An Atheist Speaks

[vortexring 0]

They both don't have conclusive evidence in regard to their existance but one is still more credible than the other. Trust me, until the day I die, I'll always find more credibility in God than Carrowolves.

And funny old thing, I think the majority of sane people would too.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[kallend 1,658]

Quote

So then Kallend, why do we bother teaching anything in the spectrum of the Humanities at all?

Culture, history, literature exist independently of religion or deities.

If we don't teach history, how will our children know what a tremendous force for evil organized religion has been over the centuries?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

what a tremendous force for evil organized religion has been over the centuries

I've changed the emphasis to something I'll agree with.

Same goes for political parties, VERY large corps, most organized groups after some amount of time, etc.

But this has been done a few times.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[JackC 0]

Quote

Trust me, until the day I die, I'll always find more credibility in God than Carrowolves.

And funny old thing, I think the majority of sane people would too.

It's called argumentum ad populum and I would hope the majority of sane people would see that it is a logical fallacy as soon as it is pointed out to them.

As for the avatar, it just cracks me up.

[jakee 1,263]

Quote

A key word, highlighted for you above.

Some key words for you: Require; Need; Indispensability; Only. These are all absolute statements and you have, throughout this thread, used them in relation to the need for moral guidance, and the need for it to come from religion. So, when you say that I've "made up" your position that societies cannot be stable or good without religion you are either lying or don't have a clue how the english language works. Either way, it's your failing, not mine.

Quote

I seriously began to wonder over the reasons of increased immorality. I came to, what's for me, an obvious conclusion.

By looking at only two single factors from a time that has seen more rapid and wholesale technological and social changes than any other. Now you have to explain why you have singled out the religious factor as overriding all the other changes that society has undergone.

Quote

Therefore, it should be readily apparant I'm not going to go forth and conduct the serious study you insist upon.

I don't want you to conduct a serous study, I do want you to at least think critically about the assertions you are making.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

It's called argumentum ad populum and I would hope the majority of sane people would see that it is a logical fallacy as soon as it is pointed out to them.

As for the avatar, it just cracks me up.

Odd - It's called "argumentum ad populum"

and

you'd hope the majority of sane people would see (it is false)


I think the 1st, by definition, cancels the 2nd



look at Global Warming, the theory that welfare helps society, etc, etc, etc

people believe what they want to believe - usually to their detriment - and usually long past any proof of detriment

(except for the high price of corn tortillas - that's obviously a good things)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

So then Kallend, why do we bother teaching anything in the spectrum of the Humanities at all?

Culture, history, literature exist independently of religion or deities.

If we don't teach history, how will our children know what a tremendous force for evil organized religion has been over the centuries?

Man's misuse and misapplication of organized religion Prof.

So the children don't think the problem solely lies with religion.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[JackC 0]

Quote

Odd - It's called "argumentum ad populum"

and

you'd hope the majority of sane people would see (it is false)


I think the 1st, by definition, cancels the 2nd

Haha... good one. I love a good joke

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

Trust me, until the day I die, I'll always find more credibility in God than Carrowolves.

And funny old thing, I think the majority of sane people would too.

It's called argumentum ad populum and I would hope the majority of sane people would see that it is a logical fallacy as soon as it is pointed out to them.

As for the avatar, it just cracks me up.

I disagree. I never said billions of people having a faith in a God make his existance true. It just makes his existance more credible than a Carrowolves.

The avatar? That's probably my expression as I'm tap-tap-tapping away on this fucking laptop.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[JackC 0]

Quote

I disagree. I never said billions of people having a faith in a God make his existance true. It just makes his existance more credible than a Carrowolves.

That is argumentum ad populum and it's still a logical fallacy.

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

A key word, highlighted for you above.

Some key words for you: Require; Need; Indispensability; Only. These are all absolute statements and you have, throughout this thread, used them in relation to the need for moral guidance, and the need for it to come from religion. So, when you say that I've "made up" your position that societies cannot be stable or good without religion you are either lying or don't have a clue how the english language works. Either way, it's your failing, not mine.

Quote

I seriously began to wonder over the reasons of increased immorality. I came to, what's for me, an obvious conclusion.

By looking at only two single factors from a time that has seen more rapid and wholesale technological and social changes than any other. Now you have to explain why you have singled out the religious factor as overriding all the other changes that society has undergone.

Quote

Therefore, it should be readily apparant I'm not going to go forth and conduct the serious study you insist upon.

I don't want you to conduct a serous study, I do want you to at least think critically about the assertions you are making.

No Jakee - you're forgetting the simple fact that you provided imagined statements you said I said. So, that in itself demonstrates poor integrity, especially as you then used the statements to support your attempts of ridicule, to make yourself feel better about yourself and your beliefs.

People need moral guidance. Despite feeling you received suitable guidance from your non-religious parents, this wouldn't be suitable moral guidance for society. Your counter argument just relates to an individual whilst you know fine I'm relating my statements to society as a whole.

I'll stand by the boldness of my statements though. What other forms of guidance would be suitable to prevent the increased immorality of society? All parents being agnostic atheists? That's all the counter argument you've provided so far, whilst still continuing to demonstrate superior knowledge which you refuse to divulge.

My opinion is that society needs a unifying common moral guidance that I feel only religion, properly applied, can provide.

If you've other suggestions or alternatives, let me know. I'm all ears ya fucker. Therefore, to continually bleat on about your perceived fact that I've only looked at two single factors is ridiculous. See my earlier post regarding this.

Also, it's becoming ever more apparant your motivation to discuss such topics revolves around a desire to ridicule and belittle people who believe in God, because it's rather an easy thing to do. Especially if it makes you feel better about yourself, rather than discuss the issue directly.

I believe I've given enough critical thought to my statements. Are you ready to discuss your apparant and considerable knowledge of the subject, or are you going to be continually obtuse and nitpick away whilst avoiding the issue?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

I disagree. I never said billions of people having a faith in a God make his existance true. It just makes his existance more credible than a Carrowolves.

That is argumentum ad populum and it's still a logical fallacy.

A fallacy? How about this; your at a fork in the path. One road possibly leads to a painful and tortured death, whilst the other possibly leads to a happy and fulfilling life. Billions of people suggest you turn left. Not a single person suggests you turn right.

Which way would you go?

Would that decision be fallacy?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[JackC 0]

Quote

My opinion is that society needs a unifying common moral guidance that I feel only religion, properly applied, can provide.

Society will definately benefit from moral guidance. However, religion is not uniquely or specially qualified to give it. In the christian tradition, it was quite acceptable to stone adulterers, gay and witches to death. You can even interpret the bible to condone slavery if you so wish. None of these things are what I would consider moral. Now you may consider that to be an improper application of religion. And exactly who are you to define what is and is not a proper application of religion?

If you do consider this to be an improper application of religion, then you must have filtered religion's moral guidance through some other philosophy of moral guidance. Possibly your own innate sense of right and wrong. If you have done this, then it must be that this other philosophy is superior to that of religion or you would not have discarded parts of that religion.

Next, you cannot enforce this policy of properly employed religion. You cannot make me beleive in god any more than you can make me believe in the FSM. People will not be subjected to thought police no matter how much you want them to.

Now moral guidance from parents does work provided they themselves have a good moral compass that they can pass on. If one set of atheist (or religious) parents can breed moral kids, then so can all the others. What works for one can work for many. But this moral compass obviously doesn't come from religion alone, or we would still be stoning people to death.

Society does provide a moral compass of sorts. It's called the law. If you break it, you go to prison. Now you may think the law is failing and you might be right, but substituting some ancient mythology with threats from beyond the grave won't do anything to help. But if people think the law is fair and worthy of respect and parents and society in general to teach their kids to honour and respect the law and more importantly, the spirit of the law; then maybe you stand a better chance of getting some form of moral guidance that might work.

Too much typing and it's probably a load of disjointed crap anyway.

[JackC 0]

Quote

A fallacy? How about this; your at a fork in the path. One road possibly leads to a painful and tortured death, whilst the other possibly leads to a happy and fulfilling life. Billions of people suggest you turn left. Not a single person suggests you turn right.

Which way would you go?

Would that decision be fallacy?

Now it all depends on the situation.

If no one had ever come back from either fork in the road, and even if 100% of the people (who could have no knowledge of what lies down that road) said go left, it would be a logical falacy to think that left was any more certain to be the safe route than right. Since no one had ever returned, both routes could be equally hazardous.

If on the other hand, all those people had seen that people who turn left, come home safe and sound but those that turn right don't, then it would be more logical to turn left.

The logical fallacy is assuming that what is popular is correct simply because it's popular. Popularity is not enough, you need actual evidence to back it up. You need to know that all those people had been down the road and come back safe and sound.

It constantly amazes me that people don't get this intuitively, let alone need it explaining to them. Surely you see it now?

[vortexring 0]

It's not a load of crap - I hear your points.

First of all, your initial critical points of the bible reflect some thoughts I also share; but you fail to include the general goodness that's also mentioned throughout the scriptures. Your critical points aren't todays christian traditions, so why don't you mention many of todays christian traditions which are for the common good?

I'm a nobody in regarding how religion should be properly applied and I readily accept that fact. I just continually hear points concerning evil that's been a direct consequence of religion. But that hasn't been religions fault. It's man's misuse and misapplication of religion that's at fault - so it's an important aspect easily put aside in regards to arguments of religion being for good or bad.

Concerning the points you made in your second paragraph, the so called filter deponds on how you've read the bible. To read it factually could probably be the fault - and therefore the reason why people continually dismiss the important points it has to make. Try reading it as you'd read poems or fictional tales is the advice I've received. To read it verbatim misses the issues. I get the sense that this is where a lot of your critiscism lies - and mine too. But my mind is open and I try to learn beyond that which I believe myself to know.

Again (your 3rd para), I've no intention of changing your beliefs - I'm only trying to explain mine in relation to yours. And of course, you couldn't enforce such a policy - and I've no wish to see such a policy enforced. Encouraged, debated, and supported, yes.

Your 4th para: unfortunately we can see this isn't working in todays society. We need a solution to the continual immorality. Have you any suggestions for suitable moral guidance?

The Law works as a guidance in day to day life for sure. But it misses out on numerous immoral deeds that are legal. So it isn't the answer. And it never will be.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

A fallacy? How about this; your at a fork in the path. One road possibly leads to a painful and tortured death, whilst the other possibly leads to a happy and fulfilling life. Billions of people suggest you turn left. Not a single person suggests you turn right.

Which way would you go?

Would that decision be fallacy?

Now it all depends on the situation.

If no one had ever come back from either fork in the road, and even if 100% of the people (who could have no knowledge of what lies down that road) said go left, it would be a logical falacy to think that left was any more certain to be the safe route than right. Since no one had ever returned, both routes could be equally hazardous.

If on the other hand, all those people had seen that people who turn left, come home safe and sound but those that turn right don't, then it would be more logical to turn left.

The logical fallacy is assuming that what is popular is correct simply because it's popular. Popularity is not enough, you need actual evidence to back it up. You need to know that all those people had been down the road and come back safe and sound.

It constantly amazes me that people don't get this intuitively, let alone need it explaining to them. Surely you see it now?

I sure do, but what would your decision be going only with the information I've provided?

There is only one sensible decision. Ask your questions on the way there!

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jakee 1,263]

Quote

No Jakee - you're forgetting the simple fact that you provided imagined statements you said I said.

No, you have made such statements! You absolutely have stated that societies need religion to be stable and good, therefore you have stated that no society can be good or stable without religion. You state it in this very same fucking post! "My opinion is that society needs a unifying common moral guidance that I feel only religion, properly applied, can provide." In an earlier post we have this "Furthermore, its (religion) indispensability to social order has repeatedly been demonstrated by its direct effect on laws and morality.". We also have this "People require moral guidance." (NB 'people', not just societies) and this "...through moral guidance. And I believe only religion can provide this."

So yes you have stated, categorically, that you feel that societies cannot be good or stable without religion. Seriously, if you can't even understand your own fucking argument how the hell do you expect to understand any counter argument I make against you?

Quote

Also, it's becoming ever more apparant your motivation to discuss such topics revolves around a desire to ridicule and belittle people who believe in God, because it's rather an easy thing to do.

That's not what we're talking about right now. Whether you believe in god or not has absolutely nothing to do with the subject currently under discussion. Your level of comprehension here is getting lower and lower by the minute.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,263]

Quote

I'm a nobody in regarding how religion should be properly applied and I readily accept that fact. I just continually hear points concerning evil that's been a direct consequence of religion. But that hasn't been religions fault. It's man's misuse and misapplication of religion that's at fault - so it's an important aspect easily put aside in regards to arguments of religion being for good or bad.

Ah, so when religious texts are used to justify being nasty to people that isn't religion's fault, just bad people. However when religious texts are used to encourage being good to each other it isn't because of good people, but the religious texts.

How... convenient

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JackC 0]

There is some inherent goodness in the bible, that's a given. But there are also some pretty disgustingly objectionable morals in there too. Now if a book is supposed to be the word of god, the first thing that comes to mind is that it is supposed to be read literally. It is the word of a perfect god after all, why would he require us to interpret it any other way? God certainly hasn't given us any guidelines on how to interpret his word other than the word itself.

Now the christian religion is based largely (solely?) on the Bible. So the way christians interpret the things said in the bible is definately their fault. If christians interpret the bible to say burn witches, it's the christians fault if witches get burnt. Equally, if they interpret the bible to say "do unto others", that is also their fault. If you take the credit for the good, accept the debt of the bad.

Todays christians have largely abandoned witch burning because they realise that it's an immoral thing to do. But there are still plenty of arguments about what christianity actually means and how to be a good christian. The matter is definately not settled. So a proper application of christianity hasn't even been defined yet, 2000 years after the fact.

Now I agree that the law leaves a lot to be desired. I personally blame the politicians, lawyers and police for some of this, fueled mostly by human nature to be greedy opportunists who try to get away with any shiftyness they can. Now if I had a policy I thought would work, I'd stand for parliament and try to get it working. But alas, I don't. Maybe stiffer punishments for real criminals and a fairer deal for otherwise law abiding citizens who get Gatso'd for driving 3mph over the speed limit. Maybe reintroducing national service, maybe repealing the Human Rights act and pulling out of the European Union, maybe showing a fairer deal to British citizens and not cowtowing to every illegal immigrants human rights to have a fucking council flat. But alas, I don't have an answer. I wish I did.

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

No Jakee - you're forgetting the simple fact that you provided imagined statements you said I said.

No, you have made such statements! You absolutely have stated that societies need religion to be stable and good, therefore you have stated that no society can be good or stable without religion. You state it in this very same fucking post! "My opinion is that society needs a unifying common moral guidance that I feel only religion, properly applied, can provide." In an earlier post we have this "Furthermore, its (religion) indispensability to social order has repeatedly been demonstrated by its direct effect on laws and morality.". We also have this "People require moral guidance." (NB 'people', not just societies) and this "...through moral guidance. And I believe only religion can provide this."

So yes you have stated, categorically, that you feel that societies cannot be good or stable without religion. Seriously, if you can't even understand your own fucking argument how the hell do you expect to understand any counter argument I make against you?

Quote

Also, it's becoming ever more apparant your motivation to discuss such topics revolves around a desire to ridicule and belittle people who believe in God, because it's rather an easy thing to do.

That's not what we're talking about right now. Whether you believe in god or not has absolutely nothing to do with the subject currently under discussion. Your level of comprehension here is getting lower and lower by the minute.

Relax Jakee - you're becoming like a fart in a bottle again - and you've missed my point again. My issue was that you'd provided a statement I'd said. It was indeed similiar to my opinion but it wasn't in fact an actual statement I'd made. Big difference Sonny Jim.

Now, regarding your last statement, that, again, is your opinion. In my opinion we've gone beyond the nitpicking of how I've portrayed my opinions. The context of my portrayal is only an issue for you through reasons I've already mentioned, and reasons you continue to confirm.

I've asked you numerous questions and requests, which you continue to ignore, whilst i'm continually answering all your points as honestly as I can...

Have a look at the assertions I've made about you; your setting the concrete.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm a nobody in regarding how religion should be properly applied and I readily accept that fact. I just continually hear points concerning evil that's been a direct consequence of religion. But that hasn't been religions fault. It's man's misuse and misapplication of religion that's at fault - so it's an important aspect easily put aside in regards to arguments of religion being for good or bad.

Ah, so when religious texts are used to justify being nasty to people that isn't religion's fault, just bad people. However when religious texts are used to encourage being good to each other it isn't because of good people, but the religious texts.

How... convenient

Did I factually say that statement? That's only your interpretation. Poor point.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[JackC 0]

Quote

I sure do, but what would your decision be going only with the information I've provided?

There is only one sensible decision. Ask your questions on the way there!

There isn't enough information to answer. Quite honestly, the idea of a violent death one way and paradise the other sounds like bullshit anyway. So I'd abstain from taking either fork until more information was gathered. Maybe where I am is perfectly OK.

[JackC 0]

Quote

Ah, so when religious texts are used to justify being nasty to people that isn't religion's fault, just bad people. However when religious texts are used to encourage being good to each other it isn't because of good people, but the religious texts.

How... convenient

Did I factually say that statement? That's only your interpretation. Poor point.

Yes Vortex, that has been your point all along.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Try reading it as you'd read poems or fictional tales is the advice I've received.

Wouldn't reading Aesop's Fables be just as useful? No deity required.

(Incidentally, I agree that the Bible, among other books, can be a useful guidebook, when not read literally or as a history book.)

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[vortexring 0]

Quote

There is some inherent goodness in the bible, that's a given. But there are also some pretty disgustingly objectionable morals in there too. Now if a book is supposed to be the word of god, the first thing that comes to mind is that it is supposed to be read literally. It is the word of a perfect god after all, why would he require us to interpret it any other way? God certainly hasn't given us any guidelines on how to interpret his word other than the word itself.

Now the christian religion is based largely (solely?) on the Bible. So the way christians interpret the things said in the bible is definately their fault. If christians interpret the bible to say burn witches, it's the christians fault if witches get burnt. Equally, if they interpret the bible to say "do unto others", that is also their fault. If you take the credit for the good, accept the debt of the bad.

Todays christians have largely abandoned witch burning because they realise that it's an immoral thing to do. But there are still plenty of arguments about what christianity actually means and how to be a good christian. The matter is definately not settled. So a proper application of christianity hasn't even been defined yet, 2000 years after the fact.

Now I agree that the law leaves a lot to be desired. I personally blame the politicians, lawyers and police for some of this, fueled mostly by human nature to be greedy opportunists who try to get away with any shiftyness they can. Now if I had a policy I thought would work, I'd stand for parliament and try to get it working. But alas, I don't. Maybe stiffer punishments for real criminals and a fairer deal for otherwise law abiding citizens who get Gatso'd for driving 3mph over the speed limit. Maybe reintroducing national service, maybe repealing the Human Rights act and pulling out of the European Union, maybe showing a fairer deal to British citizens and not cowtowing to every illegal immigrants human rights to have a fucking council flat. But alas, I don't have an answer. I wish I did.

God didn't write the bible - man did. That's apparantly important! And God also gave us was free will.

Accepting the debt for bad, again, you've a solid point - I'm only asking the good to be considered into your argument.

Despite what's now obviously the wrong applications of christianity, it doesn't make it a useless tool. Isn't it obvious work is necessary, instead of an onslaught of destructive and pretty useless critiscism?

Concerning your final points, they're good points, and of course I realise you don't have the answer, as neither do I. I have my opinion on what I believe a possible answer may be, so there is achievement in itself by at least recognising the need for answers.

Your example of National service is something I especially agree with.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'