Asha'man

So glad you decided to leave the insults behind and raise this conversation to a higher level.

I should point out one of the rules of the II: you may insult an argument, but not the posters. Please learn to abide by the rules of this establishment, or leave.

brighid

Oh Magus, what a delight you are. I would say you are quite wrong in your classifications. The continued spread of AIDS that can and IS preventable through appropriate sexual education, including the use of condoms is in part, the responsibility of those Catholic and Protestant organizations that have fought to make sure that poor, African countries don't get what they need because they favor abstinence. Your ignorance about the spread of AIDS is what is at fault here, not mine. Christianity does nothing of the sort to prevent the spread of AIDS by forbidding premarital sex or promiscuity. People can still engage in healthy, protected sexual activity with a partner and not contract AIDS if only there were educated and had the means to prevent the spread of the disease. You simply aren't going to stop people from having sex and so instead of forcing a method proven to be an abject failure the morally upright thing to do is go with a method proven to save lifes and curtail the spread of disease.

A woman or a man could be a virgin in their marriage bed and contract AIDS from their partner who could have had ONE other sexual contact in their life. What about a married nurse who contracts AIDS through a medical mishap, or an EMT or other public service professional?

If Christian organizations prevent the distribution of condoms they are in fact partially responsible for the spread of AIDS, period.

Brighid

AquaVita

Indeed.

peripeteia, when you joined these fora, you agreed to abide by our rules. Please make yourself aware of them and follow them in the future.

Thank you.

Aqua-GRD Mod

alexander74

Greetings!

Another fun thread is going!! Well, factfinder asked about our morals, and where we atheists get them. I would have to agree with an earlier poster (I forget the name now, no slight intended :notworthy ). I get my morals from society. That is, the societal rules that work for us. Killing, raping, and all that other fun stuff doesn't work well within a society.

Long story short, neither the law nor any gods can tell me what laws to break or not. I choose my path. As for the Biblical god's morality, pfsshh. I don't bother, as I consider my moral code to be superior to his.

alex
"Imagine"

Mageth

A couple of you mentioned several atrocities evident within the history of Christianity as if those would disavow and attenuate the veracity and validity of it..

I see the purpose of such examples as illustrative of what extremes religion can lead to, not to "disavow and attenuate the veracity and validity of it". Many atrocities committed under the umbrella of religion, such as the alleged atrocities described as committed by the Israelites against their neighboring tribes in the OT and the 9/11 tragedy, are partially or directly attributed to following the will of a God, and/or justified by appeal to a God.

Please don’t embarrass yourselves with such pathetic selective processing assuming them pertinent to your objections..

How are expressing the obvious dangers of religion when taken to an extreme not pertinent to this thread?

Be so kind to look at the instances of exploitation, repression, genocidal murders, racial cleansing, and political suppression permeating the literature in postcolonialism..

OK, but the title, and subject, of the thread is "The Everlasting Gap - Atheists and Christians". Last time I checked, "postcolonialism" wasn't contingent upon Atheism, nor were any of the political genocides a result of Atheism, or attributable to Atheism. Atheism is not used in attempts to justify such atrocities. Atheism is simply lack of belief in god(s). In other words, your discussion of "postcolonialism" is not pertinent to this thread topic.

peripeteia

I apologize.. You are correct..I played with ad hominens[appeal to redicule] and tht was my mistake..Sorry..But in all fairness..I did what you allowed..Please be so kind to look at 'Godless Sodomite's' posts..He uses symbols to signfies his adamant displeasure..Symbols my boy which convey the same reference to redicule..Would you have been pleased with referentless signs a simulacra interpellated through 'empty' space or a 'trace' without signification? Regardless i will do as you say and apologize for being a little crud in my expressions..I will curb my expressionism..


Sorry again...Hehe imagine if you didnt stop me how far this goofy interchange could have gone..Believe me the ironic thing about people who make their own ethics is that their iconoclastic nature presents a deterritorialized aura which becomes quite contageous..

peripeteia

Stop being so sensitive..Look at my arguments and forget all the other trash that my late night meander forgot to sublimate..I truly am sorry if your sensitive individuation towards maturation stumbled upon..I will try to practice what i preach and accept the obvious antiquated moralisms here..Your moderator was splendid in pointing them and to him i will listen..So stop whining and get back to the floor..

Enough said...

peripeteia

YOU SAID: I see the purpose of such examples as illustrative of what extremes religion can lead to, not to "disavow and attenuate the veracity and validity of it". Many atrocities committed under the umbrella of religion, such as the alleged atrocities described as committed by the Israelites against their neighboring tribes in the OT and the 9/11 tragedy, are partially or directly attributed to following the will of a God, and/or justified by appeal to a God.

I agree with a part of your statement..When a religion takes on the power of the state and believes itself capable of emulating and objectifying its God in the jurisprudence and punishment of ‘heretics’ , what such incommensurable appeals harbors is an anticipation towards barbarity and diabolism..And yes I agree this is irrelevant of what theology foregrounds it..But you are mistaken in assuming that you can judge Islam or Christianity or any other religion according to the adherers and expounders of it..Never assume that the ‘routinization of charisma’ subverts a ‘systems’ ethical obligations regardless of its justificatory potential..You mean to tell me that you take abject consequentialism over imaginative perspectivism? Please don’t assume that society’s reifications deontologize its spectacle character..The vested nature of rationalities—epistemes if you like this better—sublates by reducing theological ideas to social conditions[or political, economic geo/historic etc etc theres no invariance in such ontics] claiming a comprehensive possibility,,which for better or for worse,, dissimulates the integrity and numinous quality of the actual system..Trust me I did my first graduate degree in religion with advanced standing in sociology..


YOU SAID: OK, but the title, and subject, of the thread is "The Everlasting Gap - Atheists and Christians". Last time I checked, "postcolonialism" wasn't contingent upon Atheism, nor were any of the political genocides a result of Atheism, or attributable to Atheism. Atheism is not used in attempts to justify such atrocities. Atheism is simply lack of belief in god(s). In other words, your discussion of "postcolonialism" is not pertinent to this thread topic..


Listen kiddo..Don’t presume to talk about a subject your not familiar with..Atheism my boy is not just a ‘lack of belief of god[s]’..Where the hell did you get this from..And if you quote me Smith or Le Poidevin don’t bother[Martin is more scholarly and reputable]..But needless to say..Tell me my boy were Hitler, Stalin, Pot Pot believers of any orthodoxic religion…In fact didn’t they establish their own ‘cults’ according to the whims of their wills..But you are missing the point.All the examples I provided were noted for their disavowal of any and all religious affiliations..So does one become a certified atheist by joining a ‘philosophers club’ or is one an atheist by rejecting the ‘god[s]’ out there..And please don’t give me some sui generis argument from some dim witted persona expounding the instrumentals of the precise and salutatory ‘positives’ of topographical ---and in no way—nomothetic atheism[don’t believe me just read Sidney Hook]..

What do you mean that my post is amiss on this thread..All I was attempting was to clarify certain issues stated here..Man I was not talking about postcolonialism hell how could I, Iv been studying it for years now and no two lines will give it credit..Or do you attend this thread to be insulated from various horizons of discourse? Never deny the context of your knowledge nor the diachronic texture of it..I agree postcolonialism is not the issue but neither will you meaningfully discuss the issues without utilizing outside information..Hell you already attempted this when you latently used historiography for your ‘negative dialectics’..


Enjoy...

Mageth

Trust me I did my first graduate degree in religion with advanced standing in sociology..

Is that where you learned to fill your discourses with such obfuscations? Honestly, I can't make heads or tails of much of what you said. Can anyone tell me what the following is supposed to mean:

The vested nature of rationalities—epistemes if you like this better—sublates by reducing theological ideas to social conditions[or political, economic geo/historic etc etc theres no invariance in such ontics] claiming a comprehensive possibility,,which for better or for worse,, dissimulates the integrity and numinous quality of the actual system..

Anyway:

But you are mistaken in assuming that you can judge Islam or Christianity or any other religion according to the adherers and expounders of it

So by what other metric am I supposed to judge them? Doesn't the bible say something like "They will know you are Christians by your love"? And in another place, by your works? Is what is important about a religion what is written about it or how it is practiced?

Listen kiddo..Don’t presume to talk about a subject your not familiar with..Atheism my boy is not just a ‘lack of belief of god[s]’..Where the hell did you get this from..

I'm an atheist, and therefore am familiar with the subject. (And, BTW, I'm not a "kiddo").

Atheism is commonly defined as a lack of belief in god(s). That's the definition I prefer to describe my atheism. Anything else I believe is not contingent on my atheism.

And one "becomes" an atheist merely by lacking belief in god(s). Nothing else is required.

What do you mean that my post is amiss on this thread..All I was attempting was to clarify certain issues stated here..

Bringing up the crimes of "postcolonialism", if that's what you were doing, has nothing to do with the OP.

Or do you attend this thread to be insulated from various horizons of discourse?

Off-topic discourse, yes.

Hell you already attempted this when you latently used historiography for your ‘negative dialectics’..

And where, exactly, did I do that on this thread?

Asha'man

Stop? I believe I had one posting on the subject, and it was before AquaVita chimed in.
It was obviously quite appropriate to remind you of the rules of this establishment, and nobody else had done so.
I did look at your arguments. They clearly demonstrate a high level of obfuscation, but little actual argument. Your posting didn’t demonstrate an understanding of anything about your audience, the context of the conversation, or even basic civilized behavior. Perhaps your attitude was overly distracting?
I’m sorry, could you please repeat that using a complete sentence?
Antiquated moralisms? Are you trying to suggest that treating people with civility and respect is outdated? What is this world coming to?
Whining? Hmmm….


So, you presume to come into a forum of thousands of atheists and tell us what we believe? It’s not like we haven’t have this discussion every week for years on end. Oh wait, we have! (Talk about presumptuous…)