tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post6117128620612541010..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Ray's idea of justice...Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-88440529223884605712009-05-01T10:20:00.000-05:002009-05-01T10:20:00.000-05:00put to death by the state (a position that Dahmer ...<I>put to death by the state (a position that Dahmer is reported to have shared),<br /></I><I>Interestingly, Dahmer is reported to have repented and accepted Christ as his savior.<br /></I>Just FYI, these are both correct. Dahmer is on record as stating both, more than once. Not only in letters and personal statements, but also in videotaped interviews.<br /><br />Jeffrey Dahmer wanted to be executed because he did know, throughout the period during which his crimes were committed, that he was doing things that were wrong. His compulsion towards these acts was, however, so strong that he couldn't resist it. Many lives would have been a great deal better if he had gotten help to deal with his obsessions. But, alas, despite both church attendance and a good deal of prayer, such help was not forthcoming.Leisha Camdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04768409807832229050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-77809321557975858672008-12-20T13:57:00.000-06:002008-12-20T13:57:00.000-06:00RhologyI know. You don't believe in cars, morality...Rhology<BR/>I know. You don't believe in cars, morality, people, or anything, except a god from whom morality flows, which you do not believe in.<BR/><BR/>You have failed to provide any logical reason why I should accept your claims about morality, and you have made an incredibly feable attempt to argue that without morality, we have to leave you be to do whatever you want. Horse shit! Without morality, you can have your hate, and you can commit crimes based on it, and we can lock you in a cage. You can't say the concept doesn't apply to you, but it does to everyone else. <BR/><BR/>The difference between your definition of morality and mine is that mine benefits real people. If you want to argue that real people don't exist, well, that's your delusion and you can't even make a logical argument for it. ("people don't exist because they have organs. That begs the question, was chewbacca really a wookie").<BR/><BR/>So, unless you can come up with one logical reason why homosexuality is wrong, or why it is ok to torture someone forever, simply because that person doesn't believe a fairy tale, or for any of the other crazy things stated in the Bible, then I'm out...Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299046445235601258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-17752501542826058522008-12-19T13:17:00.000-06:002008-12-19T13:17:00.000-06:00Thomas,So you make OUGHT value judgments on the ba...Thomas,<BR/><BR/>So you make OUGHT value judgments on the basis of what IS. <BR/>Sorry, that doesn't work, and one of your boys, David Hume, was the one who formulated the major expression of that problem.<BR/>So YOU might think one thing, but I might think another. Who's right and how can we know? on naturalism, we can't. Everything is matter in motion. So you're NOT living consistently with your stated naturalistic worldview. I haven't met a consistent naturalist yet, actually.<BR/><BR/><I>that is like arguing that a car doesn't exist because it is composed of parts. </I><BR/><BR/>This just begs the question that the car exists at all, or that the parts do indeed compose a person. Give me some evidence that "personhood" exists on naturalism. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>As for the "just have fun and do whatever", well, unfortunately, people have that choice. But, morality is a social contract.</I><BR/><BR/>Maybe to YOU it is. But to me, it's not. Who's right and how can you know?<BR/>Problem - morality allegedly informs what we desire as well as what we do. So where and how does your position inform that?<BR/>Maybe you'd make another IF-THEN statement along those lines. Fine. Where does your position inform that?<BR/>It's an infinite regress.<BR/>Where does it end? With faith in your self-derived, question-begging, fundamental moral presuppositions. It's not based on "evidence" or "rational process" at all. Down the toilet go your lofty proclamations of a purely reason-based morality.<BR/>How do you know what the contract is? Who signed it? If no one signed it, how do you know who agreed to it? How does one agree to it? What % of the population is required before it's a contract? <BR/>On naturalism, one would reasonably expect the social contract to be material. Where is it located? Is it written down? Who wrote it? Where can it be examined? Of what is it composed? What grade of paper and what tone of ink were used?<BR/>Or is it conceptual? How is a concept "material"?<BR/>Anytime you're ready to answer these, come back. Otherwise, you are done.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>That is why we have law enforcement.</I><BR/><BR/>Which answers not at all the question of how you know what's right.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>is dangerous to society</I><BR/><BR/>And your argument that being dangerous to society is morally objectionable? <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>: is god really on their side? </I><BR/><BR/>On Muslims' side? No. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>And I have yet to hear you give one reason why your belief is better, more valid, or more likely to be true, than Bin Ladin, or any other fundy psycho on earth.</I><BR/><BR/>You might start to see it once you start digging into my questions above.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-24437693312394147792008-12-19T12:17:00.000-06:002008-12-19T12:17:00.000-06:00Of course I make value judgements about morality, ...Of course I make value judgements about morality, but they are based on the world in which we live, not on the mythology of an ancient culture. If you choose to follow a different system and call it morality, well, that's semantics. Your beliefs regrading homosexuality, hell, and freedom do not conform to any useful definition of morality.<BR/><BR/>As for your second argument, that is like arguing that a car doesn't exist because it is composed of parts. Nice try, but you'll have to think a little harder.<BR/><BR/>As for the "just have fun and do whatever", well, unfortunately, people have that choice. But, morality is a social contract. If you do not uphold your end of the deal, then we are not obligated to uphold ours. That is why we have law enforcement.<BR/><BR/>As for you being wrong about heaven or hell, well, if it were a purely personal descision that affected no one else, then that is your right. Since you've committed no crimes, then it is still your legal right. <BR/><BR/>But I contend that your view that morality doesn't really exist; there is just following orders that come from a dubious source; is dangerous to society. One of the less dramatic examples if the prejudice and discrimination against homosexuals. Another is the re-election of George W. Bush, simply because he claimed to hate the right people, and the popularity of Sarah Palin, for the same reason. Picking incompetent leaders simply because they go to the "right church" can cause harm in ways that no single law ever could.<BR/><BR/>And then there is all the crap going on in the Muslim world. Your view of morality, if applied consistently, would only have one thing to say about that: is god really on their side? And I have yet to hear you give one reason why your belief is better, more valid, or more likely to be true, than Bin Ladin, or any other fundy psycho on earth.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299046445235601258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-9556508493594701212008-12-18T13:30:00.000-06:002008-12-18T13:30:00.000-06:00Thomas,If your view of the world is consistent, th...Thomas,<BR/><BR/>If your view of the world is consistent, then I suppose you make no value judgments with respect to morality AND think that they SHOULD be applicable to anyone else, right?<BR/>Also, you would accept what I said above about the invisible man inside your head. You are not a person, since personhood does not exist in matter. You're a bag of chemicals, molecules in motion, and neurons fire to move you around and to make you happy and make you sad and make you love. You have no free will. <BR/>Indeed, you're going to die and the matter of your body will simply decompose and become like other matter. And that's going to happen with all the people you know and love, all puppy dogs, all flowers, all beluga whales. So I assume you hold all that in your mind and act and think and speak consistently with that. Right?<BR/>If I'm wrong about God and Heaven and all that, so what? I just lived a life that made me happy, but of course happiness is a myth and just a product of neurons firing, much like genocidal mania. So what?<BR/><BR/>So...no, I doubt your view of the world is consistent. But you could always prove me wrong.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-62423387401664491302008-12-18T12:29:00.000-06:002008-12-18T12:29:00.000-06:00@ Rhology. My view of the world is consistent. The...@ Rhology. <BR/>My view of the world is consistent. There is no aspect of reality that you are willing to judge from an objective standpoint. So, you choose to believe that the world is a myth, and that a myth that came from within the world is true.<BR/><BR/>I can't say with absolute certainty that the world we experience is real, or simulation, or that it matters. But it is the world we experience. Why toss it, your freedom, and humanity aside in favor of a small chance that you may have lucked out and found the magic path to a heaven that is unlikely to exist?Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299046445235601258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-71485953578007012042008-12-17T13:44:00.000-06:002008-12-17T13:44:00.000-06:00Sparrowhawk,So I want to know what psg you had in ...Sparrowhawk,<BR/><BR/>So I want to know what psg you had in mind (thus showing interest in the question) and that's somehow not engaging? <BR/>Enjoy your dreamland.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-74216137938880201832008-12-17T12:54:00.000-06:002008-12-17T12:54:00.000-06:00@cipher: Good idea. This guy isn't actually engag...@cipher: Good idea. This guy isn't actually engaging anything we're throwing at him so what's the point.Sparrowhawkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16520765821903563677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-59820524733801472262008-12-17T12:38:00.000-06:002008-12-17T12:38:00.000-06:00That's it; I'm unsubscribing from this thread. I c...That's it; I'm unsubscribing from this thread. I can't bear to read any more of Rhology's tortured logic. I come to blogs like this to get away from people like him.Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-69275187731391188502008-12-17T12:36:00.000-06:002008-12-17T12:36:00.000-06:00If naturalism is true, then it would seem that NOB...If naturalism is true, then it would seem that NOBODY's opinions are more weighty than anyone else's.<BR/>I am really glad that you have faith in your existence. Your neurons are firing away, but whether they're reliably secreting thoughts that correspond to reality does not follow, on naturalism.<BR/><BR/><I>If your argument were applied consistently, then you would have to understand that any knowledge that you claim to have about a god is also invalid, because it comes from the same universe that you just asserted is unreal.</I><BR/><BR/>So you're saying that if naturalism is true, then naturalism is true? Wow, that's deep.<BR/>Of course. The point is that YOU don't apply naturalism consistently. I'm trying to help you.<BR/>I as a Christian don't have that presupposition at all, so no, it wouldn't be the case for me.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-63860057770958360772008-12-17T12:22:00.000-06:002008-12-17T12:22:00.000-06:00"Of course, a naturalist follows the whims of the ...<I>"Of course, a naturalist follows the whims of the neurons firing in his head, the non-voluntary machinations of his biological mechanism."</I><BR/><BR/>So, I suppose we are in agreement that your opinions, which you attribute to a god, are no more valid than my opinions. <BR/><BR/><I>" But he THINKS he's a real person. That is also known as "following the whims of an imaginary man inside your head"."</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, that's known as universal skepticism. The notion that, you are willing to deny the validity of anything, even reality itself, if the evidence contradicts your assertion. <BR/><BR/>I am as sure of my existence as one can be of anything. If your argument were applied consistently, then you would have to understand that any knowledge that you claim to have about a god is also invalid, because it comes from the same universe that you just asserted is unreal.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299046445235601258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-5486464540936632082008-12-17T11:01:00.000-06:002008-12-17T11:01:00.000-06:00The Bible is pretty long. Did you have a particula...The Bible is pretty long. Did you have a particular psg in mind?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-31825701720191610482008-12-17T10:57:00.000-06:002008-12-17T10:57:00.000-06:00Okay, Rhology. Why don't you go ahead and explain...Okay, Rhology. Why don't you go ahead and explain to us in terms that mean something to us (not resorting to the Bible or simple personal experience or strong emotions), why your interpretation of the Bible is the objectively "correct" one. It shouldn't be hard.Sparrowhawkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16520765821903563677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-50727489096035482852008-12-17T10:50:00.000-06:002008-12-17T10:50:00.000-06:00Of course, a naturalist follows the whims of the n...Of course, a naturalist follows the whims of the neurons firing in his head, the non-voluntary machinations of his biological mechanism. But he THINKS he's a real person. That is also known as "following the whims of an imaginary man inside your head".Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-71723195990947086732008-12-17T10:23:00.000-06:002008-12-17T10:23:00.000-06:00See Robert, Rhology is not subjective. He just ...See Robert, <BR/> Rhology is not subjective. He just follows the arbitrary whim of an imaginary man who lives in his head.<BR/><BR/>Completely objective...Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299046445235601258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-85139045562777281932008-12-17T07:24:00.000-06:002008-12-17T07:24:00.000-06:00Robert Morane,I explained what I mean by objective...Robert Morane,<BR/><BR/>I explained what I mean by objective morality <A HREF="http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2007/11/contrasting-atheistic-preferences-and.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>. God is the basis, the standard, and He doesn't change, so the morality that flows out of His nature is objective. <BR/> <BR/><I>You believe that killing is wrong, but why? Because God said so? Well, which god are you talking about (choice 1)? What religion (choice 2)? What book (choice 3)? What version (choice 4)? What interpretation of its content (choice 5)?</I><BR/><BR/>*Murder* is wrong b/c it is contrary to God's nature. I know that b/c He said so in the Bible.<BR/>1) The God of the Bible.<BR/>2) Christianity.<BR/>3) The Bible.<BR/>4) Um, there's only one version. Are you asking me about the Apocrypha or something? The content of the Apocrypha doesn't affect the commandment not to murder one way or the other.<BR/>5) What other interpretation besides "do not murder" would <B>you</B> propose? This is a smokescreen question - offer an alternative interp and we'll scrutinise it.<BR/><BR/>5th cmdmt says do not murder. Not that hard. Did Moses come down from the mountain and say, "Wait, no killing? At all?" Are you seriously suggesting Moses was a pacifist?<BR/><BR/><I>then does killing include animals? Plants? Insects?</I><BR/><BR/>Your comment is just a bunch of argument from ignorance. B/c you don't know the answers, therefore it can't be that Christianity carries an objective morality. That conclusion does not follow from your ignorance.<BR/>It's "don't murder". Animals and plants are available for killing for various reasons such as food and raiment. It's in the Bible. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>what is murder?</I><BR/><BR/>You could have just asked rather than make all these shrill and ignorant statements, you know.<BR/>Murder is the unlawful taking of human life. Unlawful = against the law of God.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>in which case if the law was changed and allowed people to kill gays, then killing gays would not be immoral</I><BR/><BR/>Or what if the law were changed to allow the unrestricted killing of atheists? Or Christians? <BR/>This concerns GOD'S law, not human law. We are to follow God's law all the time and human law when it does not conflict with the former. But if we went with your suggestion, it would indeed not be objective. So you have burned a strawman.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>And don't bother quoting from the Bible: you'd be merely choosing how to interpret those passages.</I><BR/><BR/>I interpret your statement to mean that you have just repented of your sin, trusted Christ as Savior, and want to know the best church to go to. Wow, that's great! I'll be happy to tell you - let's talk privately over email.<BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/>This is a really stupid objection, Robert. Everyone interprets everything. It all comes down to who interps correctly. If you disagree with the way I cite the Bible, prove it's wrong.<BR/>Your 'argument' has no fangs and was actually extremely primitive, something I might expect from a 16-yr old new convert to atheism who read the God Delusion and is all fired up. But hopefully this will serve as a corrective for you to refine your argumentation.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-81635252232108935222008-12-16T23:10:00.000-06:002008-12-16T23:10:00.000-06:00Still I agree the whole subject amounts to little ...<EM>Still I agree the whole subject amounts to little more than a rhetorical pissing contest</EM><BR/><BR/>Or as one of the characters played by Michael Palin in Monty Python's The Holy Grail declared, "Let's not bicker and argue over <EM>who</EM> killed who!"<BR/><BR/><EM>Read about the mass slaughters of European Jews by Christians during the Black Death of the 14th century if you want to be left numb with sheer horror.</EM><BR/><BR/>I just recently finished reading a good book called "The Barbarian Conversions" about the spread of Christianity in Europe during the late Roman Empire up to the end of the Middle Ages.<BR/><BR/>An interesting thing that the author points out is that even into the first centuries of the Middle Ages, Judaism was a proselytizing faith that competed with Christianity for converts. However, it is not until about the latter half of the 11th century that you really see vicious anti-semitism rear its head with the pogroms against the Jews by the armies of the First Crusade as they made their way down to Constantinople.<BR/><BR/>IIRC, the author cites as a factor an increase in religious fervor. In the several centuries after the end of the Western Empire, kings of this or that tribe would accept Christianity, but it took a number of generations for it to really take root with their subjects. While outwardly Christian, they also held on to some of their pagan beliefs. However, after say the year 1000, Christianity had firmly taken root in much of Western and Central Europe (apart from Moorish Spain, of course) and there were the Jews living in their midst still steadfastly refusing to accept the faith. Unlike rustic paganism, which was disorganized and parochial, Judaism represented a real threat because its adherents worshipped the same god.Tommykeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14751182125861177379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-65925418964776776002008-12-16T20:08:00.000-06:002008-12-16T20:08:00.000-06:00To Rhology:Christians don't have an objective mora...To Rhology:<BR/><BR/>Christians don't have an objective morality. Even your morality is subjective, Rhology; it is based on a sequence of choices you make. Eventually, it is your choices that tell you what is moral or immoral:<BR/><BR/>You believe that killing is wrong, but why? Because God said so? Well, which god are you talking about (choice 1)? What religion (choice 2)? What book (choice 3)? What version (choice 4)? What interpretation of its content (choice 5)? Etc.<BR/><BR/>Here's an example: What does the 5th commandment say? Thou shalt not kill or Thou shalt not murder? Another choice! If you say that according to this or that scholar, it's the latter, then that's another choice (you've chosen what scholar(s) to trust).<BR/><BR/>If the commandment is thou shalt not kill, then does killing include animals? Plants? Insects? Christians certainly do not seem to hesitate to kill flies! Choices, choices, choices!!<BR/><BR/>If the commandment is Thou shalt not murder, then what is murder? The unnecessary killing of a human being (in which case death penalty would be immoral)? Or the unlawful killing of a human being (in which case if the law was changed and allowed people to kill gays, then killing gays would not be immoral)? Again, choices!<BR/><BR/>And don't bother quoting from the Bible: you'd be merely choosing how to interpret those passages.<BR/><BR/>So you see, Rhology, there's no such thing as an objective morality for a Christian. It's choices all the way down.Robert Moranehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00706576618914923528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-7331670798417759942008-12-14T21:10:00.000-06:002008-12-14T21:10:00.000-06:00I've always found it to be Christians like Dinesh ...I've always found it to be Christians like Dinesh D'Souza and Vox Day, not atheists, who bring up the body count rhetoric, but that's just my own experience. Still I agree the whole subject amounts to little more than a rhetorical pissing contest that obscures the salient issue: is Christianity true or false? Certainly it can be shown throughout history that religion, far from giving its adherents a distaste for crimes like murder, has done nothing to prevent them becoming enthusiastic participants in it. Read about the mass slaughters of European Jews by Christians during the Black Death of the 14th century if you want to be left numb with sheer horror. But simply being religious, just like simply being non-religious, is not in and of itself a factor in ensuring a person is more or less moral than they'd otherwise be.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-63772799289085417662008-12-12T08:40:00.000-06:002008-12-12T08:40:00.000-06:00@v_quixoticYou could check out that dude being nai...@v_quixotic<BR/><I>You could check out that dude being nailed to a tree!</I><BR/><BR/>Spartacus?maddogdeltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17657824720032887242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-43008988808913075932008-12-11T21:42:00.000-06:002008-12-11T21:42:00.000-06:00Tommy contemplated:...going back in time to the ag...Tommy contemplated:<BR/><BR/><I>...going back in time to the age of the dinosaurs or watching over some of the great battles of history and such.</I><BR/><BR/>You could check out that dude being nailed to a tree!v_quixotichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18068607586238616369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-55309902213188677922008-12-11T21:39:00.000-06:002008-12-11T21:39:00.000-06:00Is Hugh Jackman a real Australian? Only if he can ...<I> Is Hugh Jackman a real Australian? </I><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.citizenship.gov.au/test/practice/practice_test.htm" REL="nofollow">Only if he can pass the bloody test!</A>v_quixotichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18068607586238616369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-56576730506961885372008-12-11T12:15:00.000-06:002008-12-11T12:15:00.000-06:00The idea of my "soul" having to remain aware and c...<EM>The idea of my "soul" having to remain aware and conscious *FOR-EVER*</EM><BR/><BR/>Sparrowhawk, actually, I wouldn't mind it at all, well at least for a very long time. I wish I could float around, exploring the limits of the universe, or going back in time to the age of the dinosaurs or watching over some of the great battles of history and such.Tommykeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14751182125861177379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-69490452372421727182008-12-11T12:13:00.000-06:002008-12-11T12:13:00.000-06:00Is Hugh Jackman a true AustralianA fine question f...<I>Is Hugh Jackman a true Australian</I><BR/><BR/>A fine question for Matt D to answer...Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-90651838293123331802008-12-11T12:08:00.000-06:002008-12-11T12:08:00.000-06:00Is there a way to identify a true anything?Is Hugh...<EM>Is there a way to identify a true anything?</EM><BR/><BR/>Is Hugh Jackman a true Australian?<BR/><BR/>Sorry, it just popped into my head.Tommykeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14751182125861177379noreply@blogger.com