"Tell me about the last time you saw another man's sack." (1 Viewer)

[Kal El]

Larry, how would you define the purpose of morality?

I'm good with wikipedia's opening: Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong).

Close enough to me.

If there is no "ultimate decider" than good and bad (and right and wrong) don't exist.

If this is all random, good doesn't exist. Evil doesn't exist. Its just what we decide in a moment is best, but it has no "lasting" or absolute meaning. Good and evil can only exist in a world with a purpose. Otherwise everyone is just doing what they think is best and each person decides for themselves what they think is good or evil and there is no right answer.

 

[Steve Tasker]

But what if we're wrong?

I mean, we've been wrong before, right?

All I'm saying is it makes more sense to me when I make an absolute statement and say "The Creator of everything says...." and then finish the sentence than when I hear someone else say "I feel....." and then make a statement and act like its an absolute and without any question.

I understand that you feel the way you do (and you are free to feel that way), I just question how you get to the point that you feel like you or any human (or group of humans) alive right now are an authority on morality... Especially if there is no "higher purpose" so morality is just whatever makes us happiest on earth. (which brings up the question of why I should care if anyone else is happy if I'm happy, among other questions)

Honest question - without referencing god or the Bible, why is homosexual behavior between consenting adults immoral? What is it specifically that makes it immoral?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Funny, if Butler denounced Collins and told him how morally corrupt he was, the church would have greeted him with open arms and a fistful of cash. Religion

Not all churches would do that CC. It's a great post, you obviously have the Christopher Hitchens approach down to a science and I'm a fan too of his work but I also like to weigh the other side as well.

Let me ask you CC, if religion were to evaporate or one day there was 100% proof that when we die we go nowhere, what do you think some of these folks would do if they didn't have religion? For some of these folks, it's all that keeps them form picking up a weapon and start shooting. Some of these folks have had horrible lives, they live for the afterworld, these people would lose their minds. So while I agree with the general hostility you have towards religion it also serves a major purpose and in many ways being able to realize that everyone else might have the wool being pulled over their eyes meanwhile I can still live my life free of most religious things...it's good internet chow but do you really ant to turn everyone into an atheist? I'm afraid we would have anarchy and a lot of people would get hurt.

No, not all churches would. Sure seems to be the case with this one though.

If religion were to disappear, the good people would stay good, the bad would stay bad. Science, life, understanding and individual rights would flourish. Sure, there'd be some nutjobs but I doubt the few that couldn't live a good life without a sky daddy outweigh the ones who do horrendous things in the name of religion.

Honestly I am not convinced of this, though as a secularist I'd like to believe it. People like Richard Dawkins (and yourself) seem so positive that this will be the outcome, but I'm just not sure.

What is the argument against it?

So far as I know, there are basically two arguments against it. The first is historical. It's true that we don't have a lot of examples throughout history of societies that have divested themselves from religious belief, but the ones we do have- Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Vietnam, Cambodia- all committed horrible atrocities in the last century that are well beyond those committed in the name of any religious institution. (Even Nazi Germany, though full of Christians, was led by people who were at the very least anti-religious).

The other argument is philosophical. Ministry of Pain was a little bit simplistic and crude, and I don't think the public is as ignorant as he makes them out to be- but it's clear that they are uninterested in philosophy as a general rule. You or I or anyone who wants to think about it can come up with our own morality based on reason and common sense- but for the vast majority who don't want to spend time thinking about it, isn't it better that they are provided, from childhood onward, an authoritative set of rights and wrongs for them to use as guidance? You and I live at the sufferance of these people, based on their good will and their respect for the law. Would society really be better off if, instead of that authoritative set of values, we called upon the public to choose their own values based on their own sense of rationality?

I don't believe the historical argument holds much weight. Do you think the US, Canada, Australia, Japan, most of Europe, or any other 1st world country would ever have those atrocities happen again with or without religion? I don't believe so. We are no longer isolated little countries where these things can happen without the knowledge of the rest of the world. The more knowledge citizens have, the less chance those things happens. With or without religion, these atrocities will happen in poor, corrupt, uneducated countries. How do we get these other countries up to speed? Science and education. Letting hundreds of millions of women get educations and enter the workforce. Stop shoveling religion down kids throats and instead get them interested in the true world around them and not in a fantasy world.

Yes, I agree that MOP is a simpleton. You don't need an interest in philosophy to know right from wrong. The most important thing you need is a good, educated, supportive family. Kids raised in a good environment will be good people (for the most part). Religion isn't required.

 

[larry_boy_44]

But what if we're wrong?

I mean, we've been wrong before, right?

All I'm saying is it makes more sense to me when I make an absolute statement and say "The Creator of everything says...." and then finish the sentence than when I hear someone else say "I feel....." and then make a statement and act like its an absolute and without any question.

I understand that you feel the way you do (and you are free to feel that way), I just question how you get to the point that you feel like you or any human (or group of humans) alive right now are an authority on morality... Especially if there is no "higher purpose" so morality is just whatever makes us happiest on earth. (which brings up the question of why I should care if anyone else is happy if I'm happy, among other questions)

Honest question - without referencing god or the Bible, why is homosexual behavior between consenting adults immoral? What is it specifically that makes it immoral?

that's like saying "Without using logic or mathematics, explain why 2+2=4".

Its a ridiculous question.

If God exists and He said that homosexuality is a violation of His commands, then its a sin and wrong (and thus immoral).

If God doesn't exist and/or never said that, then its not immoral (although then morals might not exist depending on what the actual deity/power in existence thinks, but that's my conversation with Tim not you).

Its as simple as that.

 

[MaxThreshold]

But what if we're wrong?

I mean, we've been wrong before, right?

All I'm saying is it makes more sense to me when I make an absolute statement and say "The Creator of everything says...." and then finish the sentence than when I hear someone else say "I feel....." and then make a statement and act like its an absolute and without any question.

I understand that you feel the way you do (and you are free to feel that way), I just question how you get to the point that you feel like you or any human (or group of humans) alive right now are an authority on morality... Especially if there is no "higher purpose" so morality is just whatever makes us happiest on earth. (which brings up the question of why I should care if anyone else is happy if I'm happy, among other questions)

Honest question - without referencing god or the Bible, why is homosexual behavior between consenting adults immoral? What is it specifically that makes it immoral?

MaxThreshold 24:19 --> Thous shalt honor homosexual behavior between two consenting hot chicks. Two dudes and the ugly shall be stoned.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Funny, if Butler denounced Collins and told him how morally corrupt he was, the church would have greeted him with open arms and a fistful of cash. Religion

Not all churches would do that CC. It's a great post, you obviously have the Christopher Hitchens approach down to a science and I'm a fan too of his work but I also like to weigh the other side as well.

Let me ask you CC, if religion were to evaporate or one day there was 100% proof that when we die we go nowhere, what do you think some of these folks would do if they didn't have religion? For some of these folks, it's all that keeps them form picking up a weapon and start shooting. Some of these folks have had horrible lives, they live for the afterworld, these people would lose their minds. So while I agree with the general hostility you have towards religion it also serves a major purpose and in many ways being able to realize that everyone else might have the wool being pulled over their eyes meanwhile I can still live my life free of most religious things...it's good internet chow but do you really ant to turn everyone into an atheist? I'm afraid we would have anarchy and a lot of people would get hurt.

No, not all churches would. Sure seems to be the case with this one though.

If religion were to disappear, the good people would stay good, the bad would stay bad. Science, life, understanding and individual rights would flourish. Sure, there'd be some nutjobs but I doubt the few that couldn't live a good life without a sky daddy outweigh the ones who do horrendous things in the name of religion.

You are just as head in the clouds as the folks you attack. Go to the poor sections of America especially near the bigger urban areas and remove religion from everything. Show those folks there is no heaven...you would have anarchy and that's the downside of atheism and one of the things that is difficult to discuss. What if everyone were forced to accept that philosophy, would not be good.

It's a silly scenario anyway, because you are never going to get the entire world to become atheists. Humans as a majority seem to worship. It may not make sense to atheists, but there are many people who believe that there is a higher power and a greater meaning behind the world we live in, other than a bunch of random crap bumped into some more random crap, based off of some mysterious explosion which happened for no reason and eventually formed into the galaxy, solar system, universe, sprouted little cells and grew to humans.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Funny, if Butler denounced Collins and told him how morally corrupt he was, the church would have greeted him with open arms and a fistful of cash. Religion

Not all churches would do that CC. It's a great post, you obviously have the Christopher Hitchens approach down to a science and I'm a fan too of his work but I also like to weigh the other side as well.

Let me ask you CC, if religion were to evaporate or one day there was 100% proof that when we die we go nowhere, what do you think some of these folks would do if they didn't have religion? For some of these folks, it's all that keeps them form picking up a weapon and start shooting. Some of these folks have had horrible lives, they live for the afterworld, these people would lose their minds. So while I agree with the general hostility you have towards religion it also serves a major purpose and in many ways being able to realize that everyone else might have the wool being pulled over their eyes meanwhile I can still live my life free of most religious things...it's good internet chow but do you really ant to turn everyone into an atheist? I'm afraid we would have anarchy and a lot of people would get hurt.

No, not all churches would. Sure seems to be the case with this one though.

If religion were to disappear, the good people would stay good, the bad would stay bad. Science, life, understanding and individual rights would flourish. Sure, there'd be some nutjobs but I doubt the few that couldn't live a good life without a sky daddy outweigh the ones who do horrendous things in the name of religion.

Honestly I am not convinced of this, though as a secularist I'd like to believe it. People like Richard Dawkins (and yourself) seem so positive that this will be the outcome, but I'm just not sure.

What is the argument against it?

So far as I know, there are basically two arguments against it. The first is historical. It's true that we don't have a lot of examples throughout history of societies that have divested themselves from religious belief, but the ones we do have- Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Vietnam, Cambodia- all committed horrible atrocities in the last century that are well beyond those committed in the name of any religious institution. (Even Nazi Germany, though full of Christians, was led by people who were at the very least anti-religious).

The other argument is philosophical. Ministry of Pain was a little bit simplistic and crude, and I don't think the public is as ignorant as he makes them out to be- but it's clear that they are uninterested in philosophy as a general rule. You or I or anyone who wants to think about it can come up with our own morality based on reason and common sense- but for the vast majority who don't want to spend time thinking about it, isn't it better that they are provided, from childhood onward, an authoritative set of rights and wrongs for them to use as guidance? You and I live at the sufferance of these people, based on their good will and their respect for the law. Would society really be better off if, instead of that authoritative set of values, we called upon the public to choose their own values based on their own sense of rationality?

I don't believe the historical argument holds much weight. Do you think the US, Canada, Australia, Japan, most of Europe, or any other 1st world country would ever have those atrocities happen again with or without religion? I don't believe so. We are no longer isolated little countries where these things can happen without the knowledge of the rest of the world. The more knowledge citizens have, the less chance those things happens. With or without religion, these atrocities will happen in poor, corrupt, uneducated countries. How do we get these other countries up to speed? Science and education. Letting hundreds of millions of women get educations and enter the workforce. Stop shoveling religion down kids throats and instead get them interested in the true world around them and not in a fantasy world.

Yes, I agree that MOP is a simpleton. You don't need an interest in philosophy to know right from wrong. The most important thing you need is a good, educated, supportive family. Kids raised in a good environment will be good people (for the most part). Religion isn't required.

I was going to ask about Newtown and how poor and uneducated they were, but I have a better question.

Have you ever done anything wrong? Have you ever done something that hurt another person?

We all no you have, we all have.

If so, why do you assume that if EVERYONE didn't believe in God those bad things wouldn't escalate the same way they do with belief in God? If one person, on their own, can hurt the people around them through their actions, why would 7 billion people grouped together in mobs not do the same?

 

[dgreen]

Here's a nice read that I think is applicable given the recent turn this thread has taken.

Yeah, that's the article you posted earlier (with a quote) that led to the discussion of "fighting back". Then that led to basically discussing to who started it all and then things went in 50 different directions.Christians might say the Gays started it with their parades and push for marriage. Gays might say Christians started it with their inconsistent treatment of homosexuality compared to other sins.

To me, it really doesn't matter who started it. Both sides really need to do a better job of understanding each other.

Yeah I know I posted it before, I just thought it was funny how many people were behaving exactly the way people in this thread have been behaving for the last page or so. Except that Toad guy. He's just awesome.

I embrace faith for the most part. You and I have talked about other religious topics. I'm not religious, but I mostly admire those who are, and I enjoy discussing it with them. I've read plenty of arguments here and in many other places about the position of those religions that condemn homosexuality or homosexual acts or whatever. And I've never found a single redeeming word in any of it. I think the attitudes of religions that condemn homosexuality (all of them, not just Christianity) are a disgrace. I think they're literally shaming young people to death and they don't seem to be the slightest bit repentant or sorry about it. I think they've chosen one particular "sin" and taken that cause to the public while mostly not bothering to crusade or even mention most of the thousands of other sins named in their religious texts. If you want to help me better understand where these people are coming from, I'm all ears. I don't condemn those religions entirely, but I absolutely condemn their position on this issue.

Reading this on a blackberry on Metro. I will respond later tonight when I can type better.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Funny, if Butler denounced Collins and told him how morally corrupt he was, the church would have greeted him with open arms and a fistful of cash. Religion

Not all churches would do that CC. It's a great post, you obviously have the Christopher Hitchens approach down to a science and I'm a fan too of his work but I also like to weigh the other side as well.

Let me ask you CC, if religion were to evaporate or one day there was 100% proof that when we die we go nowhere, what do you think some of these folks would do if they didn't have religion? For some of these folks, it's all that keeps them form picking up a weapon and start shooting. Some of these folks have had horrible lives, they live for the afterworld, these people would lose their minds. So while I agree with the general hostility you have towards religion it also serves a major purpose and in many ways being able to realize that everyone else might have the wool being pulled over their eyes meanwhile I can still live my life free of most religious things...it's good internet chow but do you really ant to turn everyone into an atheist? I'm afraid we would have anarchy and a lot of people would get hurt.

No, not all churches would. Sure seems to be the case with this one though.

If religion were to disappear, the good people would stay good, the bad would stay bad. Science, life, understanding and individual rights would flourish. Sure, there'd be some nutjobs but I doubt the few that couldn't live a good life without a sky daddy outweigh the ones who do horrendous things in the name of religion.

Honestly I am not convinced of this, though as a secularist I'd like to believe it. People like Richard Dawkins (and yourself) seem so positive that this will be the outcome, but I'm just not sure.

What is the argument against it?

So far as I know, there are basically two arguments against it. The first is historical. It's true that we don't have a lot of examples throughout history of societies that have divested themselves from religious belief, but the ones we do have- Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Vietnam, Cambodia- all committed horrible atrocities in the last century that are well beyond those committed in the name of any religious institution. (Even Nazi Germany, though full of Christians, was led by people who were at the very least anti-religious).

The other argument is philosophical. Ministry of Pain was a little bit simplistic and crude, and I don't think the public is as ignorant as he makes them out to be- but it's clear that they are uninterested in philosophy as a general rule. You or I or anyone who wants to think about it can come up with our own morality based on reason and common sense- but for the vast majority who don't want to spend time thinking about it, isn't it better that they are provided, from childhood onward, an authoritative set of rights and wrongs for them to use as guidance? You and I live at the sufferance of these people, based on their good will and their respect for the law. Would society really be better off if, instead of that authoritative set of values, we called upon the public to choose their own values based on their own sense of rationality?

I don't believe the historical argument holds much weight. Do you think the US, Canada, Australia, Japan, most of Europe, or any other 1st world country would ever have those atrocities happen again with or without religion? I don't believe so. We are no longer isolated little countries where these things can happen without the knowledge of the rest of the world. The more knowledge citizens have, the less chance those things happens. With or without religion, these atrocities will happen in poor, corrupt, uneducated countries. How do we get these other countries up to speed? Science and education. Letting hundreds of millions of women get educations and enter the workforce. Stop shoveling religion down kids throats and instead get them interested in the true world around them and not in a fantasy world.

Yes, I agree that MOP is a simpleton. You don't need an interest in philosophy to know right from wrong. The most important thing you need is a good, educated, supportive family. Kids raised in a good environment will be good people (for the most part). Religion isn't required.

I was going to ask about Newtown and how poor and uneducated they were, but I have a better question.

Have you ever done anything wrong? Have you ever done something that hurt another person?

We all no you have, we all have.

If so, why do you assume that if EVERYONE didn't believe in God those bad things wouldn't escalate the same way they do with belief in God? If one person, on their own, can hurt the people around them through their actions, why would 7 billion people grouped together in mobs not do the same?

Sure, I was in scraps when I was a kid and I can be an #######. I'm under no illusion that the world would be all lollipops and rainbows if religion disappeared. There are plenty of bad in the world. Look at a how jammed packed your prisons are. I'm sure someone can pull the numbers but I'd guess that 90%+ would identify themselves as religious. Guess the good book didn't help them.

And if you want to use Newton to prove my point for me, thanks.

 

[Buckfast 1]

Funny, if Butler denounced Collins and told him how morally corrupt he was, the church would have greeted him with open arms and a fistful of cash. Religion

Not all churches would do that CC. It's a great post, you obviously have the Christopher Hitchens approach down to a science and I'm a fan too of his work but I also like to weigh the other side as well. Let me ask you CC, if religion were to evaporate or one day there was 100% proof that when we die we go nowhere, what do you think some of these folks would do if they didn't have religion? For some of these folks, it's all that keeps them form picking up a weapon and start shooting. Some of these folks have had horrible lives, they live for the afterworld, these people would lose their minds. So while I agree with the general hostility you have towards religion it also serves a major purpose and in many ways being able to realize that everyone else might have the wool being pulled over their eyes meanwhile I can still live my life free of most religious things...it's good internet chow but do you really ant to turn everyone into an atheist? I'm afraid we would have anarchy and a lot of people would get hurt.

No, not all churches would. Sure seems to be the case with this one though. If religion were to disappear, the good people would stay good, the bad would stay bad. Science, life, understanding and individual rights would flourish. Sure, there'd be some nutjobs but I doubt the few that couldn't live a good life without a sky daddy outweigh the ones who do horrendous things in the name of religion.

Honestly I am not convinced of this, though as a secularist I'd like to believe it. People like Richard Dawkins (and yourself) seem so positive that this will be the outcome, but I'm just not sure.

I don't see how anyone could look at human history and not see example after example of people finding whatever reason they could to destroy everything around them... So, yeah, I disagree that the world would be this peaceful utopia without religion.

You do realize that the majority of these examples of destruction revolve around differing belief systems right?

They involve people using differing belief systems to justify it, yes. But most of the time it comes down to money and power, not religion. Religion is just the tool used to convince the masses to do what the leader wants.

Wow. LarryBoy just made a point I completely agree it. Religion is the tool used to convince the masses to do what the leader wants. Is it at all surprising that throughout history so many leaders (including Jesus and Moses; countless rulers across widely divergent cultures; and modern-day church leaders) claimed to have some direct connection or communication to God? It gave them the power to control the masses that comes with speaking with divine authority. It's pretty pathetic for the human race that this nonsensical ruse of utter bull#### still operates in the world today.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Funny, if Butler denounced Collins and told him how morally corrupt he was, the church would have greeted him with open arms and a fistful of cash. Religion

Not all churches would do that CC. It's a great post, you obviously have the Christopher Hitchens approach down to a science and I'm a fan too of his work but I also like to weigh the other side as well.

Let me ask you CC, if religion were to evaporate or one day there was 100% proof that when we die we go nowhere, what do you think some of these folks would do if they didn't have religion? For some of these folks, it's all that keeps them form picking up a weapon and start shooting. Some of these folks have had horrible lives, they live for the afterworld, these people would lose their minds. So while I agree with the general hostility you have towards religion it also serves a major purpose and in many ways being able to realize that everyone else might have the wool being pulled over their eyes meanwhile I can still live my life free of most religious things...it's good internet chow but do you really ant to turn everyone into an atheist? I'm afraid we would have anarchy and a lot of people would get hurt.

No, not all churches would. Sure seems to be the case with this one though.

If religion were to disappear, the good people would stay good, the bad would stay bad. Science, life, understanding and individual rights would flourish. Sure, there'd be some nutjobs but I doubt the few that couldn't live a good life without a sky daddy outweigh the ones who do horrendous things in the name of religion.

Honestly I am not convinced of this, though as a secularist I'd like to believe it. People like Richard Dawkins (and yourself) seem so positive that this will be the outcome, but I'm just not sure.

What is the argument against it?

So far as I know, there are basically two arguments against it. The first is historical. It's true that we don't have a lot of examples throughout history of societies that have divested themselves from religious belief, but the ones we do have- Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Vietnam, Cambodia- all committed horrible atrocities in the last century that are well beyond those committed in the name of any religious institution. (Even Nazi Germany, though full of Christians, was led by people who were at the very least anti-religious).

The other argument is philosophical. Ministry of Pain was a little bit simplistic and crude, and I don't think the public is as ignorant as he makes them out to be- but it's clear that they are uninterested in philosophy as a general rule. You or I or anyone who wants to think about it can come up with our own morality based on reason and common sense- but for the vast majority who don't want to spend time thinking about it, isn't it better that they are provided, from childhood onward, an authoritative set of rights and wrongs for them to use as guidance? You and I live at the sufferance of these people, based on their good will and their respect for the law. Would society really be better off if, instead of that authoritative set of values, we called upon the public to choose their own values based on their own sense of rationality?

I don't believe the historical argument holds much weight. Do you think the US, Canada, Australia, Japan, most of Europe, or any other 1st world country would ever have those atrocities happen again with or without religion? I don't believe so. We are no longer isolated little countries where these things can happen without the knowledge of the rest of the world. The more knowledge citizens have, the less chance those things happens. With or without religion, these atrocities will happen in poor, corrupt, uneducated countries. How do we get these other countries up to speed? Science and education. Letting hundreds of millions of women get educations and enter the workforce. Stop shoveling religion down kids throats and instead get them interested in the true world around them and not in a fantasy world.

Yes, I agree that MOP is a simpleton. You don't need an interest in philosophy to know right from wrong. The most important thing you need is a good, educated, supportive family. Kids raised in a good environment will be good people (for the most part). Religion isn't required.

I was going to ask about Newtown and how poor and uneducated they were, but I have a better question.

Have you ever done anything wrong? Have you ever done something that hurt another person?

We all no you have, we all have.

If so, why do you assume that if EVERYONE didn't believe in God those bad things wouldn't escalate the same way they do with belief in God? If one person, on their own, can hurt the people around them through their actions, why would 7 billion people grouped together in mobs not do the same?

Sure, I was in scraps when I was a kid and I can be an #######. I'm under no illusion that the world would be all lollipops and rainbows if religion disappeared. There are plenty of bad in the world. Look at a how jammed packed your prisons are. I'm sure someone can pull the numbers but I'd guess that 90%+ would identify themselves as religious. Guess the good book didn't help them.

And if you want to use Newton to prove my point for me, thanks.

OK, I agree, but it brings up other questions:

Did those people actually follow the morals of the religion they claim to follow? If not, would it have changed things?

Do people generally act more rationally or less rationally when a large group of them get together and make a decision?

And, finally, you still didn't answer how if you hurt those people around you in the ways that a single person can, why you assume that large groups of people wouldn't hurt large groups of other people, too?

As far as Newtown, they aren't poor, uneducated, or corrupt. Bad things happen because people do bad things. Its what we do. Eliminating religion won't solve that because, as you admitted, atheists do bad things, too. So to just assume that everyone adopting atheism would make all the really bad stuff go away is no different than assuming that if everyone started to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or God or anything else would suddenly make all the bad stuff go away. Humans are still humans and people will still hurt other people.

 

[Spartans Rule]

Have you ever done anything wrong? Have you ever done something that hurt another person?

We all no you have, we all have.

By your own logic, that's a silly question to ask atheists. We have no idea if anything we've ever done is right or wrong. Without God, we can't possibly know the difference.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Larry, how would you define the purpose of morality?

I'm good with wikipedia's opening: Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong).

Close enough to me.

If there is no "ultimate decider" then good and bad (and right and wrong) don't exist.

If this is all random, good doesn't exist. Evil doesn't exist. Its just what we decide in a moment is best, but it has no "lasting" or absolute meaning. Good and evil can only exist in a world with a purpose. Otherwise everyone is just doing what they think is best and each person decides for themselves what they think is good or evil and there is no right answer.

Well that's what laws and government are for.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Have you ever done anything wrong? Have you ever done something that hurt another person?

We all no you have, we all have.

By your own logic, that's a silly question to ask atheists. We have no idea if anything we've ever done is right or wrong. Without God, we can't possibly know the difference.

Not according to what he is saying.

Besides, the point of that question wasn't "what is right and what is wrong" it was that he himself, as an athiest, can't even say he has never hurt the people around him. So how can he say that everyone on earth would stop hurting people in larger scales as we always have? If a single person can't stop hurting another person, why would we assume groups of single people wouldn't hurt other people, too?

 

[Eephus]

Funny, if Butler denounced Collins and told him how morally corrupt he was, the church would have greeted him with open arms and a fistful of cash. Religion

Not all churches would do that CC. It's a great post, you obviously have the Christopher Hitchens approach down to a science and I'm a fan too of his work but I also like to weigh the other side as well.

Let me ask you CC, if religion were to evaporate or one day there was 100% proof that when we die we go nowhere, what do you think some of these folks would do if they didn't have religion? For some of these folks, it's all that keeps them form picking up a weapon and start shooting. Some of these folks have had horrible lives, they live for the afterworld, these people would lose their minds. So while I agree with the general hostility you have towards religion it also serves a major purpose and in many ways being able to realize that everyone else might have the wool being pulled over their eyes meanwhile I can still live my life free of most religious things...it's good internet chow but do you really ant to turn everyone into an atheist? I'm afraid we would have anarchy and a lot of people would get hurt.

No, not all churches would. Sure seems to be the case with this one though.

If religion were to disappear, the good people would stay good, the bad would stay bad. Science, life, understanding and individual rights would flourish. Sure, there'd be some nutjobs but I doubt the few that couldn't live a good life without a sky daddy outweigh the ones who do horrendous things in the name of religion.

Honestly I am not convinced of this, though as a secularist I'd like to believe it. People like Richard Dawkins (and yourself) seem so positive that this will be the outcome, but I'm just not sure.

What is the argument against it?

So far as I know, there are basically two arguments against it. The first is historical. It's true that we don't have a lot of examples throughout history of societies that have divested themselves from religious belief, but the ones we do have- Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Vietnam, Cambodia- all committed horrible atrocities in the last century that are well beyond those committed in the name of any religious institution. (Even Nazi Germany, though full of Christians, was led by people who were at the very least anti-religious).

The other argument is philosophical. Ministry of Pain was a little bit simplistic and crude, and I don't think the public is as ignorant as he makes them out to be- but it's clear that they are uninterested in philosophy as a general rule. You or I or anyone who wants to think about it can come up with our own morality based on reason and common sense- but for the vast majority who don't want to spend time thinking about it, isn't it better that they are provided, from childhood onward, an authoritative set of rights and wrongs for them to use as guidance? You and I live at the sufferance of these people, based on their good will and their respect for the law. Would society really be better off if, instead of that authoritative set of values, we called upon the public to choose their own values based on their own sense of rationality?

I don't believe the historical argument holds much weight. Do you think the US, Canada, Australia, Japan, most of Europe, or any other 1st world country would ever have those atrocities happen again with or without religion? I don't believe so. We are no longer isolated little countries where these things can happen without the knowledge of the rest of the world. The more knowledge citizens have, the less chance those things happens. With or without religion, these atrocities will happen in poor, corrupt, uneducated countries. How do we get these other countries up to speed? Science and education. Letting hundreds of millions of women get educations and enter the workforce. Stop shoveling religion down kids throats and instead get them interested in the true world around them and not in a fantasy world.

Yes, I agree that MOP is a simpleton. You don't need an interest in philosophy to know right from wrong. The most important thing you need is a good, educated, supportive family. Kids raised in a good environment will be good people (for the most part). Religion isn't required.

If you're going to examine the historical crimes of Godless states like the USSR & Khmer Rouge Cambodia, you have to consider economic, cultural and political factors as much as the religious ones. Or at least give equal billing to the atrocities that have been performed in the name of one world religion or another.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Funny, if Butler denounced Collins and told him how morally corrupt he was, the church would have greeted him with open arms and a fistful of cash. Religion

Not all churches would do that CC. It's a great post, you obviously have the Christopher Hitchens approach down to a science and I'm a fan too of his work but I also like to weigh the other side as well.

Let me ask you CC, if religion were to evaporate or one day there was 100% proof that when we die we go nowhere, what do you think some of these folks would do if they didn't have religion? For some of these folks, it's all that keeps them form picking up a weapon and start shooting. Some of these folks have had horrible lives, they live for the afterworld, these people would lose their minds. So while I agree with the general hostility you have towards religion it also serves a major purpose and in many ways being able to realize that everyone else might have the wool being pulled over their eyes meanwhile I can still live my life free of most religious things...it's good internet chow but do you really ant to turn everyone into an atheist? I'm afraid we would have anarchy and a lot of people would get hurt.

No, not all churches would. Sure seems to be the case with this one though.

If religion were to disappear, the good people would stay good, the bad would stay bad. Science, life, understanding and individual rights would flourish. Sure, there'd be some nutjobs but I doubt the few that couldn't live a good life without a sky daddy outweigh the ones who do horrendous things in the name of religion.

Honestly I am not convinced of this, though as a secularist I'd like to believe it. People like Richard Dawkins (and yourself) seem so positive that this will be the outcome, but I'm just not sure.

What is the argument against it?

So far as I know, there are basically two arguments against it. The first is historical. It's true that we don't have a lot of examples throughout history of societies that have divested themselves from religious belief, but the ones we do have- Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Vietnam, Cambodia- all committed horrible atrocities in the last century that are well beyond those committed in the name of any religious institution. (Even Nazi Germany, though full of Christians, was led by people who were at the very least anti-religious).

The other argument is philosophical. Ministry of Pain was a little bit simplistic and crude, and I don't think the public is as ignorant as he makes them out to be- but it's clear that they are uninterested in philosophy as a general rule. You or I or anyone who wants to think about it can come up with our own morality based on reason and common sense- but for the vast majority who don't want to spend time thinking about it, isn't it better that they are provided, from childhood onward, an authoritative set of rights and wrongs for them to use as guidance? You and I live at the sufferance of these people, based on their good will and their respect for the law. Would society really be better off if, instead of that authoritative set of values, we called upon the public to choose their own values based on their own sense of rationality?

I don't believe the historical argument holds much weight. Do you think the US, Canada, Australia, Japan, most of Europe, or any other 1st world country would ever have those atrocities happen again with or without religion? I don't believe so. We are no longer isolated little countries where these things can happen without the knowledge of the rest of the world. The more knowledge citizens have, the less chance those things happens. With or without religion, these atrocities will happen in poor, corrupt, uneducated countries. How do we get these other countries up to speed? Science and education. Letting hundreds of millions of women get educations and enter the workforce. Stop shoveling religion down kids throats and instead get them interested in the true world around them and not in a fantasy world.

Yes, I agree that MOP is a simpleton. You don't need an interest in philosophy to know right from wrong. The most important thing you need is a good, educated, supportive family. Kids raised in a good environment will be good people (for the most part). Religion isn't required.

I was going to ask about Newtown and how poor and uneducated they were, but I have a better question.

Have you ever done anything wrong? Have you ever done something that hurt another person?

We all no you have, we all have.

If so, why do you assume that if EVERYONE didn't believe in God those bad things wouldn't escalate the same way they do with belief in God? If one person, on their own, can hurt the people around them through their actions, why would 7 billion people grouped together in mobs not do the same?

Sure, I was in scraps when I was a kid and I can be an #######. I'm under no illusion that the world would be all lollipops and rainbows if religion disappeared. There are plenty of bad in the world. Look at a how jammed packed your prisons are. I'm sure someone can pull the numbers but I'd guess that 90%+ would identify themselves as religious. Guess the good book didn't help them.

And if you want to use Newton to prove my point for me, thanks.

OK, I agree, but it brings up other questions:

Did those people actually follow the morals of the religion they claim to follow? If not, would it have changed things?

Do people generally act more rationally or less rationally when a large group of them get together and make a decision?

And, finally, you still didn't answer how if you hurt those people around you in the ways that a single person can, why you assume that large groups of people wouldn't hurt large groups of other people, too?

As far as Newtown, they aren't poor, uneducated, or corrupt. Bad things happen because people do bad things. Its what we do. Eliminating religion won't solve that because, as you admitted, atheists do bad things, too. So to just assume that everyone adopting atheism would make all the really bad stuff go away is no different than assuming that if everyone started to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or God or anything else would suddenly make all the bad stuff go away. Humans are still humans and people will still hurt other people.

Please re-read my response to tim and try again.

 

[eurotrashman]

Once again you fail to understand that other people can understand your terms. Everyone sins. Constantly. That's how your dear and fluffy lord set us up to be. Unless they all go to confession and do their penance right as the service begins then there are repeat and unrepented sinners in the pews, behind the altar et al. Lust and other unpure thoughts are impossible to contain. So yes, I can say with factual satisfaction that there are impure people there, speaking and receiving the word. That's how the system is set up. If we were ever able to be free from sin, we wouldn't need god or church.

No, you don't know what repentance means.

Repentance isn't never sinning again, its seeking to never sin again and seeking to do God's will always. You aren't suddenly unrepentant the moment you stub your toe and say a bad word. That's not how it works, God isn't standing there waiting to strike us the moment we mess up.

Repentance is NOT saying "I'm sorry" for every bad thing you've ever done. Its a mindset.

LB, you are wasting your time here. His opening sentence is YOU FAIL...you can't have any debate or sharing of ideas with someone so closed minded. And he's not alone, it's 75% of this board in the FFA anymore. Others are encouraging you, me as well even though I disagree with a lot of your thoughts...stop wasting your time on this, it's not worth it. You can't reach the unreachable and can't teach the unteachable. He thinks he has all the answers and knows it all, good for him.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Funny, if Butler denounced Collins and told him how morally corrupt he was, the church would have greeted him with open arms and a fistful of cash. Religion

Not all churches would do that CC. It's a great post, you obviously have the Christopher Hitchens approach down to a science and I'm a fan too of his work but I also like to weigh the other side as well.

Let me ask you CC, if religion were to evaporate or one day there was 100% proof that when we die we go nowhere, what do you think some of these folks would do if they didn't have religion? For some of these folks, it's all that keeps them form picking up a weapon and start shooting. Some of these folks have had horrible lives, they live for the afterworld, these people would lose their minds. So while I agree with the general hostility you have towards religion it also serves a major purpose and in many ways being able to realize that everyone else might have the wool being pulled over their eyes meanwhile I can still live my life free of most religious things...it's good internet chow but do you really ant to turn everyone into an atheist? I'm afraid we would have anarchy and a lot of people would get hurt.

No, not all churches would. Sure seems to be the case with this one though.

If religion were to disappear, the good people would stay good, the bad would stay bad. Science, life, understanding and individual rights would flourish. Sure, there'd be some nutjobs but I doubt the few that couldn't live a good life without a sky daddy outweigh the ones who do horrendous things in the name of religion.

Honestly I am not convinced of this, though as a secularist I'd like to believe it. People like Richard Dawkins (and yourself) seem so positive that this will be the outcome, but I'm just not sure.

What is the argument against it?

So far as I know, there are basically two arguments against it. The first is historical. It's true that we don't have a lot of examples throughout history of societies that have divested themselves from religious belief, but the ones we do have- Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Vietnam, Cambodia- all committed horrible atrocities in the last century that are well beyond those committed in the name of any religious institution. (Even Nazi Germany, though full of Christians, was led by people who were at the very least anti-religious).

The other argument is philosophical. Ministry of Pain was a little bit simplistic and crude, and I don't think the public is as ignorant as he makes them out to be- but it's clear that they are uninterested in philosophy as a general rule. You or I or anyone who wants to think about it can come up with our own morality based on reason and common sense- but for the vast majority who don't want to spend time thinking about it, isn't it better that they are provided, from childhood onward, an authoritative set of rights and wrongs for them to use as guidance? You and I live at the sufferance of these people, based on their good will and their respect for the law. Would society really be better off if, instead of that authoritative set of values, we called upon the public to choose their own values based on their own sense of rationality?

I don't believe the historical argument holds much weight. Do you think the US, Canada, Australia, Japan, most of Europe, or any other 1st world country would ever have those atrocities happen again with or without religion? I don't believe so. We are no longer isolated little countries where these things can happen without the knowledge of the rest of the world. The more knowledge citizens have, the less chance those things happens. With or without religion, these atrocities will happen in poor, corrupt, uneducated countries. How do we get these other countries up to speed? Science and education. Letting hundreds of millions of women get educations and enter the workforce. Stop shoveling religion down kids throats and instead get them interested in the true world around them and not in a fantasy world.

Yes, I agree that MOP is a simpleton. You don't need an interest in philosophy to know right from wrong. The most important thing you need is a good, educated, supportive family. Kids raised in a good environment will be good people (for the most part). Religion isn't required.

If you're going to examine the historical crimes of Godless states like the USSR & Khmer Rouge Cambodia, you have to consider economic, cultural and political factors as much as the religious ones. Or at least give equal billing to the atrocities that have been performed in the name of one world religion or another.

I completely agree. The lack of religion in those countries did not lead to the atrocities; it was the reasons you stated. They were poor, uneducated people with corrupt rulers; with or without religion, that is a terrible mix. In no way am I trying to say religion is always the problem. Atheists can/have/will do just as much damage. I do believe that religion holds countries back from becoming developed (or becoming further developed) in plenty (not all) of cases and especially in today's world.

 

[Gr00vus]

Larry, how would you define the purpose of morality?

I'm good with wikipedia's opening: Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong).

Close enough to me.

If there is no "ultimate decider" then good and bad (and right and wrong) don't exist.

If this is all random, good doesn't exist. Evil doesn't exist. Its just what we decide in a moment is best, but it has no "lasting" or absolute meaning. Good and evil can only exist in a world with a purpose. Otherwise everyone is just doing what they think is best and each person decides for themselves what they think is good or evil and there is no right answer.

Well that's what laws and government are for.

And empathy.

 

[Steve Tasker]

But what if we're wrong?

I mean, we've been wrong before, right?

All I'm saying is it makes more sense to me when I make an absolute statement and say "The Creator of everything says...." and then finish the sentence than when I hear someone else say "I feel....." and then make a statement and act like its an absolute and without any question.

I understand that you feel the way you do (and you are free to feel that way), I just question how you get to the point that you feel like you or any human (or group of humans) alive right now are an authority on morality... Especially if there is no "higher purpose" so morality is just whatever makes us happiest on earth. (which brings up the question of why I should care if anyone else is happy if I'm happy, among other questions)

Honest question - without referencing god or the Bible, why is homosexual behavior between consenting adults immoral? What is it specifically that makes it immoral?

that's like saying "Without using logic or mathematics, explain why 2+2=4".

Its a ridiculous question.

If God exists and He said that homosexuality is a violation of His commands, then its a sin and wrong (and thus immoral).

If God doesn't exist and/or never said that, then its not immoral (although then morals might not exist depending on what the actual deity/power in existence thinks, but that's my conversation with Tim not you).

Its as simple as that.

Come on now. I don't need a Bible or a god to tell me that murder is immoral and neither do you. There's really no rational basis to the argument that simple homosexual behavior between consenting adults is immoral, that I've seen. I was hoping you had something to at least make me think, honestly.

Not trying to bag on you because I understand faith requires a certain suspension of rationality, but you must realize that "god says so" is not rational logic, no?

 

[Fennis]

time to move the Hitler jokes to this thread

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Letting hundreds of millions of women get educations and enter the workforce.

That actually just compounds the problems...

 

[Zow]

But what if we're wrong?

I mean, we've been wrong before, right?

All I'm saying is it makes more sense to me when I make an absolute statement and say "The Creator of everything says...." and then finish the sentence than when I hear someone else say "I feel....." and then make a statement and act like its an absolute and without any question.

I understand that you feel the way you do (and you are free to feel that way), I just question how you get to the point that you feel like you or any human (or group of humans) alive right now are an authority on morality... Especially if there is no "higher purpose" so morality is just whatever makes us happiest on earth. (which brings up the question of why I should care if anyone else is happy if I'm happy, among other questions)

Honest question - without referencing god or the Bible, why is homosexual behavior between consenting adults immoral? What is it specifically that makes it immoral?

While I don't agree with it, the logical utilitarian answer would be that it is bad because, if applied to all of us, homosexuality would essentially end civilization (well, at least until we discovered artificial insemination). Again, I don't agree with this at all, but it's a non-God argument against the "goodness" of homosexuality.

 

[Buckfast 1]

But what if we're wrong? I mean, we've been wrong before, right? All I'm saying is it makes more sense to me when I make an absolute statement and say "The Creator of everything says...." and then finish the sentence than when I hear someone else say "I feel....." and then make a statement and act like its an absolute and without any question. I understand that you feel the way you do (and you are free to feel that way), I just question how you get to the point that you feel like you or any human (or group of humans) alive right now are an authority on morality... Especially if there is no "higher purpose" so morality is just whatever makes us happiest on earth. (which brings up the question of why I should care if anyone else is happy if I'm happy, among other questions)

Honest question - without referencing god or the Bible, why is homosexual behavior between consenting adults immoral? What is it specifically that makes it immoral?

While I don't agree with it, the logical utilitarian answer would be that it is bad because, if applied to all of us, homosexuality would essentially end civilization (well, at least until we discovered artificial insemination). Again, I don't agree with this at all, but it's a non-God argument against the "goodness" of homosexuality.

If that is the best non-Biblical argument against homosexuality (which it likely is), it just shows how stupid and illogical opposition to it is.

 

[[icon]]

Ahhh larryboy talking religion is a guarantee for 15 pages.. have we gotten into dragons yet?

 

[Spartans Rule]

But what if we're wrong?

I mean, we've been wrong before, right?

All I'm saying is it makes more sense to me when I make an absolute statement and say "The Creator of everything says...." and then finish the sentence than when I hear someone else say "I feel....." and then make a statement and act like its an absolute and without any question.

I understand that you feel the way you do (and you are free to feel that way), I just question how you get to the point that you feel like you or any human (or group of humans) alive right now are an authority on morality... Especially if there is no "higher purpose" so morality is just whatever makes us happiest on earth. (which brings up the question of why I should care if anyone else is happy if I'm happy, among other questions)

Honest question - without referencing god or the Bible, why is homosexual behavior between consenting adults immoral? What is it specifically that makes it immoral?

While I don't agree with it, the logical utilitarian answer would be that it is bad because, if applied to all of us, homosexuality would essentially end civilization (well, at least until we discovered artificial insemination). Again, I don't agree with this at all, but it's a non-God argument against the "goodness" of homosexuality.

I like that logic, because it would also make birth control and abstinence immoral.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

There are plenty of bad in the world. Look at a how jammed packed your prisons are. I'm sure someone can pull the numbers but I'd guess that 90%+ would identify themselves as religious. Guess the good book didn't help them.

I'm reluctant to jump back into a thread that now seems to mostly involve LB44, MOP, and Woz, but I feel compelled to point out that this is a fallacious argument. "X is a bad person and X is religious, so I guess religion didn't help" doesn't work because for all we know, X would be even worse if he or she wasn't religious. CS Lewis pointed this out a long time ago, and I'm sure he had himself in mind when he was thinking this through.

 

[Buckfast 1]

But what if we're wrong? I mean, we've been wrong before, right? All I'm saying is it makes more sense to me when I make an absolute statement and say "The Creator of everything says...." and then finish the sentence than when I hear someone else say "I feel....." and then make a statement and act like its an absolute and without any question. I understand that you feel the way you do (and you are free to feel that way), I just question how you get to the point that you feel like you or any human (or group of humans) alive right now are an authority on morality... Especially if there is no "higher purpose" so morality is just whatever makes us happiest on earth. (which brings up the question of why I should care if anyone else is happy if I'm happy, among other questions)

Honest question - without referencing god or the Bible, why is homosexual behavior between consenting adults immoral? What is it specifically that makes it immoral?

While I don't agree with it, the logical utilitarian answer would be that it is bad because, if applied to all of us, homosexuality would essentially end civilization (well, at least until we discovered artificial insemination). Again, I don't agree with this at all, but it's a non-God argument against the "goodness" of homosexuality.

I like that logic, because it would also make birth control and abstinence immoral.

And, by extension, makes banging without condoms moral. That's a moral code I can get behind.

 

[Zow]

But what if we're wrong?

I mean, we've been wrong before, right?

All I'm saying is it makes more sense to me when I make an absolute statement and say "The Creator of everything says...." and then finish the sentence than when I hear someone else say "I feel....." and then make a statement and act like its an absolute and without any question.

I understand that you feel the way you do (and you are free to feel that way), I just question how you get to the point that you feel like you or any human (or group of humans) alive right now are an authority on morality... Especially if there is no "higher purpose" so morality is just whatever makes us happiest on earth. (which brings up the question of why I should care if anyone else is happy if I'm happy, among other questions)

Honest question - without referencing god or the Bible, why is homosexual behavior between consenting adults immoral? What is it specifically that makes it immoral?

While I don't agree with it, the logical utilitarian answer would be that it is bad because, if applied to all of us, homosexuality would essentially end civilization (well, at least until we discovered artificial insemination). Again, I don't agree with this at all, but it's a non-God argument against the "goodness" of homosexuality.

I like that logic, because it would also make birth control and abstinence immoral.

Suppose that would also be true.*

*Again, never would I condone the idea that girls shouldn't put out.

 

[rct]

But what if we're wrong?

I mean, we've been wrong before, right?

All I'm saying is it makes more sense to me when I make an absolute statement and say "The Creator of everything says...." and then finish the sentence than when I hear someone else say "I feel....." and then make a statement and act like its an absolute and without any question.

I understand that you feel the way you do (and you are free to feel that way), I just question how you get to the point that you feel like you or any human (or group of humans) alive right now are an authority on morality... Especially if there is no "higher purpose" so morality is just whatever makes us happiest on earth. (which brings up the question of why I should care if anyone else is happy if I'm happy, among other questions)

Honest question - without referencing god or the Bible, why is homosexual behavior between consenting adults immoral? What is it specifically that makes it immoral?

While I don't agree with it, the logical utilitarian answer would be that it is bad because, if applied to all of us, homosexuality would essentially end civilization (well, at least until we discovered artificial insemination). Again, I don't agree with this at all, but it's a non-God argument against the "goodness" of homosexuality.

That is with the odd assumption that everyone would choose to go "gay".

 

[mad sweeney]

Funny, if Butler denounced Collins and told him how morally corrupt he was, the church would have greeted him with open arms and a fistful of cash. Religion

Not all churches would do that CC. It's a great post, you obviously have the Christopher Hitchens approach down to a science and I'm a fan too of his work but I also like to weigh the other side as well.

Let me ask you CC, if religion were to evaporate or one day there was 100% proof that when we die we go nowhere, what do you think some of these folks would do if they didn't have religion? For some of these folks, it's all that keeps them form picking up a weapon and start shooting. Some of these folks have had horrible lives, they live for the afterworld, these people would lose their minds. So while I agree with the general hostility you have towards religion it also serves a major purpose and in many ways being able to realize that everyone else might have the wool being pulled over their eyes meanwhile I can still live my life free of most religious things...it's good internet chow but do you really ant to turn everyone into an atheist? I'm afraid we would have anarchy and a lot of people would get hurt.

No, not all churches would. Sure seems to be the case with this one though.

If religion were to disappear, the good people would stay good, the bad would stay bad. Science, life, understanding and individual rights would flourish. Sure, there'd be some nutjobs but I doubt the few that couldn't live a good life without a sky daddy outweigh the ones who do horrendous things in the name of religion.

Honestly I am not convinced of this, though as a secularist I'd like to believe it. People like Richard Dawkins (and yourself) seem so positive that this will be the outcome, but I'm just not sure.

I don't see how anyone could look at human history and not see example after example of people finding whatever reason they could to destroy everything around them... So, yeah, I disagree that the world would be this peaceful utopia without religion.

You mean like religion?

 

[mad sweeney]

Letting someone in the door is not the same as letting someone speak from your pulpit. surely you don't think those are the same thing.

Yes, I know, but the concept can still apply to speakers. How often do we hear of ministers being caught in all sorts of scandals, and those are just the ones we know of.

I agree it applies on some level. But they didn't tell Butler he couldn't attend or be at their church's functions. Only that they felt he wasn't a person they felt comfortable speaking from their pulpit at this time. The key thing is being repentant. But that doesn't directly apply to Butler as the issue isn't whether he has repented or not, but whether he believes that something the church sees as Biblical direction is true or not. They believe the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, from Butler's tweet they believe he does not think that. So they aren't comfortable with someone who has that different of an understanding of what the Bible says than they do speaking.

You mean that specific sin, not general Biblical principals. It's an unalterable fact, since we are born sinners, that the congregation is spoken to by repeat and unrepentant sinners and those sinners have friends that have supported them in public. But it's this sin that gets you kicked out.

I don't think you understand what "repentant" means. You cannot say with any factual basis that a church has, for sure, had "repeat and unrepentant" sinners in its pulpit, because you cannot possibly know that and the fact that we are born sinners or that people don't ever stop sinning fully is not related to whether they are repentant or not. There is also a different between supporting a person in spite of their sin and supporting a person and congratulating them for their sin.

Once again you fail to understand that other people can understand your terms. Everyone sins. Constantly. That's how your dear and fluffy lord set us up to be. Unless they all go to confession and do their penance right as the service begins then there are repeat and unrepented sinners in the pews, behind the altar et al. Lust and other unpure thoughts are impossible to contain. So yes, I can say with factual satisfaction that there are impure people there, speaking and receiving the word. That's how the system is set up. If we were ever able to be free from sin, we wouldn't need god or church.

No, you don't know what repentance means.

Repentance isn't never sinning again, its seeking to never sin again and seeking to do God's will always. You aren't suddenly unrepentant the moment you stub your toe and say a bad word. That's not how it works, God isn't standing there waiting to strike us the moment we mess up.

Repentance is NOT saying "I'm sorry" for every bad thing you've ever done. Its a mindset.

Yes, I get it Larry. When you're wrong, it isn't because other people don't understand the principles, it's just because you're wrong.

 

[William Munny]

Tik Tok

Oh wait....

 

[mquinnjr]

tl:dr

So who's the most in this thread? TIA, will answer yours.

 

[mad sweeney]

Once again you fail to understand that other people can understand your terms. Everyone sins. Constantly. That's how your dear and fluffy lord set us up to be. Unless they all go to confession and do their penance right as the service begins then there are repeat and unrepented sinners in the pews, behind the altar et al. Lust and other unpure thoughts are impossible to contain. So yes, I can say with factual satisfaction that there are impure people there, speaking and receiving the word. That's how the system is set up. If we were ever able to be free from sin, we wouldn't need god or church.

No, you don't know what repentance means.

Repentance isn't never sinning again, its seeking to never sin again and seeking to do God's will always. You aren't suddenly unrepentant the moment you stub your toe and say a bad word. That's not how it works, God isn't standing there waiting to strike us the moment we mess up.

Repentance is NOT saying "I'm sorry" for every bad thing you've ever done. Its a mindset.

LB, you are wasting your time here. His opening sentence is YOU FAIL...you can't have any debate or sharing of ideas with someone so closed minded. And he's not alone, it's 75% of this board in the FFA anymore. Others are encouraging you, me as well even though I disagree with a lot of your thoughts...stop wasting your time on this, it's not worth it. You can't reach the unreachable and can't teach the unteachable. He thinks he has all the answers and knows it all, good for him.

Well, I guess I'm not as good as MoP, who knows nothing and hates brown people.

PS: The opening sentence was very directly referring to LB's habit of telling people they don't understand something when they actually do. It has nothing to do with the diatribe you went on. It had to do with a specific habit of LB.

PSS: I also notice that since you get into these long threads whenever you spout off your nonsense that everyone calls you on, it's pretty silly for you to "advise" someone. The only thing you seem capable of advising someone about is how you want brown people to treat you like a white person would. So save the advice for something you know something about.

 

[Steve Tasker]

Gaga>>>Ke$ha

and it's not close

 

[joffer]

Larry's a little lost

 

[Mile High]

Tik TokOh wait....

Blow>>>Tik Tok

 

[mad sweeney]

My favorite Ke$ha song is Die Young. First, because it would be nice, in a non serious way, if she did. Second, because I made a ton of money on the 19hr day for the video, replete with a seriously sexy dance by the asian chick that never really made the video. Holy cow was she going nuts, still looking for the unrated version of it. Same director as the Carl's Jr sexy chick commercials.

 

[dgreen]

Here's a nice read that I think is applicable given the recent turn this thread has taken.

Yeah, that's the article you posted earlier (with a quote) that led to the discussion of "fighting back". Then that led to basically discussing to who started it all and then things went in 50 different directions.

Christians might say the Gays started it with their parades and push for marriage. Gays might say Christians started it with their inconsistent treatment of homosexuality compared to other sins.

To me, it really doesn't matter who started it. Both sides really need to do a better job of understanding each other.

Yeah I know I posted it before, I just thought it was funny how many people were behaving exactly the way people in this thread have been behaving for the last page or so. Except that Toad guy. He's just awesome.

I embrace faith for the most part. You and I have talked about other religious topics. I'm not religious, but I mostly admire those who are, and I enjoy discussing it with them. I've read plenty of arguments here and in many other places about the position of those religions that condemn homosexuality or homosexual acts or whatever. And I've never found a single redeeming word in any of it. I think the attitudes of religions that condemn homosexuality (all of them, not just Christianity) are a disgrace. I think they're literally shaming young people to death and they don't seem to be the slightest bit repentant or sorry about it. I think they've chosen one particular "sin" and taken that cause to the public while mostly not bothering to crusade or even mention most of the thousands of other sins named in their religious texts. If you want to help me better understand where these people are coming from, I'm all ears. I don't condemn those religions entirely, but I absolutely condemn their position on this issue.

I hope the main thing I can shed some light on is the leap you, and others, are making about people's actions and attitudes towards others simply based on a comment like, "Yes, I think that's a sin."

Believing something is a sin doesn't necessarily lead to shaming others. Believing something is a sin doesn't require an organized attack by Christians or a lobbying effort. Yes, it clearly does for some people and, honestly, I can't help explain where they are coming from because that's not where I am. I believe if Jesus walked in on the situation you describe, he'd come down hard on those doing the shaming. There are several Biblical examples of Jesus displaying harsher words and judgment towards those throwing the stones than those being stoned.

So what does it mean if I say something is a sin? All it really means is that I think that's something God says not to do (or failing to do what he says to do). That's it. There's really no reason, on its own, to read more into it than that. I'm not trying to hide any deeper feelings by labeling something as a "sin". Me saying "X is a sin" is not a way to hide from wanting to say "X is absolutely filthy and I am so much better than anyone who does X and God hates anyone who does X more than me because I don't do X."

Claiming something is a sin does not say anything about what I think that person's worth is or how I think that person should be treated or whether I think their sin is worse than someone else's sin. The assumption is that believing homosexuality is a sin automatically indicates that the person looks down upon homosexuals. But, that assumption is wrong for many people. I'd guess most of the Christians here who would say they think homosexuality is a sin would also defend the person being shamed and not join those doing the shaming.

People don't like to hear the tired line of "love the sinner, hate the sin" but that is the position. It is possible to think something is a sin and have that not affect how you feel about the person. In fact, as you know, it happens all the time. As you say, many Christians appear to be a-okay with many sins and the people who commit those sins. Unfortunately, many Christians have picked out homosexuality as a "special" sin. My only advice to them would be that they need to listen to and try to understand the other side. They then need to worry more about their own actions and their impacts than the actions of others. Whatever they do, they should do it in love. If they are not capable of discussing homosexuality and acting in love at the same time, then I'd suggest they back away and stop discussing homosexuality.

All that to say, some of your assumptions about people may be wrong. (Just like a Christians assumption about a homosexual may be wrong.) Saying something is a sin doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusions that are usually reached.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Here's a nice read that I think is applicable given the recent turn this thread has taken.

Yeah, that's the article you posted earlier (with a quote) that led to the discussion of "fighting back". Then that led to basically discussing to who started it all and then things went in 50 different directions.

Christians might say the Gays started it with their parades and push for marriage. Gays might say Christians started it with their inconsistent treatment of homosexuality compared to other sins.

To me, it really doesn't matter who started it. Both sides really need to do a better job of understanding each other.

Yeah I know I posted it before, I just thought it was funny how many people were behaving exactly the way people in this thread have been behaving for the last page or so. Except that Toad guy. He's just awesome.

I embrace faith for the most part. You and I have talked about other religious topics. I'm not religious, but I mostly admire those who are, and I enjoy discussing it with them. I've read plenty of arguments here and in many other places about the position of those religions that condemn homosexuality or homosexual acts or whatever. And I've never found a single redeeming word in any of it. I think the attitudes of religions that condemn homosexuality (all of them, not just Christianity) are a disgrace. I think they're literally shaming young people to death and they don't seem to be the slightest bit repentant or sorry about it. I think they've chosen one particular "sin" and taken that cause to the public while mostly not bothering to crusade or even mention most of the thousands of other sins named in their religious texts. If you want to help me better understand where these people are coming from, I'm all ears. I don't condemn those religions entirely, but I absolutely condemn their position on this issue.

I hope the main thing I can shed some light on is the leap you, and others, are making about people's actions and attitudes towards others simply based on a comment like, "Yes, I think that's a sin."

Believing something is a sin doesn't necessarily lead to shaming others. Believing something is a sin doesn't require an organized attack by Christians or a lobbying effort. Yes, it clearly does for some people and, honestly, I can't help explain where they are coming from because that's not where I am. I believe if Jesus walked in on the situation you describe, he'd come down hard on those doing the shaming. There are several Biblical examples of Jesus displaying harsher words and judgment towards those throwing the stones than those being stoned.

So what does it mean if I say something is a sin? All it really means is that I think that's something God says not to do (or failing to do what he says to do). That's it. There's really no reason, on its own, to read more into it than that. I'm not trying to hide any deeper feelings by labeling something as a "sin". Me saying "X is a sin" is not a way to hide from wanting to say "X is absolutely filthy and I am so much better than anyone who does X and God hates anyone who does X more than me because I don't do X."

Claiming something is a sin does not say anything about what I think that person's worth is or how I think that person should be treated or whether I think their sin is worse than someone else's sin. The assumption is that believing homosexuality is a sin automatically indicates that the person looks down upon homosexuals. But, that assumption is wrong for many people. I'd guess most of the Christians here who would say they think homosexuality is a sin would also defend the person being shamed and not join those doing the shaming.

People don't like to hear the tired line of "love the sinner, hate the sin" but that is the position. It is possible to think something is a sin and have that not affect how you feel about the person. In fact, as you know, it happens all the time. As you say, many Christians appear to be a-okay with many sins and the people who commit those sins. Unfortunately, many Christians have picked out homosexuality as a "special" sin. My only advice to them would be that they need to listen to and try to understand the other side. They then need to worry more about their own actions and their impacts than the actions of others. Whatever they do, they should do it in love. If they are not capable of discussing homosexuality and acting in love at the same time, then I'd suggest they back away and stop discussing homosexuality.

All that to say, some of your assumptions about people may be wrong. (Just like a Christians assumption about a homosexual may be wrong.) Saying something is a sin doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusions that are usually reached.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Here's a nice read that I think is applicable given the recent turn this thread has taken.

Yeah, that's the article you posted earlier (with a quote) that led to the discussion of "fighting back". Then that led to basically discussing to who started it all and then things went in 50 different directions.

Christians might say the Gays started it with their parades and push for marriage. Gays might say Christians started it with their inconsistent treatment of homosexuality compared to other sins.

To me, it really doesn't matter who started it. Both sides really need to do a better job of understanding each other.

Yeah I know I posted it before, I just thought it was funny how many people were behaving exactly the way people in this thread have been behaving for the last page or so. Except that Toad guy. He's just awesome.

I embrace faith for the most part. You and I have talked about other religious topics. I'm not religious, but I mostly admire those who are, and I enjoy discussing it with them. I've read plenty of arguments here and in many other places about the position of those religions that condemn homosexuality or homosexual acts or whatever. And I've never found a single redeeming word in any of it. I think the attitudes of religions that condemn homosexuality (all of them, not just Christianity) are a disgrace. I think they're literally shaming young people to death and they don't seem to be the slightest bit repentant or sorry about it. I think they've chosen one particular "sin" and taken that cause to the public while mostly not bothering to crusade or even mention most of the thousands of other sins named in their religious texts. If you want to help me better understand where these people are coming from, I'm all ears. I don't condemn those religions entirely, but I absolutely condemn their position on this issue.

I hope the main thing I can shed some light on is the leap you, and others, are making about people's actions and attitudes towards others simply based on a comment like, "Yes, I think that's a sin."

Believing something is a sin doesn't necessarily lead to shaming others. Believing something is a sin doesn't require an organized attack by Christians or a lobbying effort. Yes, it clearly does for some people and, honestly, I can't help explain where they are coming from because that's not where I am. I believe if Jesus walked in on the situation you describe, he'd come down hard on those doing the shaming. There are several Biblical examples of Jesus displaying harsher words and judgment towards those throwing the stones than those being stoned.

So what does it mean if I say something is a sin? All it really means is that I think that's something God says not to do (or failing to do what he says to do). That's it. There's really no reason, on its own, to read more into it than that. I'm not trying to hide any deeper feelings by labeling something as a "sin". Me saying "X is a sin" is not a way to hide from wanting to say "X is absolutely filthy and I am so much better than anyone who does X and God hates anyone who does X more than me because I don't do X."

Claiming something is a sin does not say anything about what I think that person's worth is or how I think that person should be treated or whether I think their sin is worse than someone else's sin. The assumption is that believing homosexuality is a sin automatically indicates that the person looks down upon homosexuals. But, that assumption is wrong for many people. I'd guess most of the Christians here who would say they think homosexuality is a sin would also defend the person being shamed and not join those doing the shaming.

People don't like to hear the tired line of "love the sinner, hate the sin" but that is the position. It is possible to think something is a sin and have that not affect how you feel about the person. In fact, as you know, it happens all the time. As you say, many Christians appear to be a-okay with many sins and the people who commit those sins. Unfortunately, many Christians have picked out homosexuality as a "special" sin. My only advice to them would be that they need to listen to and try to understand the other side. They then need to worry more about their own actions and their impacts than the actions of others. Whatever they do, they should do it in love. If they are not capable of discussing homosexuality and acting in love at the same time, then I'd suggest they back away and stop discussing homosexuality.

All that to say, some of your assumptions about people may be wrong. (Just like a Christians assumption about a homosexual may be wrong.) Saying something is a sin doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusions that are usually reached.

 

[shader]

Funny, if Butler denounced Collins and told him how morally corrupt he was, the church would have greeted him with open arms and a fistful of cash. Religion

Not all churches would do that CC. It's a great post, you obviously have the Christopher Hitchens approach down to a science and I'm a fan too of his work but I also like to weigh the other side as well. Let me ask you CC, if religion were to evaporate or one day there was 100% proof that when we die we go nowhere, what do you think some of these folks would do if they didn't have religion? For some of these folks, it's all that keeps them form picking up a weapon and start shooting. Some of these folks have had horrible lives, they live for the afterworld, these people would lose their minds. So while I agree with the general hostility you have towards religion it also serves a major purpose and in many ways being able to realize that everyone else might have the wool being pulled over their eyes meanwhile I can still live my life free of most religious things...it's good internet chow but do you really ant to turn everyone into an atheist? I'm afraid we would have anarchy and a lot of people would get hurt.

No, not all churches would. Sure seems to be the case with this one though. If religion were to disappear, the good people would stay good, the bad would stay bad. Science, life, understanding and individual rights would flourish. Sure, there'd be some nutjobs but I doubt the few that couldn't live a good life without a sky daddy outweigh the ones who do horrendous things in the name of religion.

You are just as head in the clouds as the folks you attack. Go to the poor sections of America especially near the bigger urban areas and remove religion from everything. Show those folks there is no heaven...you would have anarchy and that's the downside of atheism and one of the things that is difficult to discuss. What if everyone were forced to accept that philosophy, would not be good.

It's a silly scenario anyway, because you are never going to get the entire world to become atheists. Humans as a majority seem to worship. It may not make sense to atheists, but there are many people who believe that there is a higher power and a greater meaning behind the world we live in, other than a bunch of random crap bumped into some more random crap, based off of some mysterious explosion which happened for no reason and eventually formed into the galaxy, solar system, universe, sprouted little cells and grew to humans.

Thank you for proving my point.

You don't have a point. You made a ridiculous statement with zero data to back it up.

 

[the moops]

While I don't agree with it, the logical utilitarian answer would be that it is bad because, if applied to all of us, homosexuality would essentially end civilization

Celibate catholic priests would also end civilization.

 

[Zow]

But what if we're wrong?

I mean, we've been wrong before, right?

All I'm saying is it makes more sense to me when I make an absolute statement and say "The Creator of everything says...." and then finish the sentence than when I hear someone else say "I feel....." and then make a statement and act like its an absolute and without any question.

I understand that you feel the way you do (and you are free to feel that way), I just question how you get to the point that you feel like you or any human (or group of humans) alive right now are an authority on morality... Especially if there is no "higher purpose" so morality is just whatever makes us happiest on earth. (which brings up the question of why I should care if anyone else is happy if I'm happy, among other questions)

Honest question - without referencing god or the Bible, why is homosexual behavior between consenting adults immoral? What is it specifically that makes it immoral?

While I don't agree with it, the logical utilitarian answer would be that it is bad because, if applied to all of us, homosexuality would essentially end civilization (well, at least until we discovered artificial insemination). Again, I don't agree with this at all, but it's a non-God argument against the "goodness" of homosexuality.

That is with the odd assumption that everyone would choose to go "gay".

I'm talking about the moral theory, sort of in contrast to Kant's theory,* that if you take a particular moral dilemma and applied that to everyone, if the result is detrimental to society then it is immoral. Again,while I don't agree with this, someone asked for a non-God basis for arguing homosexuality is a sin so, knowing that Larry Boy cannot argue logic, I decided to provide one.

*Kant argued that if a decision/dilemma is immoral in one situation, then it is always immoral - regardless of its potential benefit on society.

 

[Zow]

While I don't agree with it, the logical utilitarian answer would be that it is bad because, if applied to all of us, homosexuality would essentially end civilization

Celibate catholic priests would also end civilization.

Sure would.

 

[rct]

Why did this become a Ke$ha song thread?

 

[Daywalker]

Why did this become a Ke$ha song thread?

Collins is dating Ke$ha.

 

[Jutz]

That's a tough one. I can narrow it down to 3 songs pretty quick. It's either going to be Tik Tok, C'mon, or Die Young.

I think I'm gonna have to go with C'mon just because of the line "I don't wanna go to sleep, I wanna stay up all night, I just wanna fool around". I would like to do that with Ke$ha some night.

Tik Tok a close second due to the lyrics describing brushing your teeth with a bottle of Jack... or something to that effect.

 

[B-Deep]

feelin like a sabertooth ti---GRRRRRRRRRRR