The Atheist Alternative: The 10 Commandments.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


You have made great strides here in showing the ignorance of one of your best known hero's.

Thou shalt not take the LORD thy Gods name in vain. The LORD thy Gods name is not God. The man is obviously a bit dingy.

reply to post by randyvs


Great, I'm glad you showed up here actually!



Hope your keeping well Randy Say hello to the big guy from me. Ask him to bring back the Dodo, i miss that creature.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Coudn't agree more, I'm sick and tired of labels and the polarisation/duality is causes.. I don't even see the need for label Atheist. I don't have a word of my non-belief in Santa Claus, Faries or Goblins.

Then let only one label be between us, and it is that uniting label which draws us together.

Friends...

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by IAMIAM


Indeed, we've always been friends IAMIAM. It seems our disagreements have braught us together, right?

But making friends is not my top priority here. It's nice meeting some characters like Randy on the way though.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Out of the gate with a lie face first into the mud.

You couldn't possibly miss the Dodo you Dodo. Happy to be here.
"The big guy" as you call him", tell him yourself someday.

Hope everything is up to par for you as well.

reply to post by randyvs


sup randy ? I see you,ve met mr "awake and aware " lol bang your head against the wall it will hurt less than talking to him , lol.

reply to post by TheGhostViking


On my back,LMAO.

Yeah He's alright tho.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by IAMIAM

 

Indeed, we've always been friends IAMIAM. It seems our disagreements have braught us together, right?

But making friends is not my top priority here. It's nice meeting some characters like Randy on the way though.

Randy is a fine friend and Brother as well. Let nothing come between you and the hearts of others and you will make friends as a side benefit to lively debate.

Ask Bogo, he'll vouch for me.

Even Adjensen, noble Adjensen has a pure heart that shines like gold. Get to know him outside the points of contention and you will know a heart full of love.

With Love,

Your Brother

I do not see this thread as an especially aggressive defense of campaigning atheists. I see it as an expression of questioning religious 'absolutes' as the platform for moral codes etc.

As I've mentioned earlier, even in my secular nation, there's a tendency from a GENERAL christian direction to impose christian values on society, and the present fad is to postulate a cultural origin of christian values as being THE thing. Cleverly implying that competing models, such as utilitarian philosophy/morals, are weak derivates unable to stand by themselves.

This is a demagogic maneuvering completely un-acceptable to me, not least based on pragmatic observations from different cultures, with or without christian values or background. If anything, it's my considered opinion, that christian values aren't that effective as a cultural moral base in a comparative analysis.

Adjensen. You and I have been at this point before, and then you led me through a merry dance of, quote:

["And I most assuredly do not apply "self-appointed rules", not intentionally anyway. Kindly point out such rules that I apply, apparently unfairly."]

I have no use for or interest in repeating this, so if you like, take my opion of you as my OPINION of you. Until we reach common criteria for how such is settled, you'll just have to live with it. (And vice versa ofocurse).

There have been overtures of reconciliation on this thread; I suggest it would be more constructive to stay on common ground of agreements instead of derailing into such subjective (and IMO) pointless semantics as you demonstrated. I repeat, this is my OPINION.

Most debates between science, religion etc start from the respective 'homegrounds' of the various systems. It seldom goes beyond that. Until common criteria on an agreed platform is acchieved, there's no academical sense in continuing that way.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by adjensen

 

Okay, I give up trying to talk sense into you. Continue to labour on in your belief that you are not a bigot. I suspect that at some point you'll understand what I'm saying, but today is apparently not that day.

If the bible says God tells Abraham to kill his son, and i believe this to be immoral and disgusting, so what? I admit to being intolerant of this part of religion. This is immoral intolerance. I'm not a bigot.

What is moral? You've said that there are no absolutes, which, as an atheist, I would agree is a perspective that you need to have. But you've also said that there are no objective morals, so upon what do you determine that this particular act is immoral?

Are morals just a matter of opinion, which they would need to be if they are not absolute or objective?

And, if so, what makes your opinion of more merit than someone whose opinion is that the above named act is, indeed, moral?

Understand, please, that I'm not asking why you think that particular act is immoral, but why your opinion is that which determines morality.

If religious folk don't believe in evolution, i will stand up and say that they are condemning FACT, this is the kind of prejudice religious causes. I'm not saying YOU PERSONALLY. But i'm saying i am concerned with some of the ideology and some of the prejudice that ideology might cause.

Okay, we can add "prejudice" to the list of words that you need to study the definition of. I think that you mean religion is making them ignorant of the facts, and I would agree (particularly as I support the theory of biological evolution.) However, this is an impediment to your cause, not theirs, because faith can exist whether evolution is a fact or not, while atheism depends, inherently, on it. So yelling at them about it isn't really going to solve anything.

Of course i would be intolerant of a particular religion, because it is practicing immoral preaching.

Gee, now there you go sticking your foot in your mouth again.

What is bigotry? Intolerance of beliefs that are contrary to your own.

What is your basis for declaring this intolerance? "Immoral preaching".

What is your basis for saying that they are immoral? Your own opinion of what is moral and what is not.

Get it?

Religion is not free from criticism.

I agree, one hundred percent. In fact, if you go back and read this thread, I think that you will find that I have been quite critical of my own religion.

Again, why did you claim that I was a poor Christian because I am not a fundamentalist? Do you judge all people according to your personal standards in this manner?

I said you had "vague Faith"; you believe SOME of the words of God, but disagree with some of them. Hence, you do not believe in all of the words of your chosen religion.

Why cares? Are you God? Has someone appointed you arbiter of the faith, ready to sit in judgement of whether I am a "vague Christian" or not?

Why is the basis of my faith any of your business, at all?

Westboro Baptist Church (Evangelical Christians)

Seriously. Hitler, Charles Manson, and now these idiots? The shallowness of one's arguments is quickly evidenced by needing to rely on such abnormalities for a point of contention.

Apart from themselves, and persons such as yourself who need to use them as an "example", I highly doubt that anyone considers the Westboro Baptist Church to be Christian, in any way.

Re IAMIAM

I can only agree: Beware of labelling.

Though I probaly do it myself ever so often, as e.g. now when I labelled non-labelling. But that's language for you. Always an untrustworthy mistress.

I can even indulge in the luxury of labelling 'love', which from my perspective isn't quite, what it's said to be.

Aaaaah, the charm of peeling the existential onion endlessly, eventually discovering that we are small Ouboroses biting our own tails.

But fear not my friend, one day I'll be in the guru-mood and 'explain' it all to you.

Re Adjensen

You wrote:

["Okay, I give up trying to talk sense into you. Continue to labour on in your belief that you are not a bigot. I suspect that at some point you'll understand what I'm saying, but today is apparently not that day."]

See, you just did it again. You are the 'authority', who can declare who has won or lost an argument (you did that once directly to me also: Quote "You have lost") and your opponents are incapable of understanding your wisdom.

Originally posted by bogomil
Re Adjensen

You wrote:

["Okay, I give up trying to talk sense into you. Continue to labour on in your belief that you are not a bigot. I suspect that at some point you'll understand what I'm saying, but today is apparently not that day."]

See, you just did it again. You are the 'authority', who can declare who has won or lost an argument (you did that once directly to me also: Quote "You have lost") and your opponents are incapable of understanding your wisdom.

Would you prefer "Okay, I'm wrong, you're not a bigot, even when you make a bigoted statement in the very same post"? Yes, I think my opinion is correct. Do you generally argue for things you don't think are right?

I didn't declare anyone "winning" or "losing", I simply said that, when someone insists on denying the English definition of a word, there's no point in continuing the discussion.

Re Adjensen

You wrote:

["Are morals just a matter of opinion, which they would need to be if they are not absolute or objective?"]

In a social context morals are a question of co-sensus, sometimes expressed through an elaborate system as e.g. liberal, egalitarian democracy. You don't seem to appreciate that as an abstract, but this is a social reality.

If you want to consider it from an abstract perspective separately, please do so.

Quote: ["And, if so, what makes your opinion of more merit than someone whose opinion is that the above named act is, indeed, moral?"]

That's the point of liberal, egalitarian democratic society. Co-sensus doesn't put anyone 'above' anyone. E.g. in some societies psychopathy/sociopathy is considered a mental illness freeing the individual from responsibility. In other societies it's a corruption of 'free will' making the inidividual responsible. But all are treated equally according to local rules.

Quote: ["What is your basis for declaring this intolerance? "Immoral preaching"."]

Personally I would define this basis of 'intolerance' as when groups of the 'elected, but in reality self-appointed elite' preaches immoralities transgressing the bounderies of liberal, egalitarian democracy. The response from critics of such preachings will be in accordance to how manifested the immoralities are. Verbal immoralities are met with verbal opposition. Physical immoralities (e.g. homocide) are met with physical measures as prison etc.

Quote: [" Why cares? Are you God? Has someone appointed you arbiter of the faith, ready to sit in judgement of whether I am a "vague Christian" or not?"]

In a social context it's besides the point, if you're a 'vague' christian. Academically it can be relevant, as e.g. considering 'cherry-picking or not' in a context of bible-evaluation (which certainly is interesting for many christians who evaluate the bible(s) between themselves, and this CAN lead to social consequences in form of religionist conflicts).

Quote: [" Apart from themselves, and persons such as yourself who need to use them as an "example", I highly doubt that anyone considers the Westboro Baptist Church to be Christian, in any way."]

As it's still not clear, where this discussion is based (socially or abstract), it's not beyond its scope to use examples; especially not, when history abounds with examples of a christianity unable to rid itself of extremism taking over.

Re Adjensen

You wrote:

["Would you prefer "Okay, I'm wrong, you're not a bigot, even when you make a bigoted statement in the very same post"? Yes, I think my opinion is correct. Do you generally argue for things you don't think are right?"]

Ofcourse you consider your opinon correct, and I'm not the one to deny your right to express it. You'll just have to accept counter-opinions, even if the whole situation eventually turns into pie-throwing.

Quote: ["I didn't declare anyone "winning" or "losing", I simply said that, when someone insists on denying the English definition of a word, there's no point in continuing the discussion."]

You actually did with me once, something I then and also now consider strange. This appointing yourself referee. I have recently seen a new, and what I consider better Adjensen, but apparantly old habits die hard. If a return to common agreement and the topic requires you have the last word.....I'll be mum then.

reply to post by adjensen


You could say, "whilst i appreciate your concerns, i disagree with you in the following ways"....

It's called debate.

I'm not even sorry if i have offended you with my differing opinion, people are going to feel "hurt" in debates. It's not disrespect of a person.

You don't have to call me a bigot, we've already resolved that matter. Just because my ideas differ to yours doesn't mean i am a bigot, just because i find SOME ideas in religion to be immoral.

If you are going to define a bigot as someone who disagrees with an idea, then you are a bigot if you are against some of Hitler's ideology. See how this get's us no-where?

And please don't play that game; "you can't be moral without a higher power , or without absolute rules". Morality still exists as a concept without invoking the supernatural. It's not just atheists that have problem with religious dogma, Deists and Pantheists have concerns too.

As i've said before, absolute morality is the essence of totalitarian edict. Just because i don't believe in moral absolutes doesn't mean i go out raping babies and killing hookers.

Quote IAMIAM:

["Ask Bogo, he'll vouch for me."]

IAMIAM is hereby vouched for as my favourite religionist (together with one now absent person on ATS), and this goes as far as to when he starts god-bothering me, which is not so often, and I'm then allowed to poke fun of him.

In my opinion a splendid arrangement; wish more could learn from it.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by adjensen

 

You could say, "whilst i appreciate your concerns, i disagree with you in the following ways"....

It's called debate.

That's how things were going, and then you started ragging on me because I didn't follow the Christianity that you felt I needed to. My comments about bigotry had nothing to do with the original argument, rather they were based on your reaction to my statements, and my observation that Hitchens' agenda is not to treat all people fairly, just those who agree with him, or who cannot help being different.

If you are going to define a bigot as someone who disagrees with an idea, then you are a bigot if you are against some of Hitler's ideology. See how this get's us no-where?

One last time. Please. Try and read, and understand.

I am not defining anything, I am citing the standard English definition of the term. If you don't like the definition, take it up with the dictionary people, not me. By that definition, which is not mine, someone who "disagrees with an idea" is not a bigot, but someone who is intolerant of ideas that they disagree with is one.

You have flat out said that you are intolerant of Christian beliefs, at least in part. If that is not what you meant, then just say "that's not what I meant, sorry." If that is what you meant, then you are clearly in agreement with the dictionary definition.

And please don't play that game; "you can't be moral without a higher power , or without absolute rules". Morality still exists as a concept without invoking the supernatural.

Again, why do you think that I would insist on that? You are making assumptions of my beliefs, simply because you think all Christians automatically believe what you think they do.

They do not.

As i've said before, absolute morality is the essence of totalitarian edict. Just because i don't believe in moral absolutes doesn't mean i go out raping babies and killing hookers.

As I asked you before, in the absence of moral absolutes, or objective morals, why not? If you don't do it because you think it is wrong, what is your basis for deciding what is right and what is wrong? If it is all just a matter of opinion, as you claim, then why is it that your claim is the moral one, and a murderer's claim that he is justified in killing people is not?

Since you love bringing up the Nazis so much, I will point out that they did what they did because they thought it was right. Is the fact that we don't believe it to be so simply a result of them losing the war?

I'm not going to argue absolute morality, but I most certainly will argue against your arbitrary morality.

reply to post by adjensen

You have flat out said that you are intolerant of Christian beliefs, at least in part. If that is not what you meant, then just say "that's not what I meant, sorry." If that is what you meant, then you are clearly in agreement with the dictionary definition.

If i disagree that flying magical unicorns exist this does not make me a bigot, If someone states this magical unicorn believes gays are evil, and i disagree, this does not make me a bigot. If someone offers a moral or philosophical stance, i have the right to disagree or agree. It doesn't make me a bigot. It's getting tiresome that you think it is.

One Christian belief would be that homosexuality is an abomination. I disagree with this, it's not an idea of my own, so what? That's not bigotry LOL.

I don't care if i've offended you with my description of your beliefs. The fact of the matter is that you believe in some biblical claims and not others. This is cherry picking your own religion, your own scriptures. This doesn't demean your beliefs it's simply an observation, that you don't accept everything the bible has preached.

Re Awake_and_aware

If I may suggest something: Let it go.

Ad's discussions often end in definitions of definitions from the correct dictionary, and can you prove that my application isn't the right one, because otherwise you're incompetent and "haha I won".

This endless demagogy is getting increasingly removed from topic and from your intentions with the thread, as I understand them. And if Ad had a point to demonstrate or 'prove' it has already been demonstrated, but maybe not the way he intended.

If you are interested in a return to topic, e.g. on practical examples on non-absolute morals, I'll be around.