PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
RULES
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
Offline 
You are NOT a Pittsburgh Steeler.
Lose the glaring yellow text, please.
I stopped reading at the composition fallacy, and caught a glimpse of a nihilism reference at the end. I'm always curious when people say -- as if immensely threatened by the prospect -- "If we/the universe/everything is nothing more than wheels and springs/dust/animals/matter..." what their favored alternative is. Let's say we're just animals, and let's say animals are made of matter. So? Is the planet supposed to fly off its orbit at that point, because it no longer has purpose or transcendental guidance?
Someday distant future day ALL will laugh at these present God ideas.
That god "word" is a mind twister, .... BUT it's SILLY to let the fundys define, and the atheists to only reject, so I say to you all, WE ARE GOD .....
To the fundys I throw,
"WE ARE GOD" MEANS NO GODS BEFORE US ..... Dig ???? Christianity BLOW BACK, ,,,,,, a simple MosesJesusBuddha message.
yeah , I'm on my last beer, and thats alot of BEER,
PROVE I AM NOT GOD, no one ever has, EVER
so many words, nothing much said .....
JIM SMITH, you seem to be another genius over my head,.... could you please simplify ??? ..... I do care to understand..... me god, I'll check back. ( god is confussed )
No. thanks. Don't feel like carrying your burden of proof
I'm getting a little deja vu from Frank Walton's blog.
Anyway, Jim if you want us to take you seriously why don't you use a normal font, put in a few paragraph breaks and organize the thoughts a bit more.
I personally have found that when people present arguments like this it's so difficult to even get a grasp on what is being said, let alone formulate a response.
Beltway Atheists "We're good people, just not god people."
I'll be happy to read your post and attempt to answer your questions if you'll kindly post your text in a readable format. In educated circles, we use paragraphs.
If superior creatures from space ever visit earth, the first question they will ask, in order to assess the level of our civilization, is: 'Have they discovered evolution yet?' -- Richard Dawkins
In the future, please type in white lettering and break up your post into segments that can be addressed individually. The colors are there as an option that we expect nobody to need or use. Unless, you want it to be virtually indecipherable...
We believe that it fits into the definition of a delusional disorder as defined by the APA.
That would depend, and yes, the distinguishing symptom would be the irrational and illogical belief in an invisible sky-daddy.
The belief in absolute morality being handed down by said sky-daddy is but a by-product of the delusion; so, no, it would not in itself be a symptom. I also highly dislike your use of "obligated" in the definition of "normative standards". No norm of any sort would imply any type of obligation; rather, a norm is an observation of what the majority of people in a particular culture or group tend to be/believe/behave like,etc...
Again, a norm is an observation, so certainly, we all believe that they exist. You have convoluted the definition of "normative" to suit your purposes and muddy the waters.
I think that you would be surprised to find that we would agree most of the time. The difference is not the content, but the context. We don't accept that these "standards" have been handed down from on high as you would assert.
Actually, You can replace that "we" with "I", because I wouldn't hold that he is "bad" per se. His actions may have been vile, disgusting, and injurious, but that doesn't necessarily make him "bad". It may make him mentally ill, but I would not attempt to label somebody so categorically. If that is your standpoint, though, then you must agree that the entire catholic church is "bad" for allowing and enabling that kind of abuse to occur, right?
Oh, really? You may be shocked to know that sex between older men and much younger men, often students, has only relatively recently fallen out of fashion. That is why it is a "norm"--it is relevant to cultures and therefore also time periods.
Nope, sorry. I would probably hypothesize the opposite as far as ethics and the passage of time is concerned, but at any rate, it most certainly is not absolute, timeless, or nonnegotiable.
Already said that.
It is the societal norm, yes. Dislike the phrasing, but carry on...
Disordered in one regard does not imply the inability to be logical, rational, or ethical in all other areas. That would be like saying that somebody who has depression or ADHD is unable to function in any way, even those unrelated to their disorder, and nobody has made such a statement. (It just now occurred to me that all of these people who are having fits about this "disorder" thing have apparently all carried over their own stigma associated with that word. Nobody here has ever stated that anybody with any type of disorder is inherently and absolutely irrational, illogical, and stupid. Rather, it is precisely because one is capable of behaving rationally and logically in most other areas of their lives that it is even apparent that this ONE issue is not in line, and therefore "disordered", with the rest of their beliefs and behaviors.)
No.
Which is all we have evidence for at the present time, making it the only logical conclusion.
Considering that any subjective value judgment would apply only to his specific case, I don't see how this can clarify anything. *Skipping section and only commenting that involvement in society necessarily involves the ability and willingness to control your own behavior*
He can choose not to, but then he must face the consequences for that action.
Don't recall anybody saying he had free will. He very well may be completely unable to stop himself, and the fact that he can't is the reason why he can no longer continue to exist within our society which has certain boundaries established by human beings that define his actions being as detrimental to the rest of society.
Nobody said that. There is evidence that your neuronal networking can be retrained in many instances, but that is another can of worms.
Well, we never said that. You muddied the waters from the second sentence, then asserted that we believe necessarily in free will, then continued to extrapolate on those false premises by trying to generalize from a specific hypothetical situation. Fail. Nice try. Come again.
I've gots ta git B-to-tha-izzack ta plott'n mah nefarious pizzle ta destroy tha public image of atheists n bitchez.Jim and Kelly; Thanks for your super caring effort. Thats what really makes this RRS site special. Wow, isn't Kelly super ! What do think Jim ?
About the yellow print, no problem, some wrong click?, besides Fuck silly tradition, even at rrs Hey I like yellow.
RRS< fighting to free humanity ...? free who ? I would sure hate to see this site become an "intellectual only" club site of pc wizzes ignoring and bashing the curious seeking answers and help.
All self glory of insight and knowledge needs be taught to the "poor in spirit" because they are "down" because they are blessed with a caring saddness for the world. ( jesus)
The religious fundys are the enemy, but put only love on them, as love knows deep indignation. Even that jesus called Peter Satan.
I tell ya , if the fucking TV cared we regular atheists and christians would be digging the buddhist and hindus, and shouting fuck yeah, WE ARE ONE, WE ARE GOD. fix the tv .....
All the many gods of myth and religion are our blessing, THE FUNDYS ARE THE ONES WHO FUCK UP GOD. fuck their god, we are god and god does zero miracles and has nothing to prove.
Check out the Buddhist ideas JIM SMITH, get free. THIS LIFE, US, IS GOD. Ethics and social tradition are a different thing.
THANKS FOR CARING, come again JIM , we need you, we love you, know We are ONE. You are for the good ... me too ...
You know, I like you a lot.
To the responders who noted that my post has no paragraphs: I have no explanation for this. All such formatting wss present in the preview screen.
One part of Kelly's reply to my post was a response to the following statment of mine:
Quote:Kelly replied,
"Again, a norm is an observation, so certainly, we all believe that they exist. You have convoluted the definition of "normative" to suit your purposes and muddy the waters."
(End of quote)
Actually, my definition, which I had presented earlier in the post, was, "standards that all are obligated to obey". This is one of the dictionary definitions for "normative", and the word "normative" is typically used this way in discussions of ethics. I gave this definition in my post for the benefit of those who didn't know this.
In reply to another statement of mine,
Kelly replied
"Don't recall anybody saying he had free will."
(End of quote)
If we believe that anyone has free will regarding anything, then we end up in the same contradictions when we try to square that belief with a matter/energy-only Universe. Surely Kelly knows this; the paradox of Free Will in a matter/energy-only Universe is a common-enough topic of discussion among scientists and philosophers. Or does Kelly mean to say that she believes that nobody has free will regarding anything? If so, I hope she will state her belief explicity, so that other Rational Responders may debate this point with her.
Somewhat similar issues arise regarding her reply to my statement
Quote:Kelly sais "Nobody said that. There is evidence that your neuronal networking can be retrained in many instances, but that is another can of worms. "
(End of quote.)
I suspect that Kelly misunderstood me here. She obviously does believe that people have Minds that can set their bodies upon trajectories of their choosing. If she didn't, she would have assumed that the keys I had pressed while writing my post bore no correlation either to webdress that I was trying to access or to the thoughts I was trying to express, and would therefore not have bothered writing a reply.
I would like to hear a definition for "free will". Not "free" "will"
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
Theist: You hate god.
Me: I hate your god just as much as you hate it's creator.
Theist: God doesn't have a crea... oh I get it.
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
Fair enough. Did you use an external program to type it, and then copy it in? That sometimes causes problems. [edited to remove a boneheaded sentence that proved that I don't always comprehend what I read.]
Thanks.
(I'm not going to answer the question at this time because Kelly has answered thoroughly.)
If superior creatures from space ever visit earth, the first question they will ask, in order to assess the level of our civilization, is: 'Have they discovered evolution yet?' -- Richard Dawkins
definitions of "normative":
You either picked out quotes to purposely misrepresent what I wrote or you have serious reading comprehension issues. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but don't pull this again or I won't take the time to respond. Either reply honestly or expect no responses.
I clearly stated my opposition to your definition of "normative", so why don't you respond to that instead of dodging the point.
I doubt that any other "Rational Responders" will be debating this point with me, since most of us are in agreement that we do, in fact, live in a completely materialistic universe and all observed phenomena arise as a result of physical processes. At any rate, first of all, "free will" is as much of a paradox in the theistic universe, as long as you are assuming the existence of an omnimax creator being. I don't believe that "free will" exists in the sense that anybody has the potential to "will" themselves into or out of any potential pattern of behavior. It is all dependent on an infinite number of factors that have determined your predispositions, and within that there is a range of possibilities within which you may be able to "choose", or at least have the illusion of choice, but one cannot "choose" to go outside of that range. This is a very complex subject, but to sum up, overall, "free will" is an illusion, and most of your behaviors could be accurately predicted assuming that one had all the knowledge of all potential influencing factors (which is impossible realistically).
Not that you cannot control your body--obviously you can in most circumstances. But can a person with Parkinson's Disease "will" themselves to stop shaking? No. This is a purely physical reaction to the lack of dopamine in the neural synapses. Is it possible, in some cases, particulary cocaine-induced Parkinsonism, to repair the damaged parts of the brain, notably the GABA receptors and dopamine transporters/receptors, to diminish or eliminate the symptoms? Yes. But it all comes down to physical processes inside the brain. Just like all of your behaviors, thoughts, feelings, perceptions, etc. Right down to and including one's proclivity to believe in god and the way in which that proclivity manifests itself.
Now go back, read again, and try addressing the issue. Try not to purposely pick out half-quotes from me to misrepresent my position.
I've gots ta git B-to-tha-izzack ta plott'n mah nefarious pizzle ta destroy tha public image of atheists n bitchez.My use of the word "normative", in the way I have defined it, has been understood and accepted without complaint or comment by atheists in other forums. In any case, I defined it clearly when I first introduced it. I had no reason to believe that that word would cause such difficulties here, much less provoke accusations of dishonesty.
Certain Responders would be more-helpful critics if they clarified their positions on points that I will raise shortly. But first I need to mention a dissonance between the belief in a matter/energy-only Universe and the Rational Response Squad’s professed mission: “To free humanity from the mind disorder of theism”. I abbreviate “matter/energy” as “M/E” in the rest of this post.
In an M/E-only Universe, “humanity” in its entirety can be nothing more than a certain configuration of M/E. That configuration, for the time being, includes M/E interactions that produce theism. One fraction of humanity’s M/E —the Rational Response Squad— strives to transform that configuration into one in which theism is not present.
Now why is this, when the difference between a superstition-ridden humanity and a theism-free humanity can be no more than a difference between configurations of M/E?
Similar issues arise when we analyze one Responder’s position that although a pedophile priest is not “bad”, he needs to be separated from society so that he will not do further harm. In other words, Responder says we should prevent M/E configurations that include harmed children, by procuring ones that include institutionalized or incarcerated pedophile priests. Whether Responder is right or not is immaterial to the points on which I will ask Responders to clarify their positions. What is important is that this Responder, and Responders in general, maintain that they are right.
Now here are the points on which I request clarifications. Is the following an accurate characterization of your beliefs?
- You believe in an M/E-only Universe.
- Each of you believes that he or she individually is not merely a configuration of matter/energy.
- You believe your thoughts are meaningful. That is, that the difference between one thought and another is not merely a difference between configurations of M/E in your brains.
- You believe that you have Free Will, at least regarding which thoughts you choose to express in this forum.
- You believe that you and I have minds that can direct the M/E of our bodies on trajectories of our choosing, at least to the extent that the keys that my fingers press as I write this correlate strongly with the words that my mind wants to appear on the screen.
- You believe that your opinions on pedophile priests and theism are not merely judgments about alternative configurations of M/E.
If my understanding of your beliefs is inaccurate, then I will gladly be corrected. However, you will understand if I see little point in responding to people who tell me they’re M/E configurations whose posts have negligible correlation with meaningful thought. On the other hand, if I have characterized your beliefs correctly, then I would ask that you recognize the paradoxes that arise if we assert beliefs 2-6 while simultaneously asserting #1. These paradoxes have been the subject of some fascinating writing, much of it by atheists.As I stated previously, you purposely redefined the word in order to muddy the waters. I have not only explained why that is problematic, but I have provided you with the real definition, which includes nothing about "obligation". The inclusion of that word implies that there is something to be obligated to, and therefore begs the question since your initial premise is that god exists and he is the one to whom we are obligated to obey and who created these "norms". I don't particularly care if other atheists have accepted your usage of that terminology--they're mistaken if they allowed you to get away with that. I shall do no such thing.
First of all, you are acting as if the entire universe is one configuration of M/E, which is true in a way, but not the way in which we operate within it. You are also failing to take into consideration that this configuration of M/E includes the constantly fluctuating and changing chemical interactions going on within each organism, notably the brains of humans in this case. We seek to show people how their irrational beliefs are flawed and harmful and change their thought processes, so that is the sense in which we seek to influence the current configuration of M/E--within the minds of the individual believers.
Actually, I don't advocate "procuring" such a configuration, but rather realize that inclusion in society necessarily involves the consideration of the greater good. If you read any philosophy regarding the "social contract", you'll see how the sacrifice of individual rights, such as the right to vengance, is inherent in the formation of any group structure.
Because I am. Prove me wrong.
1. True.
2. False. Everything that comprises my being is a configuration of matter/energy and the interactions that arise within it.
3. False. The difference lies in the configurations, patterns, and chemical constituents of my neurology. All of which are physical processes, but not the same physical process, and could have an infinite number of factors that have led up to the interaction occurring in a particular way.
4. False. I do not believe in "free will" in the sense that you do. I already explained that. (Although I am starting to believe that you are "willfully" not reading my posts--must be predisposed to dishonesty.)
5. True, but only to a degree.
6. Already kind of explained that one. Neither true nor false.
It was inaccurate.
I never said that your posts have little correlation to your thoughts.
Please read, think, and post. In that order.
I've gots ta git B-to-tha-izzack ta plott'n mah nefarious pizzle ta destroy tha public image of atheists n bitchez.