[Mr. Monster]

Originally Posted by Dark Mark

I try to do a kind act each day to a total stranger. On a small scale this makes me feel good (yay me) but I have a personal theory that every kindness might inspire a similar act, and if everyone did likewise we might reach a point where we all stopped being so shitty to each other all the time.

Wouldn't that be nice? I too try to be generally decent to those I encounter (it shows, I know). There's a part of me that thinks that peace and love will win out. But with the way things have gone the last 10 or so years, there's also a part of me that thinks I should probably just start stocking up on canned food and guns. You know, just in case.

[Nallix]

Originally Posted by Rovin

Oh jeez, you should be watching that once a year. LOL.

I've seen it three or four times now and it has never really spoken to me. I'll give it another shot.

[Dark Mark]

Originally Posted by Rovin

Oh jeez, you should be watching that once a year. LOL.

I bought a blu-ray player just for it, *hallelujah!


*A vague and miserable attempt to keep on topic, lets be honest.

[Dark Mark]

Originally Posted by Mr. Monster

Wouldn't that be nice? I too try to be generally decent to those I encounter (it shows, I know). There's a part of me that thinks that peace and love will win out. But with the way things have gone the last 10 or so years, there's also a part of me that thinks I should probably just start stocking up on canned food and guns. You know, just in case.

It is possible that we are entirely doomed but the optimist in me won't shut the fuck up

[Rovin]

Originally Posted by Nallix

I've seen it three or four times now and it has never really spoken to me. I'll give it another shot.

And that's understandable. It's a very deliberate movie. I've found parenthood sort of recasts it with new life.

[Flesheater]

Originally Posted by Mr. Monster

Wouldn't that be nice? I too try to be generally decent to those I encounter (it shows, I know). There's a part of me that thinks that peace and love will win out. But with the way things have gone the last 10 or so years, there's also a part of me that thinks I should probably just start stocking up on canned food and guns. You know, just in case.

I think even if society did turn into a loving and peaceful populace, once all conveniences are stripped away (in the instance of a "shit hits the fan" scenario) ultimately humanity would resort to violence if necessary to survive. Depravity can cause people to act in ways they normally wouldn't and even more so when the "law" becomes obsolete.

Originally Posted by Rovin

And that's understandable. It's a very deliberate movie. I've found parenthood sort of recasts it with new life.

Strange how becoming a parent affects your outlook differently on a lot of films in every genre.

[Nallix]

Originally Posted by Rovin

And that's understandable. It's a very deliberate movie. I've found parenthood sort of recasts it with new life.

I have no doubt that while the film fails to connect with me on a religious level that it would punch me right in the gut if I had kids. Seeing my child being tormented while I am helpless to do anything about it? Yep, that would do it.

[Jesus Wept]

Originally Posted by Flesheater

I think even if society did turn into a loving and peaceful populace, once all conveniences are stripped away (in the instance of a "shit hits the fan" scenario) ultimately humanity would resort to violence if necessary to survive. Depravity can cause people to act in ways they normally wouldn't and even more so when the "law" becomes obsolete.

Funny how we don't see similar behavior in other primates.

They, like us, have social castes and exhibit empathetic behavior, and all without a neatly delineated legal code.

"Nature will find a way."

People certainly abandon empathetic behavior in certain scenarios. But it's certainly not for the absence rules.

[bigmac64]

At the risk of derailing this thread....

Praise the lord!

[Jesus Wept]

Religious? That didn't make me religious, it made me horny. There's a difference.

[bigmac64]

Oh come on. It was funny.

[Jesus Wept]

BTW... atheist is spelled E before I.

I give that poster an F. See me after class.

[Clayton_George]

...the only two religions I pay any attention to are the Church of the SubGenius and the Discordians, and that's simply because they're funny as hell (and Robert Anton Wilson is my all-time favorite smart crazy guy, so what the hell, eh?).

[Dark Mark]

Originally Posted by Clayton_George

...the only two religions I pay any attention to are the Church of the SubGenius and the Discordians, and that's simply because they're funny as hell (and Robert Anton Wilson is my all-time favorite smart crazy guy, so what the hell, eh?).

I think smart crazy guys started all of the major religions.

[Jesus Wept]

Originally Posted by Dark Mark

I think smart crazy guys started all of the major religions.

"The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful."

-Edward Gibbon

[Count Von Gangrene]

Originally Posted by Jesus Wept

"The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful."

-Edward Gibbon

I like it... just drop word "Roman" and it's even better.

[Jesus Wept]

Originally Posted by Count Von Gangrene

I like it... just drop word "Roman" and it's even better.

Well it's from Gibbon's MASSIVE six volume history book, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. There are other versions of the quote, though, likely falsely attributed to Seneca the Younger that may be more to your liking. For instance...

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."

But no such quote, nor anything of similar composition, appears in any known works by Seneca. The Gibbon quote is likely the earliest example.

[The Gore-met]

I'm endlessly awed, or inspired depending on your perspective, at how religious people dump reasons to scorn their stupid bullshit in my lap.

Yesterday, I looked at a Sunday school handout from my wife's church (Dutch Christian Reformed) that has been laying about for a week.

Bear in mind that this comes months after my 7-year-old regaled me at the dinner table with the story of how God killed the first-born sons of Egypt and marked their doorways with blood so Moses could escape slavery - because he thought it was a cool horror story.

Anyway, this is a four-page, cobbled-together thing given to my now 6-year-old (his initials are written on it in red pencil crayon, which I'm sure the irony of would be completely lost on the person who wrote them), entitled "Rahab Believes in God - Based on Joshua 2".

I have no love for Islam, but can you see the first problem here?

The first page says:

"Hurray ahead to Jericho -
check out its gigantic wall.
For we must fight this city
God has promised us it will fall."

Again, this was taught to a kid who turned 6 the week before.

It's war and soldiers for two pages. The last one says:

"Then Rahab helped the spies escape.
They slid down a rope of red.
Your God is very powerful and strong.
Believe in God!" she said."

I'm not only appalled that this was given and taught to children, but that grown adults, beginning with the minister and whoever runs the Sunday school program, think this appropriate for children.

And here's me, concerned that putting up a painted Cannibal Holocaust poster in my basement was more inappropriate than something I can only see as contentious, racist garbage.

Maybe it's time for a family screening of Deodato's masterwork...

[Dark Mark]

After the Easter visit from the in-laws there was much enthusiasm for sending my daughter to what is basically a Sunday school. When it came down to it Lilly decided that she would rather learn to ice skate instead. So mote it be

[Jesus Wept]

Originally Posted by The Gore-met

Maybe it's time for a family screening of Deodato's masterwork...

That closing line seems particularly apt here...

"I wonder, who are the real cannibals?"

You should approach your children's Sunday School teacher and ask when they've scheduled the lesson on 2 Kings 2 23-25.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...25&version=KJV

Here's a good video for illustration purposes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsVZgdfxHoA

[Nonsense]

Originally Posted by The Gore-met

can you see the first problem here?

"Hurray" as a verb. Creepy.

[ZombieApoc]

Originally Posted by Mr. Monster

As I'm late to the party, I'll be brief. I consider myself a "secular Buddhist". The question of whether Buddhism is even a "religion" isn't one I'll have here. Needless to say, I've struggled with whether I believe in reincarnation, etc. and I guess right now I don't. Thus, I am an atheist. However, I do believe that by living according to Buddhism's principles and moral codes, one will experience a happier and more enjoyable life. Except for that "maintaining mindfulness" bit. Sorry, but beer makes your problems go away.

Heh. That gave me a nice laugh

I'm basically in your boat.

[Rovin]

Originally Posted by The Gore-met

I'm endlessly awed, or inspired depending on your perspective, at how religious people dump reasons to scorn their stupid bullshit in my lap.

Yesterday, I looked at a Sunday school handout from my wife's church (Dutch Christian Reformed) that has been laying about for a week.

Bear in mind that this comes months after my 7-year-old regaled me at the dinner table with the story of how God killed the first-born sons of Egypt and marked their doorways with blood so Moses could escape slavery - because he thought it was a cool horror story.

Anyway, this is a four-page, cobbled-together thing given to my now 6-year-old (his initials are written on it in red pencil crayon, which I'm sure the irony of would be completely lost on the person who wrote them), entitled "Rahab Believes in God - Based on Joshua 2".

I have no love for Islam, but can you see the first problem here?

The first page says:

"Hurray ahead to Jericho -
check out its gigantic wall.
For we must fight this city
God has promised us it will fall."

Again, this was taught to a kid who turned 6 the week before.

It's war and soldiers for two pages. The last one says:

"Then Rahab helped the spies escape.
They slid down a rope of red.
Your God is very powerful and strong.
Believe in God!" she said."

I'm not only appalled that this was given and taught to children, but that grown adults, beginning with the minister and whoever runs the Sunday school program, think this appropriate for children.

And here's me, concerned that putting up a painted Cannibal Holocaust poster in my basement was more inappropriate than something I can only see as contentious, racist garbage.

Maybe it's time for a family screening of Deodato's masterwork...

A friend of mine told me yesterday that her five year old nephew brought her a fundraiser thing from the church they attend... and she read it to find out the idea was to collect money to fund missionaries who's taken it as their life's work to convert Catholics to Christianity!

[Jesus Wept]

Originally Posted by Rovin

A friend of mine told me yesterday that her five year old nephew brought her a fundraiser thing from the church they attend... and she read it to find out the idea was to collect money to fund missionaries who's taken it as their life's work to convert Catholics to Christianity!

My arbitrarily chosen way of talking to my imaginary friend is better than your arbitrarily chosen way of talking to yours!

[Flesheater]

I'm sure Jesus Wept anticipates religious conversation to come up during his daily routine so that he can attempt to show theist believers the "truth". Possibly not an "actively" seeking practioner or non-believer but striving on this type of conversation really makes him no different than the Mormons that show up at your door...other than the fact you'd have to run into him and have a conversation with him for him to preach to you. I'm sure 10 years from now we'll have Atheists knocking at our doors instead!

Don't take that post to serious...tongue in cheek my friends.

[Rovin]

Originally Posted by Flesheater

I'm sure Jesus Wept anticipates religious conversation to come up during his daily routine so that he can attempt to show theist believers the "truth". Possibly not an "actively" seeking practioner or non-believer but striving on this type of conversation really makes him no different than the Mormons that show up at your door...other than the fact you'd have to run into him and have a conversation with him for him to preach to you. I'm sure 10 years from now we'll have Atheists knocking at our doors instead!

Don't take that post to serious...tongue in cheek my friends.

You seem kind of irritated.

[Jesus Wept]

Originally Posted by Rovin

You seem kind of irritated.

Yeah, FSM forbid that people should challenge established ideas and search for objective reality. I can see how that would perturb him...


I enjoy your strawman, Fleshy. It's also an ad hominem attack. Very productive.

[El Goro]

Originally Posted by Jesus Wept

Yeah, FSM forbid that people should challenge established ideas and search for objective reality. I can see how that would perturb him...

One could argue that it is that search that fuels most philosophical thought, theistic or otherwise.

[Jesus Wept]

Originally Posted by el_goro

One could argue that it is that search that fuels most philosophical thought, theistic or otherwise.

“… religion was the race’s first (and worst) attempt to make sense of reality. It was the best the species could do at a time when we had no concept of physics, chemistry, biology or medicine. We did not know that we lived on a round planet, let alone that the said planet was in orbit in a minor and obscure solar system, which was also on the edge of an unimaginably vast cosmos that was exploding away from its original source of energy. We did not know that micro-organisms were so powerful and lived in our digestive systems in order to enable us to live, as well as mounting lethal attacks on us as parasites. We did not know of our close kinship with other animals. We believed that sprites, imps, demons, and djinns were hovering in the air about us. We imagined that thunder and lightning were portentous … Religion was our first attempt at philosophy, just as alchemy was our first attempt at chemistry and astrology our first attempt to make sense of the movements of the heavens.”


-Christopher Hitchens

[El Goro]

"Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

-Albert Einstein

[Jesus Wept]

Ah, Einstein? Well then...

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

-Albert Einstein

[Nallix]

"I like beer." - Dennis Groome

[Jesus Wept]

Originally Posted by Nallix

"I like beer." - Dennis Groome

I feel that this accurately describes reality.

[El Goro]

Indeed, Einstein rejected the concept of a personal god common in most Judeo-Christian traditions. However, he did express opinions common to deists: the belief in a force at the heart of creation, a "cosmic religion."

Kinda close to my own beliefs, 'natch.

Originally Posted by Nallix

"I like beer." - Dennis Groome

Well said.

[Jesus Wept]

In either event, el_goro, Einstein wasn't a theist. He made this quite clear in his writing: he dismissed the very concept of a loving, personal god. He was a pantheist.

I'm going to steal Wikipedia's definition here for convenience's sake:

Pantheism is the view that the Universe (or Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical.


Religion was, for him, the awe of nature. So read your quote again from that perspective...


EDIT:

I see you already responded. And nope. He wasn't a desit, but a pantheist. Deism is more the belief in a non-interventionary god. It is a statement on the prime mover.

[Nallix]

Personally, I find the idea that a scientist must also have faith to be as repugnant as the fallacy that an atheist cannot have a moral compass without faith. I also think the idea of pantheism to be a bit of a weak position. It feels like fence sitting to me.

When it comes to personal interactions, I am neither combative nor militant in my atheism. I begrudge no one their religion except Scientologists. Screw those guys.

[El Goro]

Originally Posted by Jesus Wept

In either event, el_goro, Einstein wasn't a theist. He made this quite clear in his writing: he dismissed the very concept of a loving, personal god. He was a pantheist.

I'm going to steal Wikipedia's definition here for convenience's sake:

Pantheism is the view that the Universe (or Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical.


Religion was, for him, the awe of nature. So read your quote again from that perspective...


EDIT:

I see you already responded. And nope. He wasn't a desit, but a pantheist.

I don't know if it's accurate to classify Einstein as a pantheist, and he rejected that label as well. Perhaps Pandeism is a more accurate descriptor.

[El Goro]

Originally Posted by Nallix

When it comes to personal interactions, I am neither combative nor militant in my atheism.

I think that's the best way to be regardless of where you fall on the religious/non-religious divide. Dicks can be found in both camps. So can decent people.

[Jesus Wept]

For what it's worth, I'm thrilled that we're arguing over this minutiae rather than whether Einstein addressed some professor with some silly proposition that cold doesn't exist and we can't see our own brains, therefore god.

I'd be willing to settle, for the time being, on pandeism, I think.



I can be combative and militant. It depends entirely on the situation. That is to say, I will never respect someone's beliefs merely because they hold them. However, I won't begrudge them a belief, no matter how utterly stupid and unsubstantiated, as long as it doesn't hurt others. I may well converse with someone in a socratic manner, but I won't bully someone with private, if stupid, beliefs.

However, it's the people who use their beliefs to bully others, be it through street-side abortion clinic protests or by voting to disallow homosexual marriage, with whom I will be combative.

[Nallix]

Originally Posted by el_goro

I think that's the best way to be regardless of where you fall on the religious/non-religious divide. Dicks can be found in both camps. So can decent people.

And that's only too true. In recent years a rather douche bag form of atheism has grown popular where the atheists are incredibly smug and in-your-face kind of combative. I consider that no better than the side-walk preaching theists they wish to oppose. Almost worse on some levels since they make the rest of us atheists look bad.

Originally Posted by Jesus Wept

some silly proposition that cold doesn't exist

Scientifically it doesn't exist. We measure things in term of thermal energy, not lack of it.

I can be combative and militant.

Yes, you can. A bit of it has come out here but so far everyone's been civil and I'm very thankful for that. Too easily discussions like this can become heated. As a board user I hate to see people reluctant to post or feel unwelcome because of a difference of opinion.

[Jesus Wept]

Originally Posted by Nallix

Scientifically it doesn't exist. We measure things in term of thermal energy, not lack of it.

I'm not making a claim to the truth of that statement, but rather the fallacious nature of using it as "proof of god." I'm sure you know the story I'm referring to. And I only bring it up because it seems to have been resurrected with a vengeance this last week. r/atheism has been flooded with screengrabs of it going around Facebook.

Originally Posted by Nallix

Yes, you can. A bit of it has come out here but so far everyone's been civil and I'm very thankful for that. Too easily discussions like this can become heated. As a board user I hate to see people reluctant to post or feel unwelcome because of a difference of opinion.

I absolutely can be. And I see no problem with that in certain situations. I'd refer you to Greta Christina's lecture on anger, but eh... If you're really interested (it's long), a quick Google search should turn it up.

But yes, civility goes a long way. And I'm trying to keep the discussion in that tone.

[El Goro]

Originally Posted by Jesus Wept

For what it's worth, I'm thrilled that we're arguing over this minutiae rather than whether Einstein addressed some professor with some silly proposition that cold doesn't exist and we can't see our own brains, therefore god.

I'd be willing to settle, for the time being, on pandeism, I think.

I can be combative and militant. It depends entirely on the situation. That is to say, I will never respect someone's beliefs merely because they hold them. However, I won't begrudge them a belief, no matter how utterly stupid and unsubstantiated, as long as it doesn't hurt others. I may well converse with someone in a socratic manner, but I won't bully someone with private, if stupid, beliefs.

However, it's the people who use their beliefs to bully others, be it through street-side abortion clinic protests or by voting to disallow homosexual marriage, with whom I will be combative.

Hey, vehemently debating minutia is a time-honored internet pastime!

And on your last point we are in total agreement. Anyone who uses their beliefs as justification to oppress another deserves to be opposed.

Now it could be argued that I am guilty of the same thing, seeing as I'm using my personal beliefs as justification to attack other folk's personal beliefs. But a line must be drawn somewhere. The core of my morality, divinely-inspired or not, is that people should be free to do what makes them happy, provided it does not infringe on the happiness of others. And if your happiness is predicated on everyone believing exactly as you do, you may need to adjust your worldview a bit.

To that end, I support folks who believe in Jesus, Muhammad, or whatever, provided they do not try to force others to believe as they do. I support atheists, provided they do not try to force others to believe as they do.

I'll defend both sides from the other in the hopes that one day people will move past the point where they feel that conflict with "the other" is the only option available to 'em.

[Nallix]

Originally Posted by Jesus Wept

I'm not making a claim to the truth of that statement, but rather the fallacious nature of using it as "proof of god." I'm sure you know the story I'm referring to. And I only bring it up because it seems to have been resurrected with a vengeance this last week. r/atheism has been flooded with screengrabs of it going around Facebook.

No, I'm not familiar with it. But I don't read a lot on atheism, skepticism, or any other -ism movement. And I barely look at Facebook. I've long ago learned that some issues, especially this one, are serious hot button issues and the vast majority of people are completely unwilling to bend even a bit when it comes to their convictions. Such discussions are almost useless in an argumentative nature. You're not going to convince anyone of anything they oppose. They are interesting from a research standpoint, however.

[Jesus Wept]

Originally Posted by Nallix

No, I'm not familiar with it. But I don't read a lot on atheism, skepticism, or any other -ism movement. And I barely look at Facebook. I've long ago learned that some issues, especially this one, are serious hot button issues and the vast majority of people are completely unwilling to bend even a bit when it comes to their convictions. Such discussions are almost useless in an argumentative nature. You're not going to convince anyone of anything they oppose. They are interesting from a research standpoint, however.

Ah. Well I'm referring to this:

http://snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

[El Goro]

Originally Posted by Jesus Wept

Ah. Well I'm referring to this:

http://snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

I saw that. It bugged me.

[Nallix]

Originally Posted by Jesus Wept

Ah. Well I'm referring to this:

http://snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

Oh that. I disregard anything that looks like a chain letter. It's taken me years to train family and friends to NOT forward that shit to me.

[Flesheater]

Originally Posted by Rovin

You seem kind of irritated.

When I wrote that response I wasn't irritated...just pointing out my perspective.

Originally Posted by Jesus Wept

However, it's the people who use their beliefs to bully others, be it through street-side abortion clinic protests or by voting to disallow homosexual marriage, with whom I will be combative.

Here is another perspective to consider on these two referred topics;

1. I believe even Atheists can find it in their "moral" mindset to oppose abortion. (I'm not going to get into the idea of "well it's not a child until..." argument because it's absolutely ridiculous. If it's a child at 9 months in the womb then it's a child at 1 month in the womb. I can say that with confidence because I myself have a 2 year old son and have a different perspective from someone that has never had the oppurtunity to witness the miracle of life on their own. With that being said...) Murder is a morally wrong act to indulge in; even Atheist support some sort of punishment for murder (possibly not the death penalty but obviously prison time); there is no difference in murdering another individual in the streets or having a woman destroy a life growing inside of her. The only difference is that the prior is guilty and the later has no voice and has done nothing wrong to deserve his/her life being destroyed.

To simplify the topic of abortion; it's a simple way to "wash away" "mistakes" and to completely relieve an "adult" of responsibility. (Again...no argument on "what about rape" because there are probably 1% or less of women that are raped that actually become pregnant; under that much stress the body will shut down from reproductive nature and in my opinion it holds no ground on the topic of abortion.) The whole idea of destroying a life/terminating a pregnancy seems absolutely immoral regardless of your religious beliefs or lack there of.

Setting the idea of God aside and the idea that a child isn't really a child until their 6-8 months in the womb; how can anyone say that it's "moral" to accept abortion? Because a woman has the right to choose? What about her unborn child's opinion? Most people simply say it doesn't matter because him/her has not yet been born...I call that immoral and irresponsible. It's immoral (no matter how you look at it) to terminate a life simply because you're not responsible enough to deal with your actions which obviously have consequences.

Now...terminating a pregnancy is acceptable in my opinion if a woman is placed in a position where her life and the babies life are at a great risk and the pregnancy can not be safely completed. That is the only way I can support a "choice" in abortion. In the off chance that a woman was in fact raped and impregnated and it's proven with a blood test (if the woman has a boyfriend whom she was faithful to or a husband) then I can accept her choosing not to keep the child. I can not speak for either of these circumstances however because I've never been placed in that position to make a detrimental decision like that. I can not support in anyway though the termination of a child due to one not being responsible enough to care for the life she so irresponsibly help conceive...how is that considered "good" to the standards of morality?

2. Gay marriage...seriously? I'm not even sure why they want to be legally married; is it to claim "married" on income taxes? The simple break down of gay marriage is as follows;

You can not expect Catholics, Christians, Protestants, Muslims, etc. to accept gays into their religious ceremonies or positions of leadership. This is not only unconstitutional but it also does not go in accordance to their belief system (which is in fact backed up under the Freedom of Religion stated in the US consitution). Now...if the IRS dropped the ability to claim "married" on income taxes there would be nothing to gain from marriage aside from a ring and a room mate. If gays live in Canada or Mexico or any other country that does not have a constitution like the US then by all means feel free to rally. But I'm not fully understanding what gays want with "legal" marriages aside from tax benefits (if it can even be considered a "benefit")...is this the only reason? Because as far as I'm concerned if a couple wishes to be married then why can they not use rings or any other form of bonding armament to consider themselves married?

I've never researched the term "marriage" but I'm assuming it has religious descent. Asking any believer of a God driven religion to accept something against their religion is no different than a right wing Christian forcing an Atheist to pray or attend church ceremonies.


I've noticed on the left and right side of every important topic each party or individual has their idea of morality concerning that topic. Isn't this a flaw in the idea of morality to the Atheist believer? If there is no written "law" of morality how does one categorize topics such as abortion? Is it immoral or is it moral? If it's moral to terminate a pregnancy then why is not shared by everyone as being so? I can almost guarantee you that you'd find non-Christians, Catholics, etc. that agree abortion is wrong (thus removing the idea that everyone that disagrees with abortion does so because of God). So when it comes down to these topics where personal opinion appears to reign supreme how is morality defined?

[Rovin]

Originally Posted by Nallix

I also think the idea of pantheism to be a bit of a weak position. It feels like fence sitting to me.

Why?

[Jesus Wept]

Originally Posted by Flesheater

When I wrote that response I wasn't irritated...just pointing out my perspective.



Here is another perspective to consider on these two referred topics;

1. I believe even Atheists can find it in their "moral" mindset to oppose abortion. (I'm not going to get into the idea of "well it's not a child until..." argument because it's absolutely ridiculous. If it's a child at 9 months in the womb then it's a child at 1 month in the womb. I can say that with confidence because I myself have a 2 year old son and have a different perspective from someone that has never had the oppurtunity to witness the miracle of life on their own. With that being said...) Murder is a morally wrong act to indulge in; even Atheist support some sort of punishment for murder (possibly not the death penalty but obviously prison time); there is no difference in murdering another individual in the streets or having a woman destroy a life growing inside of her. The only difference is that the prior is guilty and the later has no voice and has done nothing wrong to deserve his/her life being destroyed.

There's plenty of difference. The definition of "life," for instance, is open for debate. You're making sweeping claims here, assuming that things are because they appear inherently so. Surely you can see how your view is clouded by your personal bias, then.

I too find the issue contentious. There are certain facts about abortion that I find repugnant.

I, however, would never legislate, unlike people like Forthy Santorum (whose wife has had an abortion, btw) that a pregnancy should not be terminated under any circumstance. Being forced to carry a child, who was the product of rape, to term is appalling in every sense. Being forced to carry a child to term who will be severely disabled, is also cruel. Not just for the parents, but potentially for the child. The choice to make these decisions is one that we should have. And making sweeping statements such as that you're not going to engage in a discussion because it is "ridiculous" does no good for anyone. But I'm so glad that you're so certain of what is and isn't life. Would you care to publish that paper as well and collect another Noble Prize?

There are no easy answers, and shunning the questions because of your personal biases does no good for anyone. All it does it bolster my point that people who push their convictions on others need be opposed. And with violent rhetoric if need be. If you can't, and are even unwilling, to show me objectively that your claim about 1 month being the same as 9 months is valid, then you have no business making the claim to begin with.

Originally Posted by Flesheater

To simplify the topic of abortion; it's a simple way to "wash away" "mistakes" and to completely relieve an "adult" of responsibility. (Again...no argument on "what about rape" because there are probably 1% or less of women that are raped that actually become pregnant; under that much stress the body will shut down from reproductive nature and in my opinion it holds no ground on the topic of abortion.) The whole idea of destroying a life/terminating a pregnancy seems absolutely immoral regardless of your religious beliefs or lack there of.

Nope, you don't get to whitewash your claims, and assert that they are simple. Cite your sources...

You keep appealing to morality as if it were objective, absolute. I've already demonstrated (in my lengthy reply to you, that I doubt you read) why the very concept of objective morality is absurd. So kindly stop asserting something based on your bias (the veracity of objective morality).

Originally Posted by Flesheater

Setting the idea of God aside and the idea that a child isn't really a child until their 6-8 months in the womb; how can anyone say that it's "moral" to accept abortion? Because a woman has the right to choose? What about her unborn child's opinion? Most people simply say it doesn't matter because him/her has not yet been born...I call that immoral and irresponsible. It's immoral (no matter how you look at it) to terminate a life simply because you're not responsible enough to deal with your actions which obviously have consequences.

Again, you start off that paragraph by appealing to this inane idea of "objective morality." You really got to stop doing that; it only reveals your bias.

And I'm so glad that you're qualified, too, to speak for a child. I'd be thrilled if you could demonstrate that a fetus has attained self awareness. "Open the pod-bay legs..." "I'm sorry, mom... I cannot do that...."

Originally Posted by Flesheater

Now...terminating a pregnancy is acceptable in my opinion if a woman is placed in a position where her life and the babies life are at a great risk and the pregnancy can not be safely completed. That is the only way I can support a "choice" in abortion. In the off chance that a woman was in fact raped and impregnated and it's proven with a blood test (if the woman has a boyfriend whom she was faithful to or a husband) then I can accept her choosing not to keep the child. I can not speak for either of these circumstances however because I've never been placed in that position to make a detrimental decision like that. I can not support in anyway though the termination of a child due to one not being responsible enough to care for the life she so irresponsibly help conceive...how is that considered "good" to the standards of morality?

I like how at the start of this paragraph, you demonstrate the subjectivity of morality by dictating a position in which abortion is morally sound. And then you try to cover your tracks with the last sentence by appealing, again, to a universal morality.

For the record, God loved him some abortions. He got off on the death of children:

"...go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (I Samuel 15:3. See also Deuteronomy 2:34 and 3:6; Joshua 10:28-40, 11:10-12, 14, 15, 20 and 21; and Judges 21:10-12.)


"O daughter of Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!" (Psalms 137:8)

Originally Posted by Flesheater

2. Gay marriage...seriously? I'm not even sure why they want to be legally married; is it to claim "married" on income taxes? The simple break down of gay marriage is as follows;

WOAH! Hold your horses.

First, marriage is not a religious term, but a legal one and far predates Christianity and Islam. Likely predates Judaism too. Weddings are the religious ceremony to honor the legal binding that is marriage.

And you have such a reductive approach to everything. Things aren't as simple as you'd like to paint them.

Originally Posted by Flesheater

You can not expect Catholics, Christians, Protestants, Muslims, etc. to accept gays into their religious ceremonies or positions of leadership.

Fuck the Catholics, Christians, Protestants and Muslims, etc. This has nothing at all to do with them or their religions, and so they need to stop trying to co-opt marriage as something that is exclusively about them. As far as my expectations of them; I absolutely DO expect them to be accepting. I don't care if they want to accept someone into their religions; it's already clear that they're bigoted and exclusionary. But they do not have the right to impose their bigotry on others. Whether they accept gay people being married is not the concern of the law.

Originally Posted by Flesheater

This is not only unconstitutional but it also does not go in accordance to their belief system (which is in fact backed up under the Freedom of Religion stated in the US consitution). Now...if the IRS dropped the ability to claim "married" on income taxes there would be nothing to gain from marriage aside from a ring and a room mate. If gays live in Canada or Mexico or any other country that does not have a constitution like the US then by all means feel free to rally. But I'm not fully understanding what gays want with "legal" marriages aside from tax benefits (if it can even be considered a "benefit")...is this the only reason? Because as far as I'm concerned if a couple wishes to be married then why can they not use rings or any other form of bonding armament to consider themselves married?

Your understanding of the constitution is abysmal at best.

First of all, let's look at the clause relating to religion, shall we?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof."

Bingo. No law respecting an establishment of religion. So then, if, as you assert, marriage is a religious institution (it's not), then it would be unconstitutional to favor it legally by various legal exemptions that you've cited.

Of course it's not a religious institution, but a legal one. And the free exercise of religion is NOT encroached upon by the government recognizing the marriages of others. On the contrary, if, as you would have, the religious were the only ones legally allowed a marriage, THAT would be unconstitutional as it would be the congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion.

The religious like to harp on with the phrase, "Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion."

Of course, we look at the definition of "of" and realize that not only are they wrong, they're tragically illiterate:

of1    [uhv, ov; unstressed uhv or, especially before consonants, uh] Show IPA
preposition
1.
(used to indicate distance or direction from, separation, deprivation, etc.): within a mile of the church; south of Omaha; to be robbed of one's money.

Distance or direction "from."

We, the secular, are as entitled to live our lives free FROM the burden of your religion, as you are entitled to live your life OF religion.

Originally Posted by Flesheater

I've never researched the term "marriage" but I'm assuming it has religious descent. Asking any believer of a God driven religion to accept something against their religion is no different than a right wing Christian forcing an Atheist to pray or attend church ceremonies.

You know what they say about those who assume?

marriage |ˈmarij|
noun
1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
• a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex.
• a relationship between married people or the period for which it

vs

wedding |ˈwedi ng |
noun
a marriage ceremony, esp. considered as including the associated celebrations.


A marriage is not a ceremony, that's a wedding.


The difference is that religious people don't own marriage, and they never have. Nothing's being forced upon them. They're not being told to change their religion. The problem is the damned religious lobby groups who spread this appalling lie. They're free to exercise their wedding ceremonies as they always have, only homosexuals are also being freed to have a legally binding marriage contract like they should have always been allowed.

Originally Posted by Flesheater

I've noticed on the left and right side of every important topic each party or individual has their idea of morality concerning that topic. Isn't this a flaw in the idea of morality to the Atheist believer? If there is no written "law" of morality how does one categorize topics such as abortion? Is it immoral or is it moral? If it's moral to terminate a pregnancy then why is not shared by everyone as being so? I can almost guarantee you that you'd find non-Christians, Catholics, etc. that agree abortion is wrong (thus removing the idea that everyone that disagrees with abortion does so because of God). So when it comes down to these topics where personal opinion appears to reign supreme how is morality defined?

Morality is socially derived.

My question for you:

Would you eviscerate your child? What if god asked it sincerely of you, as he did of Abraham? No? Then your morality isn't derived from this silly book, and your "god." It's derived as much, for you, from society as it is for everyone else. And you made this clear, earlier on, when you rationalized situations in which you wouldn't be opposed to abortion.

[Dark Mark]

On marriage I tend to agree with these sentiments