Page 20 of 34 [ 540 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 ... 34  Next

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

25 Feb 2012, 5:10 am

I don't talk about cars to my hair stylist either. In fact, I don't even talk about cars much to anyone.

I do love discussing the flaws of religion, though. Can't stop me from doing so.



cw10
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 973

25 Feb 2012, 5:15 am

MCalavera wrote:
I don't talk about cars to my hair stylist either. In fact, I don't even talk about cars much to anyone.

I do love discussing the flaws of religion, though. Can't stop me from doing so.


Well love isn't rational is it. :)



heavenlyabyss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,393

25 Feb 2012, 5:19 am

AudaciousLarue wrote:
Hello everybody, I'm new to this forum and would like to first of all start off with something that has bothered me for around two years. Here goes nothing.

My parents believe that I am going to Hell. Period, no questions asked as to why I am destined to go to Hell, beyond the fact that I have decided to choose not to believe in God and apparently that means my soul is in peril.

My journey down towards atheism began around a year or two ago(9th or 10th grade in high school). I was(and am) really big into philosophy.

I read more of course, and had at that point totally questioned the existence of a higher power. My parents tried to limit my philosophy intake, but didn't based on the assumption that free-thinking is good(and they've mostly given up on trying to control my beliefs).

We would get into bitter fights over religion, with my parents always concluding that to have purpose in life one must believe that a higher being is watching over us, every day.

I tried refuted this, arguing that one can still live life to the fullest, even more so without the fear of eternal damnation hanging over one's head. The fear of hell is not necessary to have a solid moral compass.

But, I feel guilty. My parents pray for me a lot, because they really do worry about my soul. And I seem to have chosen my path, and i don't see how I can go back. I just cannot believe in God.

They want me to become a born-again Christian "when I'm ready" but I feel right now that I just can't do it.

Is questioning everything really a "sin?" Is having free will putting you at odds with God, whom I really sometimes feel does exist, yet at the same time don't?

The biggest problem I have is this: How do my parents KNOW I will go to Hell, as if they are God?

They also think that I will overtime take up bad morals, even though right now they don't believe I have them yet. They argue that atheism=bad morals.

What do you think?

Anyways, I'd like to hear your opinions.


I am an atheist with some bad morals (ie i drink too much, I smoke too much). I will admit that, but to say that atheism implies bad morals is a fallacy and it is absurd and this mentality needs to stop.

There is such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy. There is also such a thing as internalizing negative beliefs that others impose on you. If people tell you over and over and over and over again that you are immoral because you are an atheist, then you may in fact become immoral.

There is absolutely no logical reason whatsoever why atheism should imply immorality. Actually, I am surprised more Christians aren't immoral considering how immoral their God is. I am sorry if that is offensive but it is the truth in my opinion. I think what keeps them from being more immoral than they are is the fact that their religion is well accepted and they are not being constantly oppressed.

I am going out on a limb here, but I mean come on, atheism is not equal to immorality.



NarcissusSavage
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 675

25 Feb 2012, 6:45 am

cw10 wrote:
Well love isn't rational is it.


You could make a case for love being rational, yes.


_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.


NarcissusSavage
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 675

25 Feb 2012, 7:02 am

heavenlyabyss wrote:
I am an atheist with some bad morals (ie i drink too much, I smoke too much). I will admit that, but to say that atheism implies bad morals is a fallacy and it is absurd and this mentality needs to stop.

There is such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy. There is also such a thing as internalizing negative beliefs that others impose on you. If people tell you over and over and over and over again that you are immoral because you are an atheist, then you may in fact become immoral.

There is absolutely no logical reason whatsoever why atheism should imply immorality. Actually, I am surprised more Christians aren't immoral considering how immoral their God is. I am sorry if that is offensive but it is the truth in my opinion. I think what keeps them from being more immoral than they are is the fact that their religion is well accepted and they are not being constantly oppressed.

I am going out on a limb here, but I mean come on, atheism is not equal to immorality.


Morality is in the eye of the beholder. An atheist will likely have some slightly different morals in peripheral areas, while the core of the morals found in almost all religions hold pretty true for atheists too. (As a generalized statement about averages)

I have some morals and ethics most theists don't place any value in either. I consider certain acts the equivalent to a sin, and these things are not written on any stone tablet. But "I" think they are as important and sometimes more so. I see Christians in particular "sinning" in my eyes all the time, almost continuously. If I wanted to be as much of a hypocrite, I could try to get them to repent, and call them all immoral for sinning against the natural world of reason and intellectual honesty!! Hold picket rallies outside churches condemning the sin of teaching purposeful ignorance. (I don't)

Just because people have differing moral codes, does not mean any one is more or less moral. This is very subjective.

This is why Christians think atheists are immoral, and they think everyone else is too. To them, the only moral code is their moral code. It’s natural behavior to be blind to the ways of “others”, people only want to know the ways of “themselves”.


_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.


Thom_Fuleri
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 849
Location: Leicestershire, UK

25 Feb 2012, 7:33 am

shrox wrote:
True of many things, and funny with all of them. This guy comes to mind.

Image

Is a guy who thinks it was aliens an "Alienist"?


No, I think he's an alien. He doesn't look quite human enough...



kg4fxg
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 168

25 Feb 2012, 8:37 am

With age comes wisdom. I don't want to imply that I have the best answers but experience is a good teacher.
I went to Catholic Seminary for three years. The bad side is all the sexual scandals, the good side is my getting to study philosophy. For me, I most likely fall in as an atheist or agnostic. I believe in God like Aristotle does. The first mover or intellect that created the universe. But that is far from the Christian belief in God.

I have been in many churches since from Catholic to Baptist to Methodist. It just isn't for me. It is not a place where I have made friends. I have studied philosophy meaning the great philosophers for many years and I have floor to ceiling books on the various areas of philosophy. Philosophy questions everything. It does not necessarily provide you with answers but allows you to think outside the box. It will allow you to question things that most Christians find unacceptable.

Here is a book that is an easy read and too deep. Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion". It puts forth questions you may have never asked. It one place there is a prayer experiment with patients in different hospitals to see if prayer makes any difference. Some know they are being prayed for while others do not. It is quite interesting. Be open to question everything and in the end it does come down to faith which can not be proven.

Take it home point:

Just be open, read and question everything like the book above it will make you a better Christian or Atheist. I have no reason to pitch any belief accept reason. I don't think it is good to follow any faith blindly.

B



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

25 Feb 2012, 3:06 pm

cw10 wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
cw10 wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
cw10 wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
shrox wrote:
^ Woo hoo! Math is vindicated!


cw10 doesn't seem to [want to?] understand the solution to this trivial quandary, unfortunately. Such is the nature of contrarianism, perhaps. He won't even agree with me when I'm defending his use of a quote! :lol:


But, I'm right. :(


You're not really wrong, or right. The quote itself is flawed, because it is using more than one standard for defining "Founding Fathers" but still making blanket statements in regards to them.


Well no, because the quote is accurate as it's written. 55 delegates of the constitutional convention. Those were the 55 who were present. How can my math not be right or wrong, or is this another silly game?

My math is correct and the quote is accurate.

Just say it... "cw10 is right". Swallow some gin first if you have to. :twisted:


Your math isn't wrong, you are just not realizing the context of the quote you used, which was the "Religion" tab in the US Founding Fathers wiki page.

[49 protestants.]
28 Church of England (Episcopalian)
8 Presbyterians
7 Congregationalists
2 Lutheran
2 Dutch Reformed
2 Methodists

+3 Roman Catholics

+TJ, BF, TP = 55
+ A few others= 55> (total 74 counting all invited delegates)


In the beginning the standard for "Founding Fathers" used is the 55, but it is clearly expanded afterwards when the author elaborates on the non-theistic members. That the other two are not Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson (who were not present) is all the proof you should need to show that two standards are being used. I don't really drink, thanks


TJ and TP _were not present_. 19 of them chose not to attend or accept the election.

According to the paragraph as it's written it's 52 of 55.


I know. I just said that.

Image

Its not that complicated.. you're just not getting the standards used to define "founding fathers", which I pretty clearly explained, and which two different ones are used in that paragraph which leads to the nonsensical numbers leading to more than 55


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

25 Feb 2012, 6:09 pm

Thom_Fuleri wrote:
shrox wrote:
True of many things, and funny with all of them. This guy comes to mind.

Image

Is a guy who thinks it was aliens an "Alienist"?


No, I think he's an alien. He doesn't look quite human enough...


It's the haircut.

Image



Thom_Fuleri
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 849
Location: Leicestershire, UK

25 Feb 2012, 7:01 pm

Hurrah! I am not alone!
Sorry, what was this thread about again?



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

25 Feb 2012, 11:34 pm

Quote:
What's rational about debating religion when you have none? I don't talk about cars to my hair stylist.


Car-ists don't try to pass laws to install car values on non-carists. They also don't deny science or try to get anti-science taught to promote car-ism. But seeing as they just drive around in cars all day, I'm less interested in their hobbies.



Declension
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

25 Feb 2012, 11:45 pm

cw10 wrote:
What's rational about debating religion when you have none?


This is the logic of a person who has given up all hope for humanity. We are all obligated to challenge each other's beliefs, especially when they are beliefs about extremely important things. It is a hard road, but in the end, it is the only road worth taking.



heavenlyabyss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,393

25 Feb 2012, 11:51 pm

NarcissusSavage wrote:
heavenlyabyss wrote:
I am an atheist with some bad morals (ie i drink too much, I smoke too much). I will admit that, but to say that atheism implies bad morals is a fallacy and it is absurd and this mentality needs to stop.

There is such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy. There is also such a thing as internalizing negative beliefs that others impose on you. If people tell you over and over and over and over again that you are immoral because you are an atheist, then you may in fact become immoral.

There is absolutely no logical reason whatsoever why atheism should imply immorality. Actually, I am surprised more Christians aren't immoral considering how immoral their God is. I am sorry if that is offensive but it is the truth in my opinion. I think what keeps them from being more immoral than they are is the fact that their religion is well accepted and they are not being constantly oppressed.

I am going out on a limb here, but I mean come on, atheism is not equal to immorality.


Morality is in the eye of the beholder. An atheist will likely have some slightly different morals in peripheral areas, while the core of the morals found in almost all religions hold pretty true for atheists too. (As a generalized statement about averages)

I have some morals and ethics most theists don't place any value in either. I consider certain acts the equivalent to a sin, and these things are not written on any stone tablet. But "I" think they are as important and sometimes more so. I see Christians in particular "sinning" in my eyes all the time, almost continuously. If I wanted to be as much of a hypocrite, I could try to get them to repent, and call them all immoral for sinning against the natural world of reason and intellectual honesty!! Hold picket rallies outside churches condemning the sin of teaching purposeful ignorance. (I don't)

Just because people have differing moral codes, does not mean any one is more or less moral. This is very subjective.

This is why Christians think atheists are immoral, and they think everyone else is too. To them, the only moral code is their moral code. It’s natural behavior to be blind to the ways of “others”, people only want to know the ways of “themselves”.


I agree to an extent but I also think moral relativism is a dangerous concept.

When I see someone person spank their 6-year old child or yell angrily at them, I want to vomit. I'm not saying this has anything to do with religion, I'm actually going on a tangent, but the idea is that sometimes moral relativism is wrong. And sometimes people need to be called out.

I don't believe in getting into logical debates with good religious people, only the bad ones, and only the bad ones who use their to justify evil. When religion is used to justify evil, that is when intervening is an absolute must.

Some people would claim the mere act of bring children to church everyday is evil itself, and I actually do think they are entitled to that opinion, and they are entitled to protest as well.



cw10
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 973

26 Feb 2012, 12:14 am

Vigilans wrote:
Its not that complicated.. you're just not getting the standards used to define "founding fathers", which I pretty clearly explained, and which two different ones are used in that paragraph which leads to the nonsensical numbers leading to more than 55


Well no again because the paragraph only refers to the 55 delegates that chose to accept both the delegation and to show up and be counted as present. The paragraph is counting the 55 delegate attendees and nothing more. It's not making any reference to "founding fathers", it's a subset of data in reference to the founding fathers, to be more specific the 55 that attended the conference. It's common sense to use the phrase "55 delegates of the constitutional convention" to mean the 55 delegates that were in attendance because they are the only one's who were officially counted by their presence. There are more than 74 founding fathers, but only 74 were delegate candidates. Of those 74 only 55 were either recognized as present, or did not accept the delegation, or did but did not attend.

There's nothing confusing about this very simple mathematical solution, you're just making it harder than it is. The numbers don't lie.



Declension
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

26 Feb 2012, 12:25 am

heavenlyabyss wrote:
moral relativism is a dangerous concept


We shouldn't reject concepts just because they're dangerous. Darwinism is a dangerous concept.

Moral relativism should be rejected because it is bad philosophy, not because it is dangerous. Moral relativists, just like hard determinists and solipsists, are forced into defending extremely silly positions that they cannot possibly hold. When your philosophy causes you to betray your own integrity, the philosophy is not fit for purpose. The point of philosophy is to explain what you know, not to insist that you don't actually know it.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

26 Feb 2012, 1:44 am

cw10 wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Its not that complicated.. you're just not getting the standards used to define "founding fathers", which I pretty clearly explained, and which two different ones are used in that paragraph which leads to the nonsensical numbers leading to more than 55


Well no again because the paragraph only refers to the 55 delegates that chose to accept both the delegation and to show up and be counted as present. The paragraph is counting the 55 delegate attendees and nothing more. It's not making any reference to "founding fathers", it's a subset of data in reference to the founding fathers, to be more specific the 55 that attended the conference. It's common sense to use the phrase "55 delegates of the constitutional convention" to mean the 55 delegates that were in attendance because they are the only one's who were officially counted by their presence. There are more than 74 founding fathers, but only 74 were delegate candidates. Of those 74 only 55 were either recognized as present, or did not accept the delegation, or did but did not attend.

There's nothing confusing about this very simple mathematical solution, you're just making it harder than it is. The numbers don't lie.


cw10... its the "Religion" subsection in "Founding Fathers of the United States". Of course its making reference to the Founding Fathers... FFS
The author first uses the conference attendees as the example of religious demographics, but clearly mentions people afterwards who did not attend, while still making blanket statements about the "entirety" of the Founding Fathers (thus, not just this one conference, despite it being the source s/he chose to use to demonstrate their point...). This in itself is dishonest since there are dozens and dozens of individuals not even being considered for the "Religion" meta topic. There really isn't anything confusing about this, either you just don't get it or are being typically disingenuous. Furthermore this pointless tangent once again allowed you to slip out of answering the actual questions posed to you


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do