So to conclude you can pick your morality and say

"I will do what the Bible says God says we should do"

I will pick mine which will be made up of  axioms like

"The greater good should be served"

"We should try to elimnate pain and suffering"

Lets see whcih one works? Which one gets the best results. How do we measure results? Well I'll let you think about that? How would you deterine whether a moral system is working well or not? Perhaps the number of criminal acts comitted by subscribers to that moral system? Perhaps the general level of social well being in the society in question? I don't know for certain but if we look at crime and general standards of living I think this gives a good indication of how well a moral system is working. 

 

 


croath
Theist
Posts: 100
Joined: 2007-05-05
User is offlineOffline
You're doing a lot of

You're doing a lot of agreeing with me now - and pretending that it's as if I changed my opinion. These are the things I've been saying from the very start. You weren't as clear, initially, that you believed that you had to pick an arbitrary premise from which your morality stems. In fact, you had said earlier,

evil religion wrote:
croath wrote:
You can pick whatever abritrary foundation for morality that you want - but you have no grounds for objecting to another person picking any other arbitrary foundation.


Yes I do. I object because they break with consensus I object becasue I find their actions to be wrong. If society is with me on this then generally that persons morailty will be deemed evil and prevented.


Above you clearly tried to contradict me when I claimed that you just arbitrarily pick a foundational premise. Now you say:
evil religion wrote:
croath wrote:

You pick an arbitrary truth - eg, greater happiness - and you form a system of morality around that.

Yep


and...

evil religion wrote:
croath wrote:

His views, however, have no justification. His moral outrage is a joke, completely unjustified.

It is justfied if we take certain base premises to be true.


and
evil religion wrote:
croath wrote:

You're describing conditions for good and evil that are not sufficient or necessary. I see no sanity or consistency to be applauded. If you feel free to reject majority vote in some circumstances, then so should the atheist who wants to rape, torture and kill children be given the same perogative.

If they think their actions are good then thats up to them.


So you once denied my conclusion that choosing a premise is arbitrary and without foundation, but now you affirm it and pretend it was your view all along.

Now that you actually agree with me, rather than contradict me, on this point, we can move on to the main point I was making all along:
Brian, or any atheist at all, can offer no philosophically compelling reason for accepting one arbitrary premise over another. His moral outrage has no ultimate foundation. It is possible to refute or deny it simply by saying, "I have a different arbitrary foundational premise to morality than you", and that is the end of it. No more. As a theist my job is done. Brian can offer no more compelling arguments to me if I simply have a different arbitrary premise. He cannot offer me any argument, when he assumes atheism, that would give me a good reason to change it.

His appeals would be limited to selfish lures - "you should fight the good fight with us because we'll share the loot with you when we plunder the homes of theists", or "join us, because hating people is fun and feels good". But there's no good *reason* for this. No rationality. Just appeals to my personal greed.

You agree with me on these points, but pretend it was me that changed my understanding.

evil religion wrote:
All theists are irrational. Theism is irrational. Most are also inconsistent as they rarely actually act as if they really believe in the God that they claim they believ [sic] in (But thats another topic)


So you say. This is irrelevant to my argument. You're trying to introduce a new topic of discussion, but I'm interested only in talking about Brian's justifications at this time - not in defending theism. I resist your attempt to change topics.

evil religion wrote:
Lack of beleif [sic] in God DOES NOT NECESSARILY entail a lack of absolute morality. There is no NECESSARY relationship here. That is all I was saying. You seem to think that there IS you are wrong to do so.


I think that a system which denies the existence of God necessarily is a system which cannot allow absolute morality. I think that it is possible for atheists to hold contradictory beliefs, and believe both that there is no God and that absolute morality exists. This is a contradiction, and the point I am making. Do you agree with this statement: "If there is no God, there is no absolute morality".

Quote:
Lets see whcih [sic] one works? Which one gets the best results.

Bah, you contradict yourself again! How can you judge whether it "works" or not, unless you've picked some arbitrary yard stick? You said yourself earlier that,
evil religion wrote:

In fact comparring conflicting moral codes in this way is meaningless. If we compare moral code A with moral code B then we are presumposing that there is some yard stick to compare it with - this is precicely what I am saying does not exist, the question is therfore meaningless.

All we can do is say part X or moral code B is imoral within moral code A.


You're not applying your own beliefs consistently. This is the heart of the problem.

My foundational premise might just be "whatever produces more theists". Why? Well, why not? By this yard-stick your proposed alternatives don't work.

It's as though you argue persuasively for the logical conclusions of atheism, but fail to apply it in real world examples.

I can reject Brian's moral outrage, his pissed off demeanor, his hatred for theists, his crusade against our beliefs, by simply saying, "I have a different arbitrary premise for my moral system than you". Enough said. You have no compelling arguments that can convince me you have the moral high-ground.


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
croath wrote:

croath wrote:
You're doing a lot of agreeing with me now - and pretending that it's as if I changed my opinion. These are the things I've been saying from the very start. You weren't as clear, initially, that you believed that you had to pick an arbitrary premise from which your morality stems. In fact, you had said earlier,

evil religion wrote:
croath wrote:
You can pick whatever abritrary foundation for morality that you want - but you have no grounds for objecting to another person picking any other arbitrary foundation.


Yes I do. I object because they break with consensus I object becasue I find their actions to be wrong. If society is with me on this then generally that persons morailty will be deemed evil and prevented.


Above you clearly tried to contradict me when I claimed that you just arbitrarily pick a foundational premise. Now you say:
evil religion wrote:
croath wrote:

You pick an arbitrary truth - eg, greater happiness - and you form a system of morality around that.

Yep


and...

evil religion wrote:
croath wrote:

His views, however, have no justification. His moral outrage is a joke, completely unjustified.

It is justfied if we take certain base premises to be true.


and
evil religion wrote:
croath wrote:

You're describing conditions for good and evil that are not sufficient or necessary. I see no sanity or consistency to be applauded. If you feel free to reject majority vote in some circumstances, then so should the atheist who wants to rape, torture and kill children be given the same perogative.

If they think their actions are good then thats up to them.


So you once denied my conclusion that choosing a premise is arbitrary and without foundation, but now you affirm it and pretend it was your view all along.

I did nothing of the sort!

I've never claimed that morality can be objectivly picked. I've never denied that the choice is aribitary. What I said was that I can object to other peoples choices in morality and I can and I do. There is a difference.

Quote:
Now that you actually agree with me, rather than contradict me, on this point, we can move on to the main point I was making all along:
Brian, or any atheist at all, can offer no philosophically compelling reason for accepting one arbitrary premise over another.

Well first of all neither can you.

Secondly I would say that going with what works well is generally a good place to start. The evidence would suggest that Christian morality actually leads to more crime, more divorse and more teenage pregnancy. So if we want to reduce those things, as I do, then we should reject religion based morality and adopt more secular values.

Quote:
His moral outrage has no ultimate foundation.

If you mean does it have an objective foundtation then you are correct it does not.

It does have a very good foundation on its ability to achieve certain goals then is is demonstratbly better at achieving those goals than your morality. I am of course assuming that you do wish to reduce crime, divorse rates and teenage pregnancy. If you don't then fine we differ on that.

Quote:
It is possible to refute or deny it simply by saying, "I have a different arbitrary foundational premise to morality than you", and that is the end of it. No more. As a theist my job is done. Brian can offer no more compelling arguments to me if I simply have a different arbitrary premise. He cannot offer me any argument, when he assumes atheism, that would give me a good reason to change it.

Except of course when it actually comes down to what works i the real world. On a high faluting philsophical level you may well be right your arbitary "god said so" basis for morality is no more justfiable than one thats based on "creating the most happiness". But when it comes down to what we actually want to achieve from our moral codes then there is a real difference. I'll go with the one that gets the best results.

Now we can always argue about what the results should be.

What do you think we should aim to get from our moral codes?

Quote:
His appeals would be limited to selfish lures - "you should fight the good fight with us because we'll share the loot with you when we plunder the homes of theists", or "join us, because hating people is fun and feels good". But there's no good *reason* for this. No rationality. Just appeals to my personal greed.

Or perhaps we could say

"Join us becasue we can show that in more atheistic countries they have less crime, less poverty, less wealth inequality, less teenage pregnancy and a higher standard of living."

If you don't care about those things then stick with your arbitary

"God says so" basis for morality.

If you do care about those things then I'd ditch the God and come over to side of reason.

You agree with me on these points, but pretend it was me that changed my understanding.

Quote:
evil religion wrote:
All theists are irrational. Theism is irrational. Most are also inconsistent as they rarely actually act as if they really believe in the God that they claim they believ [sic] in (But thats another topic)


So you say. This is irrelevant to my argument. You're trying to introduce a new topic of discussion, but I'm interested only in talking about Brian's justifications at this time - not in defending theism. I resist your attempt to change topics.

It is relevant. If we accept that thesim is irrational and then we even accept your notion that there is no ultimate rational justfication for notheistic morality as well we are left with a choice. We can decide this by looking what we want to achieve and whcih method gets the results. Secular morality wins on this so it is the sensible choice.

Quote:
evil religion wrote:
Lack of beleif [sic] in God DOES NOT NECESSARILY entail a lack of absolute morality. There is no NECESSARY relationship here. That is all I was saying. You seem to think that there IS you are wrong to do so.


I think that a system which denies the existence of God necessarily is a system which cannot allow absolute morality. I think that it is possible for atheists to hold contradictory beliefs, and believe both that there is no God and that absolute morality exists. This is a contradiction, and the point I am making. Do you agree with this statement: "If there is no God, there is no absolute morality".

No I do not agree with the statement

"If there is no God, there is no absolute morality"

I agree that there is no God

and

I agree that there is no absolute morality

There is no IF relationship between the two though.

There is no caual relationship here in my opinion. 

Quote:
Quote:
Lets see whcih [sic] one works? Which one gets the best results.

Bah, you contradict yourself again! How can you judge whether it "works" or not, unless you've picked some arbitrary yard stick? You said yourself earlier that,
evil religion wrote:

In fact comparring conflicting moral codes in this way is meaningless. If we compare moral code A with moral code B then we are presumposing that there is some yard stick to compare it with - this is precicely what I am saying does not exist, the question is therfore meaningless.

All we can do is say part X or moral code B is imoral within moral code A.


You're not applying your own beliefs consistently. This is the heart of the problem.

My foundational premise might just be "whatever produces more theists". Why? Well, why not? By this yard-stick your proposed alternatives don't work.

Indeed. If thats your goal we have a fundamental difference of opinon. Is that your goal?

Quote:
It's as though you argue persuasively for the logical conclusions of atheism, but fail to apply it in real world examples.

I can reject Brian's moral outrage, his pissed off demeanor, his hatred for theists, his crusade against our beliefs, by simply saying, "I have a different arbitrary premise for my moral system than you". Enough said. You have no compelling arguments that can convince me you have the moral high-ground.

Ok let me ask you a question and I want honest answers.

What would you like to achieve from your moral code?


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Brian hates theists

Quote:
Brian hates theists with a passion

Just briefly skimming this thread I saw this piece of libel.  I wish I had a punitive damages machine attached to the internet so I could get paid off every time I am lied about. That'll be $300 for defamation of character, please.

For the folks with mental disorders and the braindead: It is only because I care for you that I would speak up.  If I didn't care, I would live my life without meddling in your affairs, or trying to make you better people.  And no... religion doesn't make someone better, it most often makes them morally worse, and delivers inflated self worth that can be dangerous.

Thanks for the libel and proving...

Theory o inherent dishonest in theism: A theist MUST act dishonest and/or ignorant in any argument where they are defending belief in their god.  It just doesn't require a character assasination.

 

I hope you get well soon Croath!  I'll be thinking for you.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Former_Follier
Rational VIP!
Former_Follier's picture
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
WOTM Watchdog

Me and the guys from WOTM Watchdog (http://wotmwatchdog.blogspot.com) are devising a plan to call Todd live, on air and absolutely decimate his methods of evangelizing.  We will also plug RRS at the end.  Don't worry, we will attack their message later.  This is to be the first of many  live calls to WOTM Radio.  With ideas or suggestions, feel free to contact us (links from blog).


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13526
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Sapient

Sapient wrote:

Quote:
Brian hates theists with a passion

Just briefly skimming this thread I saw this piece of libel. I wish I had a punitive damages machine attached to the internet so I could get paid off every time I am lied about. That'll be $300 for defamation of character, please.

For the folks with mental disorders and the braindead: It is only because I care for you that I would speak up. If I didn't care, I would live my life without meddling in your affairs, or trying to make you better people. And no... religion doesn't make someone better, it most often makes them morally worse, and delivers inflated self worth that can be dangerous.

Thanks for the libel and proving...

Theory o inherent dishonest in theism: A theist MUST act dishonest and/or ignorant in any argument where they are defending belief in their god. It just doesn't require a character assasination.

 

I hope you get well soon Croath! I'll be thinking for you.

 

There is some severe compartmentalization going on in any case. We, both you and I have been accused of hate.

What the theist misses are seperate issues.

1. Hating an individual(we all do, both theist and atheist)

2. Hating the logic someone uses to make a case.

There is a huge differance between hating how someone comes to a conclusion on any given issue, and hating the person themselves.

I without shame will say that I hate Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. But that in no way makes me hate all religious people, any more than Brian Sapient. But we do hate bad arguments and we do wish that people would think that people would investigate magical claims, even when someone says "Hey, did you ever consider that what you believe is not fact, but hocus pokus?"

Brian Sapient is right and all we want is for you to THINK  about what ANY holy person claims. Is it what is real, or is it merely a tradition.

Slings and arrows are part of debate and so are blasphemy and "being offended". Hate should not be supressed by the theist or atheist, but it should be recognized as a personal "flavor". Once we all reconginze we are all, both atheist and theist, subject to the same phycology...the same likes and dislikes.....we can avoid the "us vs them" and  do what Voiltare said,

"I may vehemently dissagree with what you have to say, but will defend to the death your right to say 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


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
CrimsonEdge wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Whenever I post stats like these people nitpick, so I'll go ahead and do that too.

People 'convert' when they go to prison. Micheal Vick, for example, said he found Jesus and religion after he was arrested. So those stats could be off.

So location matters?

 

My point was when I post stats about that the vast majority of Canadians are Christian and Canada is a moral society, people nitpick

"But pineapple, people could just be saying they're Christian!"

I was merely applying the same logic here.

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo30a.htm

Those are the raw numbers.  They are some of the least helpful statistics StatsCan has ever published.  There was more to the arguments against the StatsCan statistics than people just saying they're Christian.  And people really do just put down the religion of their parents' whether they believe or practice or not.  It's a huge problem with those statistics among others that were pointed out.

It should be clear why the same logic cannot be applied to the prison statistics in the US.  They are specific and even given the error percentage or possible 'conversions' you could not arrive at a significant rise in Atheist prisoners.  The amount from each the theist and Atheist populations going to prison are disproportionate in the extreme.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."