The Hypocricy of Today's....uh...Everyone, really.

Schatzi
Schatzi's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2006-12-02
User is offlineOffline
The Hypocricy of Today's....uh...Everyone, really.

Before I prove my point, I would like to present to you all a retelling of a real-life experience of mine:

So my friend Heather and I can never discuss religion or politics without starting a fight. On one particular day, the argument got so heated, we had to opt to just abandon it there and then. However, now that there's a forum where I can write this in, I will. Here goes.

Heather's argument:

Heather supports education for the religious; she believes education will lead to evolution, and this will lead to a revolution of society as we know it.* So, in effect, if we were to erradicate all the Christians and Muslims and Nazis and Klan members and pedophiles, etc. we would live in a far more tolerant world where we'd learn to respect one-another.

End of Heather's argument.

So I look at Heather and I say: "Essentially, if we erradicate anyone whose views do not match our own, we'd all get along?" (and a violent argument ensues).

* * *

As time passes on, and we evolve and develop new technology and acquire new knowledge and points of views, philosophies and ideas, we develop as indviduals-- no doubt about that.

Richard Dawkins, revolutionary in our time, makes some excellent points. However, has no one else ever been revolutionary in their time, and had some great ideas that have ultimately become outdated, and replaced with new, and better ideas?

Suppose this: What if society and love was a purely fictitious concept man came up with in his spare time to fill the empty time? What if murder really is okay? What if the theory of evolution really is a load of crap?

(And before anyone says anything, the theory of evolution has NOT been proved, or it'd be the law of evolution.)

I find it strange that no one ever questions the supposed "facts of life". As far as I'm concerned, personally, the ONLY "facts of life" are the following:

1. Sex is a natural, healthy, and VITAL part of human life. It doesn't matter who you're doing it with, it doesn't matter what sex they are (especially with today's scientific advances) and it doesn't matter if it's just one person exclusively. Celebacy is stupid, but so is whoring around and spreading disease. Moderacy is key. 1-2 babies, and wear a condom. This was fact of life #1.

2. Eat-- it's good for you. (bonus points if you eat meat-- it's the cycle of life, my dears. Let's not screw it up.) And after you eat, remember: everyone poops. No need to be embarassed.

All this being said, let me make my point:

Those who believe in God might be wrong-- those who don't might also be wrong. But you know who is the most wrong? Those who do, and those who don't, who enforce their spirituality (or lack thereof) unto people.

It is just as crude and insensitive to assume someone is an atheist, as it is to force, say, Christianity on an individual. It is also just as offensive, rude, shameful and disgusting.

Personally, as an individual, I am extremely spiritual and could not live without my concept of God-- because to me, that concept has only been proven true. However, in the same time, I do not push that spirituality on to people-- I will raise my voice, if I must, when provoked but I will not go around, making fliers, websites, host meetings etc. just so we can sit around and talk about how much we hate "___organization here__".

So be you conservative, liberal, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon, Taoist, gay, straight, ugly, beautiful, smart, stupid, Carbon-based, Klansmen, Neo Nazi, Black Panther, or just a terribly crabby person who makes others miserable in order to feel significant I will respect you, so long as you respect me.

So if any of you out there reading this forum agree with me, let is show. Put it in practice.

If not, let me know why. I'm up for debate-- but not up for mockery, insult or wasted time, and if you deal me any of that, I will crush you like a bug....

...or cry. But be those tears on your conscience!

Otherwise, have a good day, all you good people out there.

--Dani

*rhyming not intentional Eye-wink


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Schatzi wrote:I am extremely

Schatzi wrote:
I am extremely spiritual and could not live without my concept of God--

That's kind of sad, that no one else in the world (Or even yourself) is worth living for.

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Schatzi
Schatzi's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2006-12-02
User is offlineOffline
I think it'd be even more

I think it'd be even more sad if I pooled all my strength and courage into someone that'll eventually die.

As for living for myself; I do. I never said I lived FOR God, I said I lived WITH A CONCEPT of God that I could never live without because I cannot live without my own personal philosophy.

Read the fine print.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Evolution has been proven.

Evolution has been proven. You obviously don't understand scientific language - Gravity is also "Only" a theory - the idea that evolution is only a theory and not proven is actually listed here as an irrational precept.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Schatzi
Schatzi's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2006-12-02
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Evolution

MattShizzle wrote:
Evolution has been proven. You obviously don't understand scientific language - .

Please don't be smug.

And by all means, if you can give me absolute proof that evolution is absolutely right and everyone else's differing beliefs are absolutely wrong, please do.

I'm more than interested in being educated.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Schatzi wrote:I think it'd

Schatzi wrote:
I think it'd be even more sad if I pooled all my strength and courage into someone that'll eventually die.

Uhhh...
What?

Schatzi wrote:
As for living for myself; I do. I never said I lived FOR God, I said I lived WITH A CONCEPT of God that I could never live without because I cannot live without my own personal philosophy.

Read the fine print.

*Reads*

Quote:
and could not live without my concept of God--

Whether you call it consept god or just god.
It's god.

PS Peppered moth, viruses developing resistances are examples of evolution.

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


GlamourKat
GlamourKat's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Schatzi wrote: So be you

Schatzi wrote:

So be you conservative, liberal, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon, Taoist, gay, straight, ugly, beautiful, smart, stupid, Carbon-based, Klansmen, Neo Nazi, Black Panther, or just a terribly crabby person who makes others miserable in order to feel significant I will respect you, so long as you respect me.

The main problem is when one of those groups wants to directly interfere in your life. When Muslims want to kill Christians, when Klansmen want to kill black people, when Black Panthers want to kill white people. We should NOT respect that at all.
Or when one group wants to enforce a rule based only on their own religion, and make it punishable by fines, jail time, or even death.
Sodomy laws, Apostacy laws, hell, even old interracial marriage laws..... That's one reason why I speak out. I do not want the laws of my country to be based on a religion I think is ludicrious. There is a party in my country who wants that, however small and unpopular they are. There are enough of them to form a political party, and that is what they truly want. I will fight against that.


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Richard Dawkins,

Quote:
Richard Dawkins, revolutionary in our time, makes some excellent points. However, has no one else ever been revolutionary in their time, and had some great ideas that have ultimately become outdated, and replaced with new, and better ideas?

You do realize that this is not a refutation of his ideas, right?

Quote:
Suppose this: What if society and love was a purely fictitious concept man came up with in his spare time to fill the empty time? What if murder really is okay? What if the theory of evolution really is a load of crap?

Love is a useful evolutionary trait that greatly increases the fitness of a group of organisms. Society is another such trait. They are clearly not fictitious concepts, since they are observed within every human population.

Quote:
(And before anyone says anything, the theory of evolution has NOT been proved (sic), or it'd be the law of evolution.)

I think you are confused. There is no proof in science. There is proof in logic and mathematics. In science, there is evidence - data - and theories - the models used to explain that data. A law is like a theory, but it deals with a specific phenomenon whereas a theory is an explanation of a far more general set of phenomena. The law of gravity explains the attraction between matter. The law of indepedent assortment deals with chromosome segregation. The general relativity theory explains gravity in a larger framework of space-time. The theory of evolution incorporates many laws that deal with more specific phenomena into a much more complete paradigm.

Quote:
1. Sex is a natural, healthy, and VITAL part of human life. It doesn't matter who you're doing it with, it doesn't matter what sex they are (especially with today's scientific advances) and it doesn't matter if it's just one person exclusively. Celebacy is stupid, but so is whoring around and spreading disease. Moderacy is key. 1-2 babies, and wear a condom. This was fact of life #1.

I mostly agree, but I would recommend 2-3 babies, since a birthrate of 2.1 is necessary just to sustain the current population.

Quote:
If not, let me know why. I'm up for debate-- but not up for mockery, insult or wasted time, and if you deal me any of that, I will crush you like a bug....

I am often accused of pushing my views on others, but I try to do so only in the context of logical debate. Spirituality is something I view as analogous to drug use: a transcendant feeling that is bizarre and out of the ordinary. A sanctimonious attitude concerning spirituality is analogous to one concerning LSD. I am not spiritual in the least, nor do I particularly care to be.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.


Tomcat
Posts: 346
Joined: 2006-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Perhaps this concept of God

Perhaps this concept of God you are talking about is similar to what mine used to be when I was a Christian. When I look back at that time in my life now, I realize that I had made God the person whom I was most empathetic to. I loved God, and he would return that love to me. And it was in that relationship I placed my spirituality.

One of the biggest reasons I stopped believing in God was that I had to sacrifice being empathetic towards my human self as well as other human selves just so I could retain my identity. It was always scary beforehand to challenge God because it was almost equivalent to saying I no longer wanted this love-pact. But I realized that all I had to do was realize my humanity and show empathy towards it and other humans to be who I should be.

The thing that kept me afraid of "What if God isn't there?" was that the most loving thing I could imagine was to love God, and to have him just disappear would destroy my world, my identity. But I would challenge you to, in the worlds of John Lennon, "Image" just for a second you will be who you really are, a human being who does not need to believe in a sky god to be "good" or "spiritual"

Peace and good luck

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


Schatzi
Schatzi's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2006-12-02
User is offlineOffline
GlamourKat wrote:[The main

GlamourKat wrote:
[The main problem is when one of those groups wants to directly interfere in your life. When Muslims want to kill Christians, when Klansmen want to kill black people, when Black Panthers want to kill white people. We should NOT respect that at all.

So I have to ask; is it then just to kill the klansmen, the Muslims and the Black Panthers, because our beliefs are "better"?

I mean, I agree with you-- but what if you were born into their world, and saw the world as they did, wouldn't you want at least a bit of respect? I'm not saying what they do is right-- it's not. But to respond to those acts in hatred is just as bad.

GlamourKat wrote:

There is a party in my country who wants that, however small and unpopular they are. There are enough of them to form a political party, and that is what they truly want. I will fight against that.

Yeah, it's called the Republican party and you should fight against that-- not because of the people, but because of the policies that take from the poor to give to the very, very, very rich.


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
Respect must be earned - it

Respect must be earned - it should never be granted as a default. People who are intellectually dishonest, stupid, closed-minded, or dogmatic do not deserve respect for their beliefs.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Wow. Schatzi, I actually am

Wow. Schatzi, I actually am more in agreement with you on economics it seems than I do with most of the other atheists on this forum.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Schatzi
Schatzi's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2006-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Insidium Profundis

Insidium Profundis wrote:
Quote:
Richard Dawkins, revolutionary in our time, makes some excellent points. However, has no one else ever been revolutionary in their time, and had some great ideas that have ultimately become outdated, and replaced with new, and better ideas?

You do realize that this is not a refutation of his ideas, right?

I will admit to talking out my ass there-- I admit it, I admit it. I am not THAT familiar with dawkins, in fact, all I know is tid bits here and there and what he said in his interview on the Colbert show.

Insidium Profundis wrote:

Quote:
(And before anyone says anything, the theory of evolution has NOT been proved (sic), or it'd be the law of evolution.)

I think you are confused. There is no proof in science. There is proof in logic and mathematics. In science, there is evidence - data - and theories - the models used to explain that data. A law is like a theory, but it deals with a specific phenomenon whereas a theory is an explanation of a far more general set of phenomena. The law of gravity explains the attraction between matter. The law of indepedent assortment deals with chromosome segregation. The general relativity theory explains gravity in a larger framework of space-time. The theory of evolution incorporates many laws that deal with more specific phenomena into a much more complete paradigm.

Oh, I like you. You're friendly. Smiling

Insidium Profundis wrote:
[
I am often accused of pushing my views on others, but I try to do so only in the context of logical debate. Spirituality is something I view as analogous to drug use: a transcendant feeling that is bizarre and out of the ordinary. A sanctimonious attitude concerning spirituality is analogous to one concerning LSD. I am not spiritual in the least, nor do I particularly care to be.

My fiancee used to say the exact same thing-- butI told him to entertain this:

Think back to the worst day of your life, and how you lived through it and how awful a day it was. Now, you may not have noticed, but if you stop for a second, and then wait a while, you'll notice something great and grand will spawn from that day. That, to me, is God at work.

Karma is God's work, and a beautiful view is God's work, or someone having the kindness to look up from their midterm to say "bless you" is God's work.

I can't tell you what God, to me, is. Nor do I have a "religion", so I couldn't tell you God's name either. But if you open your mind to this concept, if you entertain this seemingly silly, simple philosophy you'll end up in one of two places:

1) mildly entertained, and kind of amused.
2) Absolutely mind-raped.

It never fails/ Eye-wink


Tomcat
Posts: 346
Joined: 2006-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:So I have to ask; is

Quote:
So I have to ask; is it then just to kill the klansmen, the Muslims and the Black Panthers, because our beliefs are "better"?

I mean, I agree with you-- but what if you were born into their world, and saw the world as they did, wouldn't you want at least a bit of respect? I'm not saying what they do is right-- it's not. But to respond to those acts in hatred is just as bad.

We don't advocate killing Muslims because they for the most part are not an imminent threat to us. We believe there are right ways of thinking about the world that are "better" then what the Muslims believe. And since there is the possibility of them realizing this, there isn't a good reason to kill them, since it is not moral to inflict needless suffering. But if the need arises to kill, lets say if THEY choose to inflict needless suffering like on 9/11, then those Muslims who need to be killed are killed. Fairly simple argument.

There is a moral compass inside of every human that has existed for who knows how long that, trust me, still is there if you don't believe in a god or the supernatural. I still think you are confusing "empathy" with "spirituality"

By the way, what do you think of Buddhists?

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


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I will admit to

Quote:
I will admit to talking out my ass there-- I admit it, I admit it. I am not THAT familiar with dawkins, in fact, all I know is tid bits here and there and what he said in his interview on the Colbert show.

Dawkins has some great ideas. He does not always deliver them effectively, however (the Nurenberg reference while interviewing Ted Haggard was a terrible idea).

Quote:
Oh, I like you. You're friendly.

There are many who would contest this. I would not personally characterize myself as "friendly."

Quote:
Think back to the worst day of your life, and how you lived through it and how awful a day it was. Now, you may not have noticed, but if you stop for a second, and then wait a while, you'll notice something great and grand will spawn from that day. That, to me, is God at work.

Really? For me, it was the victory of my will over my biology and emotions. I am quite proud of every painful and unpleasant experience I have experienced because they have only tested my endurance and made me stronger.

Quote:
Karma is God's work, and a beautiful view is God's work, or someone having the kindness to look up from their midterm to say "bless you" is God's work.

What is karma and how does it function? Do you adhere to the Vedic/Hindu version, or the new-age version?

Quote:
I can't tell you what God, to me, is. Nor do I have a "religion", so I couldn't tell you God's name either. But if you open your mind to this concept, if you entertain this seemingly silly, simple philosophy you'll end up in one of two places:

1) mildly entertained, and kind of amused.
2) Absolutely mind-raped.

It never fails/ Eye-wink

I have experienced a third choice: feeling mildly silly for considering fairy tales seriously. I consider religious and spiritual beliefs to be superficial at best. I do not need them. I also do not like the word "god" because it has a myriad of definitions, and people tend to assume one is familiar with their particular version of the word. I consider the discussion of overly vague concepts (such as god, and "energy," in this case), which are not well-defined to be unproductive. It seems to me that you are using the word "god" interchangably with "good feeling" or "hope." I see no need to use the word "god" for them.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.


GlamourKat
GlamourKat's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Schatzi wrote:

Schatzi wrote:

So I have to ask; is it then just to kill the klansmen, the Muslims and the Black Panthers, because our beliefs are "better"?

I mean, I agree with you-- but what if you were born into their world, and saw the world as they did, wouldn't you want at least a bit of respect? I'm not saying what they do is right-- it's not. But to respond to those acts in hatred is just as bad.

I never said to kill them. And not giving respect is NOT the same as hatred. Not at all.

Quote:
Yeah, it's called the Republican party and you should fight against that-- not because of the people, but because of the policies that take from the poor to give to the very, very, very rich.

Did you even visit my link? I'm not from the US. Cursing Man
And I don't fight against parties like that because of the people. It IS for the policies. The religiously based ones as well as the financial ones. You seem to especially disagree with the ones that increase the gap between the rich and the poor. I happen to disagree with that too.
But I'm also against laws like this:

4. RESPECT FOR GOD'S AUTHORITY
We affirm that contempt of the Bible, and any form of blasphemy against God, are an offense which Parliament has an obligation to prohibit and declare as morally wrong.

3. HUMAN WORTH
We affirm that the value and dignity of the individual is derived from the fact that 'man was created in the image of God' (1). Deliberate degradation or abuse of the human condition (either real or simulated) is, therefore, an offense against God. In consequence, all human degradation (e.g. pornography) shall be proscribed by law with punishment as may be appropriate.
(1) Ge.1:27, Col.3:10

3. SEXUAL ABERRATIONS
It should be beyond the power of any legislative or administrative body to recognize, affirm, condone, or discriminate in favor of, identifiable sexually aberrant individuals or groups (1).
(1) 1Tim.1:9-10, Rom 1:26-27, Lev.18:22, Lev.20:13, Is.5:20

3. SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES
As with any communicable disease, S.T.D.s must be dealt with as a public health issue, not a civil rights issue. (1) A national advertising campaign should be implemented which stresses that virtue is a necessity, not an option. Educational media should be publicly presented which teach that the only safe sex is chastity until marriage, and fidelity within marriage.

6.7.6 BIBLICAL REQUIREMENTS VS. COMMUNITY STANDARDS
We affirm that enforcement of the law must be based on Biblical principles, and not upon current notions of 'community standards' - the modern equivalent of 'every man did what was right in his own eyes' (1) - a condition of anarchy which in our time can lead only to the demoralization and disintegration of Canadian society.


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Did you even visit my

Quote:
Did you even visit my link? I'm not from the US. Cursing Man

Funny how no one else from countries other than the US on this site don't automatically assume someone is from their country. Just a side note. Eye-wink


Kemono
Posts: 137
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Hello Schatzi, and

Hello Schatzi, and welcome.

Schatzi wrote:

Richard Dawkins, revolutionary in our time, makes some excellent points. However, has no one else ever been revolutionary in their time, and had some great ideas that have ultimately become outdated, and replaced with new, and better ideas?

Are you referring to Richard's scientific work (such as the concept of the extended phenotype) or his ideas about ethics, reason, religion etc.? I expect both to be updated or even replaced by the ideas of future scientists and philosophers. Rational discourse does occasionally lead to progress. Eye-wink

Schatzi wrote:

(And before anyone says anything, the theory of evolution has NOT been proved, or it'd be the law of evolution.)

It appears that the creationists have pulled a fast one on you. Please read up on the concepts of scientific law and scientific theory.

Schatzi wrote:
Those who believe in God might be wrong-- those who don't might also be wrong. But you know who is the most wrong? Those who do, and those who don't, who enforce their spirituality (or lack thereof) unto people.

Agreed.

Perhaps you are concerned that we may be trying to enforce our lack of beliefs on others. I assure you that we have neither the means nor the inclination to do such a thing.

Schatzi wrote:
It is just as crude and insensitive to assume someone is an atheist, as it is to force, say, Christianity on an individual. It is also just as offensive, rude, shameful and disgusting.

Certainly not. Particularly in post-theistic societies to assume that someone is an atheist simply means to assume she is a rational, educated adult.

Quote:
So be you conservative, liberal, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon, Taoist, gay, straight, ugly, beautiful, smart, stupid, Carbon-based, Klansmen, Neo Nazi, Black Panther, or just a terribly crabby person who makes others miserable in order to feel significant I will respect you, so long as you respect me.

Respect is good, but it should not keep us from criticizing people's beliefs.


Kemono
Posts: 137
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Schatzi wrote: And by all

Schatzi wrote:

And by all means, if you can give me absolute proof that evolution is absolutely right and everyone else's differing beliefs are absolutely wrong, please do.

I'm more than interested in being educated.

Just an afterthought...

I assume your request is rhetorical as no theory in empirical science can ever be proved to be true. However, if you want to know why the scientific case for common descent (i.e. that all known forms of life on earth share common ancestry) is rock solid and on no shakier ground than the theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun, we will be happy to educate you.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Question: How does any of

Question: How does any of this make me a hypocrite? Title says everyone is a hypocrite and I didn't see any hypocrisy much less which applied to me.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote:Question: How

Zhwazi wrote:
Question: How does any of this make me a hypocrite? Title says everyone is a hypocrite and I didn't see any hypocrisy much less which applied to me.

Hypocrisy is a fluff word, like racist. Don't bother to know what the word means, don't bother to back up the word.
Just say it.

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.