gstafleu

Well yes, of course. Riverwind made it sound as if no basis could be given, as if the criticism was uttered without any underlying reasoning. I have shown that this is not the case and that a reasoning can be given. Whether you agree with it is of course another matter.

Regarding that other matter you have me seriously confused, as you say to all my points:
To condense it to one point, I think what you're saying is "Even if the bible shows that god is evil, that does not influence a Christian's beliefs." Is that about correct?

If so, we may be talking at cross purposes. My point is that, because of the evilness of the god in question, non-Christians have valid concerns about people who believe in such a being, certainly if that being is seen as morally prescriptive. The reason for the concern is precisely that the beliefs are apparently not influenced (in the sense of "Well, this is crap") by that evilness. So in stating that my points do not influence belief, you have reinforced the point I was making. For which my thanks .

Gerard Stafleu

Riverwind

Really? You have the "right" to challenge my beliefs and I don't have a "right" to challenge your beliefs? Ok, well, I guess I can just about dismiss anything else that comes from you as similarly irrational.

:rolling:

Humanity has been waiting for you, then, Charlie!

Frankly, only the nuts would concur with you on that one. The concept of God (or Gods) has only been around since the dawn of history, an issue that people have struggled with for as long as they've been on earth, and an issue that will continue long after you and I are dead and gone.

Of course, there are many political reasons for disagreeing with some of your points, not least of all that generalizing as you do is a complete fallacy.

Aside from that, tell me on what basis you declare Christians "evil"? What, Charlie, is "evil"? Don't you realize that you have the freedom to do anything you want, all-the-more-so if you're bigger and badder? What would you possibly have to feel remorse for? If 500,000 Iraqi children die, then what's that to you? Is some God going to hold you personally accountable? Allow me to answer that...you proved God doesn't exist, so that would be a big NO.

So, again, on what basis do you call Christians "evil"? Your own personal standards? From an atheistic/agnostic standpoint...To heck with your own personal standards... Again, from an atheistic/agnostic standpoint I don't give a hoot about your personal moral standards because only my standards will help me get the most out of my life.

Again, phooey on your "morals". What the heck are your "morals"? Point me to your big book of morals so I can know how I should live according to the big book of Charlie's morals...

Otherwise, big, fat, honkin' slices of baloney! People are failures...sinners, since I'm sure you prefer church language. There are people who claim to believe but deep down they don't really...you know those people...you might have been one of those people who went to church and pretended.

When it comes down to it, there are just people, who act in their own interest or in the interest of their "own group of people".

Never mind all the good that Christians and people of religion have done around the world, especially for charity. Many atheists who criticize religion don't give a dime to charity. Why? Because why give your money away to people who make no difference to you? Really? What are your logical, rational reasons for this? Because it makes you feel good? Well, that's mighty charitable of you.

I rarely attack atheists unless they attack my beliefs. You tell me I'm immoral and I'm gonna call you on it. You have absolutey no ground to stand on except your own personal preferences. In short, you really have no objective moral standards toward which to point.

Chris Weimer

Riverwind,

One does not need a God to accept moral statements. All one needs is upbringing to instill the knowledge and evolutionary instinct which manipulates that knowledge.

I can also "prove" (may that word be stricken from the dictionary) that God doesn't exist, but to my own satisfaction, and perhaps others who have followed my lead. But then again, that's probably wholly different from what Cheerful Charlie was saying.

all the best, amicably,

Chris Weimer

Amaleq13

I understand that some folks need to feel observed or under threat in order to choose to be nice to others but it is simply ridiculous to claim that there is no rational reason for doing so.

It makes one feel good. Feelings are arguably non-rational but seeking out good feelings is clearly a rational motivation.

It is may inspire others to be loving toward one's self. That is also a clearly rational motivation given the potential benefits.

It reinforces the general social structure which, in turn, supports and improves our life. Again, an entirely rational motivation to love one's fellow man.

I've found that my happiness seems to be improved if I deal honestly with others. It is unfortunate that this has not been your experience.

Roger Pearse

No. His point was that criticism about supposed moral failure from those who don't believe in any morality but convenience is irrational and has to be specious. To rebut his point you had to show that your beliefs -- not what you hate -- were rational and moral.

What you actually did was reiterate attacks on Christianity, thereby validating his criticism. Thus my comment; thus the confusion.

A worked example: If I hate wombles for being furry little jerks, while having a beard myself, I may be criticised for hypocrisy. It would not be a valid response to that criticism to reiterate what furry little jerks wombles are. I would have to show that I wasn't a furry little jerk myself first, so had some reasonable grounds on which to criticise them. Surely?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Riverwind

Hey mon ami. Sorry you feel attacked. My comments are mainly directed at open attackers of my belief.

While I hear what you're saying and sympathize, I know that you are one of the few who also understand (at least on some level) what I've been saying. I know you've read some existential philosophy.

First, I can't say that I know what "evolutionary instinct" is with respect to morals unless you're talking about irrational feelings. Second, one can attribute "morals" to parents and upbringing, but they got the "morals" they taught you from somewhere. Did they get it from their particular "social group"? Did they borrow much of them from the Judeo-Christian values of our US society?

We've talked, so you know, I think, that I've truly tried to see things from an atheistic/agnostic point of view, but it just doesn't make sense to me. In the end I find those beliefs just as irrational at their base (referring here back to my favorite subject...existential philosophy...which I happen to deeply buy into).

Finally, to me, when someone wants me to be an atheist or an agnostic and then they tell me that I should buy into their particular set of subjective morals (for which I've never been given their moral guidebook), it sounds like this to me:

"I like blue...I think you should too...Otherwise there's something dead wrong with you..."

Chris Weimer

Riverwind,

There's a reason I ignore people like Cheerful Charlie. I think it's rather naive to assume too much of religion without really understanding what's going on. I think that's the problem these days. No one wants to take the time to really see how things work. Car drives, if it doesn't, take it to the mechanic. Otherwise car drives.

The same goes with religion. I don't think anyone can say they're completely divorced from religion. I was just having a conversation on IRC with a friend in an atheist chat about religions are mere tools like economic theories, nationalism, or technology. They can be used for good or for bad. But they're not completely divorceable from life. Perhaps organized religion is. Organized religions have all but taken over the older definition of religion, religio, as in Religio Romana. (Argh, I wish I left my Latin dictionary unpacked.)

I'm not saying that you should listen to Charlie and drop your religion. I will try to show you how I think and hope that you'll buy into it, but it's not a problem if you don't. We're all different, so people who are bigoted against religions in general are just that - bigots. The statistics used against Christianity can be used in the same way against black people - more black people are in jail, in poverty, in gangs, cause more crime, etc... than white people. It fails to take in the whole account and focuses naively on solely the aspects that such and such is connected in some way to such and such and then illogically (and fallaciously) imply causation.

Any good statistician would argue that doing so is wrong. I recommend Freakonomics for an introduction to how older implications of causation are dead wrong, but I'll save the specifics for other forums of interest.

At this point I think we're far beyond BC&H. I don't feel attacked. I just thought a reality check might be appropriate.

Stay in touch,

Chris Weimer

Riverwind

This, to me, is a very tired old argument..."Oh yeah, well I'm better than you are..."

If there's one thing I understand, it's people. At base, everyone is selfish. Selfishness is what underlies every crime against society that I can think of. Some of the best people in this world have, at times, fallen on hard times and done something stupid out of pure selfishness. Anyone is capable of crimes against society and most people commit them, large and small, both against society as well as their own friends and families.

So, those who are honest enough, can say that it is a good thing that here on earth we have a police force to watch over us and keep us in line so that we don't cheat other people. It is good that they keep us from speeding...what?!...oh, surely you don't! And of course there are "The Enforcers" in most workplaces who watch your internet usage and watch how much you actually work. What have studies found? Most people (I would go out on a limb to say that all people) lie and cheat on some level.

Yes, I believe that when people are honest with themselves, they too come to the conclusion that everyone needs to be observed...both here on earth and from "something out there somewhere" that I call God.

If you don't agree with Charles in assessment of Christians, then ok...whatever. However, if you believe in his assessment of the "failed morals" of Christianity and religion in general, then I have to clap my hands for your charity..."I give to others only because it makes me feel good." Of course, this merely hearkens back to my discussion above that we are all, at base, selfish.

Some people, sure. However, there are others, I promise you, who do not care about your charity. They feel they've been robbed in life, and they'll not give a second thought to your supposed charity or the fact that you happen to think that you are morally superior to them. In an atheistic/agnostic world...they win. They take what belongs to you and it makes them happier. They may take one's life...what do they or should they care, especially if they feel they won't be caught? Is some "sky-daddy" gonna punish them in the afterlife? Is one going to come back from the grave and haunt them? No...from a materialistic, naturalistic viewpoint...they've won...they continue to live with the possibility of only increasing their happiness.

...until death, of course...the ultimate equalizer.

You're not being truthful with yourself if you don't think that "good" and "honest" people get stomped on all the time. Not in all cases, to be sure, but in many cases...CEOs can be the lowest of the low...why? Because they've lied (ie. promised everyone everything, though they knew they couldn't deliver), cheated (eg. Cheeze...just think Enron and the many other scandals that go directly to the top of large corporations), stolen (ever heard the term 'embezzle'?), and the list of such terms could go on and on. Did openness and honesty help any of the people who were stomped on by these crooks? No.

Cheerful Charlie

To claim one has no morals because they do not accept your disprovable and impossible God is insulting. Its personally insulting and its bigotry. Not any different than those who claims Jews are inherently evil, Christ killers,
Or those religious bigots that claim Catholics are not really true Christians and as heretics are damned for their blasphemy.

Bascially, I have shown your god is impossible.

I also note that true believers in America are to be found in the American South as the region with the highest percentage of believers. The South is also the region historically with the most violent crime nyperdcentage of population. One of the most religiously godless regions, New England, has the least violent crime outside of the big cities.

Historically, atheists have been conspicious in the US prison systems by their absence.

So looking at evidence, morals of atheists in America have been better that religious believers as a whole. You have no right then to intimate atheists are not moral.

That is bigotry and that is not acceptable.

Again, I have pointed out that since the GOP recruited religious believers and won control of the US, that these true believers have supported US support of evil, genocidal, regimes that commit torture, murders, oppresion and genocide in some cases. Atheists did not give Nixon and Reagan and Bush and a GOP Congress control of the US and support these policies, Christians did. I note the few atheist organizations of the time, American Atheists, Humanist et al, opposed these things.

Again,since Christians come upon the short side of the morals stick here in actuality, where the rubber meets the road, and come up wanting, you have no right to claim Atheists in America lack morals.

When secretary of state Madeline Albright admitted on 60 Minutes that the US had indeed killed 500,000 Iraqi children, "More thandied in Hiroshima and Nagasaki", you Christians did not arise as one man and denounce and end this genocide. With that, even though Christians pretty much controlled the US Senate and House, having given the GOP control. You Christians all did nothing despite having the power to withdraw voting support from Newt's GOP if these genocidal murders continued. Christians could have ended this and chose not to do so.

You thus lose all right to claim American atheists have no morals having failed to have much yourselves, collectively, despite your arrogant claims.
If you claim that only Christians can theoretically have morals, that obligates you Christians to actully have high morals. As I show above, American Christianity is a vast moral failure collectively, and has been since Nixon won election by aiming for support of religious Americans, the "Silent Majority".

Anerican Christianity is a moral failure in actuality.

You thus have no right to cast aspersion on atheists' morals. To do so facing these facts is bigotry and is not acceptable.

I will not tolerate that. You may apologize now.

CC

Spanky

I think we should ALL stay away from "broad brushing" each other. Atheists are not all amoral nor are Christians all amoral.