| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/05/2007 12:27:31 PM · #301 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not sure why my quote above got us off onto this rabbit trail. I never equated atheism with amorality (perhaps someone else did). |
You asked why atheists are so "anti-believer" and I asked the opposite question, why "believers" are so anti-atheist. |
It doesn't really answer my question though, does it? I tried to answer yours though...
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 12:38:15 PM · #302 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Are you claiming that no atheists lives an immoral/Coligulus lifestyle? |
Who said that? Why do you make such sweeping generalizations? |
If I were to go to Key West or San Francisco, or a host of other locations where more sexually liberal citizens live, and I were to poll them on on how many were christians or atheists which do you think the higher number would be? Likewise, if I were to go to the bible belt and ask the same quaetions, what would the numbers be.
If I were to ask you, your religious beliefs and your partner preferences, what would your answer be. If I were to research the posts in Rant that dealt with homosexuality and those dealing with atheism, do you think I would find the same posters sideing in with each other? The answer is Yes I would and that is my evidence.
And, so that you do not PRESUME too much, do not pretend you know my personal position on sexually liberal citizens, because I promise you, that you do not. |
I have to ask; what do you mean by "sexually liberal"?
Is that a euphemism for homosexual? Swingers? Fetishists? Or does it mean people who deviate from the once-a-week, missionary position, with my spouse of the opposite sex routine? Or, what exactly?
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 12:40:19 PM · #303 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Most morality in religious belief is "absolute". That is, the Supreme Being is the "moral pole" by which to calibrate all our moral compasses. Atheism does not provide such a "moral pole" and thus subscribes to a "relative" morality. |
This is a common misconception. My pole is very obvious. (If you'll pardon my pointing it out.)
Humanists do not need a "higher authority" to know how to behave. The only authority is humanity. There is a universal abhorrance of suffering, and the ultimate goal of any sentient being is to end the suffering of itself and others. As such, humanism subscribes to the "golden rule" of desiring for others exactly what the individual desires for itself, that is, the end of suffering. |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 12:42:36 PM · #304 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not sure why my quote above got us off onto this rabbit trail. I never equated atheism with amorality (perhaps someone else did). |
You asked why atheists are so "anti-believer" and I asked the opposite question, why "believers" are so anti-atheist. |
It doesn't really answer my question though, does it? I tried to answer yours though... |
For me, the only "problem" is when "believers" attempt to shape civil law to conform with their particular belief set. Otherwise, they are free to believe anything they want. |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 12:47:00 PM · #305 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I have to ask; what do you mean by "sexually liberal"?
Is that a euphemism for homosexual? Swingers? Fetishists? Or does it mean people who deviate from the once-a-week, missionary position, with my spouse of the opposite sex routine? Or, what exactly? |
Very fair question. For the purposes of my post, I specifically chose that term as a "polite catch all" to include any manner of persons that choose to engage in activity that right leaning christians might consider immoral (specifically the reason for the reference to Caligulus behaviour). That would include homosexuals, swingers, bis, beastiality, etc. I had not considered the 1x/weekers, however it does raise an interesting note about sexually addicted heterosexuals requiring multiple sessions per day. However we are way off topic here.
Simply said, it was an attempt to be polite, yet still reference citizens who engage in activities typically not conforming to scripture.
Message edited by author 2007-12-05 12:54:06.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 12:51:32 PM · #306 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Most morality in religious belief is "absolute". That is, the Supreme Being is the "moral pole" by which to calibrate all our moral compasses. Atheism does not provide such a "moral pole" and thus subscribes to a "relative" morality. |
This is a common misconception. My pole is very obvious. (If you'll pardon my pointing it out.)
Humanists do not need a "higher authority" to know how to behave. The only authority is humanity. There is a universal abhorrance of suffering, and the ultimate goal of any sentient being is to end the suffering of itself and others. As such, humanism subscribes to the "golden rule" of desiring for others exactly what the individual desires for itself, that is, the end of suffering. |
I've been down this discussion too many times. It's too much like having a German talk to a Frenchman in their respective languages. Naturalistic and Theistic morality is too different on a theoretical (not necessarily practical) level for reasonable discussion to be had. You point out that what I said was a "misconception", but the theist merely says you are the one with the "misconception". Nothing fruitful results.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 12:52:58 PM · #307 |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 01:07:30 PM · #308 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Most morality in religious belief is "absolute". That is, the Supreme Being is the "moral pole" by which to calibrate all our moral compasses. Atheism does not provide such a "moral pole" and thus subscribes to a "relative" morality. |
Humanists do not need a "higher authority" to know how to behave. The only authority is humanity. There is a universal abhorrance of suffering, and the ultimate goal of any sentient being is to end the suffering of itself and others. As such, humanism subscribes to the "golden rule" of desiring for others exactly what the individual desires for itself, that is, the end of suffering. |
Perhaps the miitia in Darfur are the exception to your rule about the universal abhorrance of suffering? As were Serbs in Bosnia, the Hutu militia in Rwanda, the Japanese Imperial Army in Nanking, and the Young Turks in Armenia, to name just a few. That doesn't even name the biggest genocides in history, like the Chinese revolution, Pol Pot's killing fields, etc. Seems that "humanity" really doesn't observe the "golden rule" when left to its own devices. |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 01:18:32 PM · #309 |
| Who said there weren't exceptions? Who said I couldn't also point out hundreds of examples of suffering brought on by any group of people, god believing or not? Who thinks this is proof that people crave suffering? |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 01:23:26 PM · #310 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Who said there weren't exceptions? Who said I couldn't also point out hundreds of examples of suffering brought on by any group of people, god believing or not? Who thinks this is proof that people crave suffering? |
One half of the premise is correct - humans seek to ease their own suffering. I don't buy the second half, that humans equally wish to end the sufferings of others, nor does history in any way support that notion. |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 01:28:58 PM · #311 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Louis:
Who said there weren't exceptions? Who said I couldn't also point out hundreds of examples of suffering brought on by any group of people, god believing or not? Who thinks this is proof that people crave suffering? |
One half of the premise is correct - humans seek to ease their own suffering. I don't buy the second half, that humans equally wish to end the sufferings of others, nor does history in any way support that notion. |
Despite the expediency of abiding and causing suffering because of the political and social issues du jour, it is my contention that human beings innately do not wish to suffer, and innately do not wish to visit suffering on other human beings. |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 01:30:51 PM · #312 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Ex 21:23ΓΆ€“25, Lv 24:18ΓΆ€“20, Dt 19:21
Law of Hammurabi (eye for an eye) in the Bible. |
So sections of ancient Jewish law correspond to ancient Babylonian law. I don't think that's quite the same as 'the Old Testament preaches the Code of Hammurabi" but certainly the eye-for-an-eye aspect is common to both and contrary to Christ's teachings about turning the other cheek.
One thing I take away from this discussion is a reminder of why it is I avoid going to church... |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 01:34:18 PM · #313 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
One thing I take away from this discussion is a reminder of why it is I avoid going to church... |
;-) Yep!
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 01:42:00 PM · #314 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Simply said, it was an attempt to be polite, yet still reference citizens who engage in activities typically not conforming to scripture. |
So is that pretty much anyone who isn't having sex expressly for the purpose of procreation ? Does that mean only atheists use contraception ? I'm confused now. Wouldn't that mean they'd be dying out ?
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 01:46:53 PM · #315 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Flash:
Simply said, it was an attempt to be polite, yet still reference citizens who engage in activities typically not conforming to scripture. |
So is that pretty much anyone who isn't having sex expressly for the purpose of procreation ? Does that mean only atheists use contraception ? I'm confused now. Wouldn't that mean they'd be dying out ? |
Gordon,
Now you are taking my "intent" out of context. You might want to re-read the original post to insure you have the content in context.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 01:50:51 PM · #316 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Flash:
Simply said, it was an attempt to be polite, yet still reference citizens who engage in activities typically not conforming to scripture. |
So is that pretty much anyone who isn't having sex expressly for the purpose of procreation ? Does that mean only atheists use contraception ? I'm confused now. Wouldn't that mean they'd be dying out ? |
Gordon,
Now you are taking my "intent" out of context. You might want to re-read the original post to insure you have the content in context. |
Originally posted by Flash:
If I were to go to Key West or San Francisco, or a host of other locations where more sexually liberal citizens live, and I were to poll them on on how many were christians or atheists which do you think the higher number would be? |
Then we seem to have established that 'sexually liberal' means 'engaging in activities typically not conforming to scripture'. I'm just asking if that means any activities that aren't expressly for the purposes of procreation ? So 'sexually liberal' would seem to include anyone using contraception, etc ?
I'm not sure what the distribution of supply of contraception looks like for the US - but do you think it is weighted heavily towards Key West or San Francisco ?
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 02:08:15 PM · #317 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Why do so many "believers" equate atheism with amorality? |
Not offering an answer for the Dr., just trying to address the question. The reason that "many" believers equate atheism with amorality is due (in my opinion) to the coincidence that some atheists also live a more "Coligulus" lifestyle. I have suspected that some sexually liberal citizens choose an atheist believe to avoid confrontation with the "moral" code associated with "christ like" behaviour. Certainly you could counter with many examples of "christians" behaving immorally and I would agree it is a bit of hipocracy. That though, does not change the answer as to why "many" may equate atheism with amorality or even immorality.
edited to add...even immorality |
Gordon - the above is the original post, not the one you showed. In the original, you will notice that I am clear to state the apparent hipocracy of those thinking this way, however it did not and does not change "my opinion" on why they think this way.
I then further went on to use examples for Louis, of why they think this way, and further to address Spazmo on a clarification. You have taken an answer to Spazmo, and are relating it to contraception which to me is simply trying to squeeze to tight of a literal interpretation out of my reference to scripture. I can rephrase the sentence to say: "...citizens who engage in activities typically not conforming to those who ascribe to christian theology".
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 02:14:27 PM · #318 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Flash:
Simply said, it was an attempt to be polite, yet still reference citizens who engage in activities typically not conforming to scripture. |
So is that pretty much anyone who isn't having sex expressly for the purpose of procreation ? Does that mean only atheists use contraception ? I'm confused now. Wouldn't that mean they'd be dying out ? |
Assuming that your questions are not just rhetorical in nature:
a) No, it isn't pretty much anyone who isn't having sex expressly for the purpose of procreation.
b) No, it doesn't mean that only atheists use contraception.
c) Yes, you are confused now.
d) No, if only atheists used contraception, then that does not mean that they'd be dying out for three reasons:
1) The statement does not logically indicate that ALL atheists use contraception ALL the time. Procreation could be the result for those who do not use contraception.
2) even if ALL atheists DID use contraception ALL the time, there is a low percentage of failure with all contraceptives.
3) even if ALL atheists DID use contraception ALL the time, it would not logically preclude atheist offspring from being born to non-atheists. |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 02:14:28 PM · #319 |
Originally posted by Flash:
You have taken an answer to Spazmo, and are relating it to contraception which to me is simply trying to squeeze to tight of a literal interpretation out of my reference to scripture. |
I'm not trying to squeeze anything - I'm just trying to understand what you are saying other people are saying.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 02:15:45 PM · #320 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Assuming that your questions are not just rhetorical in nature: |
They mostly were.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 02:23:51 PM · #321 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Then we seem to have established that 'sexually liberal' means 'engaging in activities typically not conforming to scripture'. I'm just asking if that means any activities that aren't expressly for the purposes of procreation ? So 'sexually liberal' would seem to include anyone using contraception, etc ?
|
Oh, I thought that those were NOT just rhetorical questions ( rhetorical question = "A question to which no answer is expected" ). If they had been rhetorical questions, a) no response would have been expected, and b) the questions would not have been repeated ( as in this post ). Since you felt it necessary to repeat the questions, I surmised you were, in effect, pressuring Flash for an actual answer, and that the questions were, therefore, not rhetorical.
My bad. |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 02:26:49 PM · #322 |
| Hey, how come we don't have three exclusive challenges this week: Heaven, Hell, and None_Of_The_Above? |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 02:34:54 PM · #323 |
| More interesting might have been "Truth" and "Fiction", and see how the various camps interpret them. :P |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 02:36:39 PM · #324 |
Valid points. I don't see why DPC can force christian concepts down my throat but refuse to have a girls kissing girls challenge, as if something is wrong or immoral with that concept.
Heathens. |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 03:11:08 PM · #325 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Since you felt it necessary to repeat the questions |
You repeated them.
and I still don't expect an answer.
Message edited by author 2007-12-05 15:12:30.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/14/2025 04:58:53 PM EDT.
