Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The Other Michael · 06-29-2002, 06:33 PM

I have a problem with it, as it is clear (to me at least) that there is a pool of values shared by a large group (theists) that I really can't subscribe to - things like: all non-adherents are doomed/worthless/etc, our way or the highway, etc etc etc.

cheers,
Michael

hal9000 · 06-30-2002, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Other Michael:
I have a problem with it, as it is clear (to me at least) that there is a pool of values shared by a large group (theists) that I really can't subscribe to - things like: all non-adherents are doomed/worthless/etc, our way or the highway, etc etc etc.

cheers,
Michael

I took it to mean that we share a pool of values that have been codified into laws. It may be true that many of our laws came from religious laws in the beginning, but the moral and legal codes of today are mostly secular in nature now. As such I can support most all of them. The exception being our drug laws that punish people for choices they make that effect themselves only.

FarSeeker · 07-04-2002, 01:04 AM

Wizardry: I am not responsible for the thoughts and behavior of all atheists just as you are not responsible for that of all Christians.

David Payne, posted June 03, 2002 09:03 PM

Quote:

I’m not dodging anything, and here’s your reasoned reply. You didn’t make your case, pure and simple. In fact as you can see, one of your theist compatriots said that the free will argument isn’t in the bible.

So much for consistency.

Wizardry, posted April 10, 2002 08:02 PM

Quote:

It’s not really an issue of “my morality” versus “your morality”. There is a pool of values that we share with other members of our society. That is the standard of morality to which we adhere under penalty from society.

David Payne

Quote:

A nice concise point, and I agree with it.

Pompous Bastard

Quote:

Works for me too.

hal9000

Quote:

I took it to mean that we share a pool of values that have been codified into laws. It may be true that many of our laws came from religious laws in the beginning, but the moral and legal codes of today are mostly secular in nature now. As such I can support most all of them. The exception being our drug laws that punish people for choices they make that effect themselves only.

Three for, and one equivocating. Hal, look around you, the fallout from drugs

But what this means is that you accept the arguments put forth by those defending themselves at the Nuerenburg Trials after WW2 that what they did to the Jews and others wasn’t wrong because it was legal under the Nazis’ laws and morals (similar arguments could be made by those in the Soviet Union and PRC, and on the slavery issue). This argument could also apply to God if you wish to stretch it that far. This, I guess, also is how you think when you remember that you have permitted the murder of more than 38 million babies by abortion since 1973 in the U.S. alone. I guess that the argument that, “the fact that we are the only intelligent animals, or that we are humans ourselves count[ing] for anything?” [Wizardry, April 10, 2002 08:02 PM] doesn’t really apply to all humans, just those you choose. As long as the murder of the unborn is permissible, Atheists “can't get any traction on this thread.”

Look at owl:
Owl, posted April 03, 2002 08:51 PM

Quote:

Mass Murderer?

A huge asteroid strike is badly needed. I think we could survive and that our knowledge and technology could survive.

In this way, we would sping into the future...Progress would be phenomenal. Christanity would survive of course. Can't be helped, but then they would be in a much more hostile environment.

Owl wants an asteroid to strike Earth, kill millions if not billions just so Atheists can come out on top -- or so owl places his/her faith. I wonder if your pot and kettle are having a huge fit of laughter at that.

Pandora:

Quote:

We are not “special”, we are animals like any other on this planet – the difference being that we are advanced enough to be capable of manipulating our environment rather than being manipulated by it.
What level of vanity and over inflated ego do you have to believe that you are so special? Or to believe that you are more than material? Or to believe that you will live forever? Or to believe that a deity if he existed would even consider your existence?

Thus killing an unborn baby is no more wrong that killing a goldfish. However, a baby seal in Canada is more important than an unborn Human by popular Secular Humanist thinking. Remember everybody, “it’s not a human being, it’s just a blob of flesh.”

Let's say that Atheists someday in the future reach a consensus that all theists must be converted to Atheists or be executed. Would you accept that as moral, or would you revolt against it. would you do it violently if necessary? If you claim that you would revolt, why?

[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: FarSeeker ]

FarSeeker · 07-04-2002, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Payne:
As this thread has gotten somewhat off track, I thought I would post these two essay links, the first by Bill Schultz, and the second by Don Morgan. I read them both when they were first published and found them to be excellent critiques of the bible and the God is good myth. <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/criminal-god.html" target="_blank">Is God A criminal?</a> and; <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html" target="_blank">Bible Atrocities</a>

David

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: David Payne ]

May I assume that this is a response to this:

Alright now, let us take a look at the "Flood Killed Innocents" accusation.
Before The Noachian Flood (TNF), everything was different. People lived a hundreds of years. The environment was likely just as different as well with more water in to atmosphere, the Earth likely had a more even temperature (thermal capacity and transport would even out temperatures). Over-all a more benign environment; thus it is possible that there wasn’t the desperate need to raise as many children to help grow food (farming, herding, etc.). It is possible that decades or at least years could pass without a child being born, or existing under a theoretical age of responsibility. God could easily chosen such a period to cause the TNF, so no “innocent” child needs to have died in TNF. Read Genesis 6:11, 18; 7:7, 13; 8:15-16, 18; 9:7. Noah had only married sons and their wives, no grandchildren, or children under age.

So… with this possibility, not only is the scientific and historic BURDEN OF PROOF fall on DP (don’t you just hate it when the BOP bites you back there?) but so does the LEGAL BOP. Not that I think God could get a fair trial here.

Pomp · 07-04-2002, 06:50 PM

FarSeeker,

But what this means is that you accept the arguments put forth by those defending themselves at the Nuerenburg Trials after WW2 that what they did to the Jews and others wasn�t wrong because it was legal under the Nazis� laws and morals (similar arguments could be made by those in the Soviet Union and PRC, and on the slavery issue).

That depends on what you mean when you say I "accept" those arguments. I certainly accept that, from the Nazis' point of view, they did nothing wrong. However, this does not preclude me from disapproving of their actions (considering them "wrong," if you will). I don't need to be able to declare a particular action universally immoral in order to disapprove of it. The Nazi argument fails because, while it provides a reason for the Nazis not to consider their actions wrong, it provides no reason for me not to find their actions wrong.

07-04-2002, 08:02 PM

Quote:

The environment was likely just as different as well with more water in to atmosphere, the Earth likely had a more even temperature (thermal capacity and transport would even out temperatures).

Sweet, nothing like pseudoscience to elabroate myths.

Thor Q. Mada · 07-04-2002, 08:09 PM

FarSeeker,

It is technically impossible for people to live hundreds of years. Not before the flood, and not after the flood.
Maximum component life is abt 120 years. That is why over the ages, while average lifespan has gone-up,(thanks to science), maximum age as virtually not changed.
Only genetic engineering would offer a chance to change that.
And by the way, I suggest you to read a few of Dawkins books.

David M. Payne · 07-05-2002, 09:40 PM

David Payne, posted June 03, 2002 09:03 PM I�m not dodging anything, (FarSeaker) and here�s your reasoned reply. You didn�t make your case, pure and simple. (In this case your contention that the free will argument is in the bible.) In fact as you can see, one of your theist compatriots said that the free will argument isn�t in the bible.

From FS,So much for consistency.

So much for any semblance of cognitive argument. Did you have a point here FS? This kind nebulous remark is why I posted this below.

Quote:

Originally posted by David Payne:
As this thread has gotten somewhat off track, I thought I would post these two essay links, the first by Bill Schultz, and the second by Don Morgan. I read them both when they were first published and found them to be excellent critiques of the bible and the God is good myth. <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/criminal-god.html" target="_blank">Is God A criminal?</a> and; <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html" target="_blank">Bible Atrocities</a>

David

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: David Payne ]

Quote:

Originally posted by FarSeeker:
May I assume that this is a response to this: Alright now, let us take a look at the "Flood Killed Innocents" accusation�yada yada yada. From FS�s post above.

No, I posted it because this thread has gotten off track, nothing more, nothing less. The point of this thread has been made a long time ago, FS and here it is in a nutshell, from the original post and a follow up post of mine:

Quote:

�Religious scholars often point to the �free will� argument, to explain away this murderous and barbaric behavior by religious zealots. So lets look at one disturbing example of God�s, not man�s, behavior, the great flood and Noah�s ark. (Geneses 6-9) God drowns everyone but Noah and his family for their �corruption�. OK, what sin and corruption did the babies and little children of these people, or for that matter the animals on this planet, commit? None. I guess they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, right? Is mass murder the only answer an omnipotent God had for this sinful behavior? In our time this would be called genocide, the first recorded instance I believe. But for the true believer it is the work of a �just� and �merciful� God? Not in my book�
�First off let me say that I don�t think God is the biggest mass murder of all time, because as a myth, he/she/it is incapable of killing anyone. This of course is a defense that will be unavailable to SB, or FS for that matter, and any other theists for obvious reasons. As a role model though, the myth of God has set a very bad example of what to do when people aren�t behaving as the omnipotent one wants them to. After all, as one who has unlimited power to do anything he wishes to, he saw the �Corruption� of the people and thought, �what should I do?
Should I:
(A) Snap my fingers and make them behave correctly?
(B) Appear in front of them all at the same time and explain that their behavior is wrong and convince them to change their ways?
(C) Find some other imaginative method of convincing them of the error of their ways?
(D) Kill them all, by drowning them like one would drown a litter of kittens one has no use for, except for one family of course, for pissing me off?
I�ll take (D)
Hell of an example he set in your holy book SB, FS. Of course later you appear to pick and chose which examples are true, and which are not in your argument here. How convenient for you�I like the way you gloss over the idea that if the great flood was true, the fact remains that the innocent babies and children, who were with out sin, were murdered anyway by your Just and merciful �God�. Quite an example he set, and it�s an example some of his followers in religion follow to this day�

You have no logical argument to counter this point FS, do you? God and religion are based on faith and superstitious beliefs, nothing more, nothing less. If you wish to swallow this stuff hook line and sinker, so be it. But I look at all the killing done in the name of God over the millenniums and shudder, for as long as we have this God/religion thing so prominent in our collective lives, we�ll have the Osama bin Ladens, the Jim Jones�s, the David Koresh�s and all the other religious nuts willing to kill us all in order to save us. And the time is fast approaching when they�ll have the weapons to do it too.

[ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: David Payne ]

[ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: David Payne ]

hal9000 · 07-06-2002, 07:10 AM

By Far; Three for, and one equivocating. Hal, look around you, the fallout from drugs

Far, most of the fallout is from the legal effects, jail and the like that drug users face for doing drugs. If you get rid of the legal penalties of drug use and get rid of the need for drug users to have to get their drugs from criminal gangs, most of the drug problems go away. Just like prohibition didn�t work, our drug laws don�t work and in fact help create more crime and criminals. Besides people use all kinds of legal drugs that cause problems, it's the self-righteous moralizing and drug laws written and passed by the religious right that cause these problems more than the drug use itself.

hal9000 · 07-08-2002, 04:17 PM

The copy of this over on the Clemson skeptics web site (link below) is in the inactive library now, and it just keeps getting more and more hits. 2,586 so far and it's summer. I wonder if our new web site will have a counter like that when its up and running? That way we can see just how much traffic each post gets. That would be Kool!

<a href="http://www.steelangel.com/skeptic/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17" target="_blank">Is god the biggest mass murderer of all time?</a>

[ July 08, 2002: Message edited by: hal9000 ]

07-08-2002, 04:17 PM	#150
hal9000 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: just over your shoulder Posts: 146	The copy of this over on the Clemson skeptics web site (link below) is in the inactive library now, and it just keeps getting more and more hits. 2,586 so far and it's summer. I wonder if our new web site will have a counter like that when its up and running? That way we can see just how much traffic each post gets. That would be Kool! <a href="http://www.steelangel.com/skeptic/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17" target="_blank">Is god the biggest mass murderer of all time?</a> [ July 08, 2002: Message edited by: hal9000 ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-29-2002, 06:33 PM	#141
The Other Michael Honorary Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In the fog of San Francisco Posts: 12,631	I have a problem with it, as it is clear (to me at least) that there is a pool of values shared by a large group (theists) that I really can't subscribe to - things like: all non-adherents are doomed/worthless/etc, our way or the highway, etc etc etc. cheers, Michael

07-04-2002, 06:50 PM	#145
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	FarSeeker, But what this means is that you accept the arguments put forth by those defending themselves at the Nuerenburg Trials after WW2 that what they did to the Jews and others wasn�t wrong because it was legal under the Nazis� laws and morals (similar arguments could be made by those in the Soviet Union and PRC, and on the slavery issue). That depends on what you mean when you say I "accept" those arguments. I certainly accept that, from the Nazis' point of view, they did nothing wrong. However, this does not preclude me from disapproving of their actions (considering them "wrong," if you will). I don't need to be able to declare a particular action universally immoral in order to disapprove of it. The Nazi argument fails because, while it provides a reason for the Nazis not to consider their actions wrong, it provides no reason for me not to find their actions wrong.

07-04-2002, 08:09 PM	#147
Thor Q. Mada Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Asia Posts: 3,558	FarSeeker, It is technically impossible for people to live hundreds of years. Not before the flood, and not after the flood. Maximum component life is abt 120 years. That is why over the ages, while average lifespan has gone-up,(thanks to science), maximum age as virtually not changed. Only genetic engineering would offer a chance to change that. And by the way, I suggest you to read a few of Dawkins books.

07-06-2002, 07:10 AM	#149
hal9000 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: just over your shoulder Posts: 146	By Far; Three for, and one equivocating. Hal, look around you, the fallout from drugs Far, most of the fallout is from the legal effects, jail and the like that drug users face for doing drugs. If you get rid of the legal penalties of drug use and get rid of the need for drug users to have to get their drugs from criminal gangs, most of the drug problems go away. Just like prohibition didn�t work, our drug laws don�t work and in fact help create more crime and criminals. Besides people use all kinds of legal drugs that cause problems, it's the self-righteous moralizing and drug laws written and passed by the religious right that cause these problems more than the drug use itself.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.