The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Eminence
I can't see black holes. I believe in them.

You're right. I can't see G-d but I believe in them. I MUST be dumber than you.

That doesn't even make sense. Acknowledging that murderers may not have moral objections to to murder doesn't mean that murder helps me, and I would only "claim" something I think may be untrue if it helps me in some way. Your "explanation" would only be feasible if there was something inherently irrational about our beliefs, to which I would note "pot, kettle, black."

Edit: And again, subjectivity is fact. You don't even get to argue that one.

Of course you can. You can use this subjectivity to a new level when committing a murder. It's called a defense. I'll kill your family because murder is allowed in my tribe/region/etc.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
You forgot to mention "I only believe what I can see"

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
"I don't believe in a higher authority because it gives me an excuse to bullshit and then claim everything is subjective!!"

DS, why do you believe in a higher power?

DS, why do you believe in a higher power? [/B]

1. Because believing in Man is retarded
2. Because I see how religious people live their lives according to the values of this "higher power".
3. Because secularists make up their moral code to benefit their lives.

There are many reasons, these are just a few.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
1. Because believing in Man is retarded

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

2. Because I see how religious people live their lives according to the values of this "higher power".

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

3. Because secularists make up their moral code to benefit their lives.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

Elaborate.

Religion = Morals? You feel that there is a causal relationship between acting well (by a conventional standard of kindness, empathy and socially beneficial actions) and being religious?

Elaborate. [/B]

In the absence of religion we had Nazism, Communism, and cults. Groups that create values to fit their specific agendas.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
You're right. I can't see G-d but I believe in them. I MUST be dumber than you.

Of course you can. You can use this subjectivity to a new level when committing a murder. It's called a defense. I'll kill your family because murder is allowed in my tribe/region/etc.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
For me to believe in mankind I must admit that mankind could or must be inherently good. Lets just say 4,000+ years of human history taught me better.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

There is in my religion absolutely. It's called Mussar and Chassidis (character+personal development). Religion is useless with all of its religion, if one doesn't have the character development.

I certainly hope that it isn't the case- if the only thing standing between theists and rape/theft/murder (your 'big three'😉 then there is something fundamentally different between us.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

In the absence of religion we had Nazism, Communism, and cults. Groups that create values to fit their specific agendas.

Whether or not Hitler was an atheist is, quite frankly, irrelevant.

Edit: forgot 'create values'.

If G-d (Yahwe, specifically) did lay out the universal absolutes within the bible (or Torah) then how come no one knows what they are? There are countless Christian sects and google prime (first google result) turns up at least 5 versions of Judaism. Religionists craft values to fit the age- hence the rationalization for slavery when it was socially acceptable and the disagreement about what the Truth (with a capital 't'!) is.

Originally posted by Eminence
We've been over this at least twice. I don't think followers of religion are "dumb" or "retarded," I find their beliefs irrational. I have no problem with the assertion that there may exist entities vastly more intelligent and powerful than us; I take issue with people citing books written by perfectly fallible men several thousand years ago and citing them as the word of God, to be followed to the letter.

You've either the worst short term memory of anyone conscious individual your age or you simply haven't been paying attention. Go read pages 330 through 356 again. But here, you can't touch my family because I won't let you. I said that morals are subjective, not that they don't conflict or that I think yours are as good as mine.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
[B]I'd like to hear more: humanity is not inherently good, but not inherently bad? (I'm using what I think are your definitions. A working usage for your beliefs might be useful.)

What is your reaction to the ability of atheists to be moral, then? I think that while religion clearly incorporates values considered moral, it is not necessary to be religious to be moral within today's society.

I certainly hope that it isn't the case- if the only thing standing between theists and rape/theft/murder (your 'big three'😉 then there is something fundamentally different between us.

In ascending order:
Cults: a cult is merely a group that we have been conditioned to disapprove of. Is there anything fundamentally different between a cult and a religion?

Communism: This is a governmental system that is (ideally) egalitarian. Is there anything specifically wrong with it? If it worked (as it did for the Inca) and if it could be made to work in the modern world it'd be great. (Not that I'm a communist- it doesn't work. I just think it'd be nice if it did.

Nazism: (Godwin'd again. You've gotta stop this.) Nazism was based on intellectually shaky grounds to begin with: Social Darwinism is essentially 'might makes right' and unjustified/unsubstantiated antisemitic claims.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Hilarious. You don't think followers are dumb or retarded, yet your opinion is based on the assertion that the Bible was written by man.

So obviously if you think your assertion that the Bible is written by man is true, then people who follow this MUST be dumb.

The Post You Just Responded To
I don't think followers of religion are "dumb" or "retarded," I find their beliefs irrational.

And the people who follow the the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law are usually very unhappy, critical people.

I don't have a short term memory.

So let me try again. If morals are subjective, then you have no business telling me I'm wrong when I kill your neighbor's family (I think that was the better example).

I can tell you its part of my beliefs. I would stop anyone who I believe is committing an evil act by my definition, subjective or not.

You seem to have a very flawed understanding of subjectivity. I thought Janus cleared that up for you.

Originally posted by Eminence
My opinion is based on people claiming that a book written by men represent the word of some omniscient and omnipotent being.

You seem to have a very flawed understanding of subjectivity. I thought Janus cleared that up for you.

Sum it up in 1-2 sentences, I'm too tired to go back and read all of it.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I'm not saying atheists can't be moral. I'm saying i've seen what atheists do in the absence of religion. Of course you can site the Crusades and Inquisition to be based based on the same principle. I'd say atheism and radical fundamentalism are equally dangerous.

Do you think people don't do wrong because they believe in good moral values, or they're afraid to get caught?

My point was that in the absence of religion, this is what we have received in the 20th century.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
A book written by men is just your opinion, as well. And again, since you keep saying religious people follow ancient text written by men, to me it implies that those people are "dumb". Who would follow ancient text written by man?

Get it?

Sum it up in 1-2 sentences, I'm too tired to go back and read all of it.

Originally posted by Eminence
That's absolutely absurd. I guess the US government should be after me, not Osama.

You're pointing out nonexistent correlations.

Nonexistent to you. I saw both nazism and communism trying to rid itself of religion, and got mass genocide in its place.

Originally posted by Eminence
[B]Blind faith. Which is irrational.

Get it?

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Hilarious. You don't think followers are dumb or retarded, yet your opinion is based on the assertion that the Bible was written by man. So obviously if you think your assertion that the Bible is written by man is true, then people who follow this MUST be dumb. And the people who follow the the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law are usually very unhappy, critical people.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

I don't have a short term memory. So let me try again. If morals are subjective, then you have no business telling me I'm wrong when I kill your neighbor's family (I think that was the better example). I can tell you its part of my beliefs. I would stop anyone who I believe is committing an evil act by my definition, subjective or not.

So, I can make up scenarios where your philosophy falls apart.
Scenario the first:
You are a German during the Holocaust. You decide to shelter a family of Jews. Soldiers come to the door and ask you if the family is here- if you lie then you've committed a 'wrong' but if you tell the truth you've committed an atrocity.

Let's take this further:
New scenario- a close friend in the government lets you know about a corrupt official that is willing to help you in some way. Let's say he's going to give you a job. Your friend also tells you that this man is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocents. You will have the opportunity at some point during negotiations (cronyism is tough work) to kill him, but only if you plan it carefully. You will definitely be found out by the strangely impartial attorney general and court. If you kill him then you prevent a greater wrong but have committed murder, which you have stated is always bad.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
It's not inherently good or bad but it's easier to make wrong decisions. It's easier to do something for personal or political gain.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

I'm not saying atheists can't be moral. I'm saying i've seen what atheists do in the absence of religion. Of course you can site the Crusades and Inquisition to be based based on the same principle. I'd say atheism and radical fundamentalism are equally dangerous.

Moving on, religion has been the cause of the vast majority of the hardship and cruelty in the world- the brutality of the slave system in the Americas, the longevity of the slave system of the Muslim world, countless wars, countless killed and tortured. The psychological angst (fear of hell) alone is a mark against it. Succinctly, religion has done a lot of harm and not a enough good (although it has inspired some terrific art).

Anyway, we aren't arguing (or, I'm not) the long-term utility of religion. Part of me doesn't care if it has been a net good for society or not. Let's look at if it is right. If it is true.

Why do you think it is true?

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

Do you think people don't do wrong because they believe in good moral values, or they're afraid to get caught?

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

Cults start all the time based on something a few people make up for an agenda. It's no different than skewed religion.

I've tried not to say it, but do you really think that religious leaders have no agenda?

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

And then we look at the Soviet Union and 22 million deaths later.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

My point was that in the absence of religion, this is what we have received in the 20th century.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Blind faith, according to you. How is asserting that everything that cannot be explained is either "luck" or "consequence", any more rational?

God of the gaps- more and more is being explained. Do you want to worship a shrinking god of mystery?

Also: Faith is by definition blind. Faith = belief without evidence. Look it up. That's what the words mean.

Determinism/luck? You sure you want to go there?

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
You claim religious people follow the letter of the law of a 4,000 year old text written by fallible men. I ask you, remind me how that's rational.

The Post You Responded to Earlier, Then Made Me Repost, only to Respond to it Again the Exact Same Way
I don't think followers of religion are "dumb" or "retarded," I find their beliefs irrational.

Nonexistent to you. I saw both nazism and communism trying to rid itself of religion, and got mass genocide in its place.

Well, since people following "the word of God" are responsible for the Crusades, the Inquisition, this, the India/Pakistan conflict [and what preceded it] and modern Middle Eastern terrorism, I guess we're even.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

Unless you equate 'irrational' with 'dumb' (which would be a very poor decision on your part) then you are trying to create a strawman here. Faunus explicitly says that he doesn't think theists are dumb. (Who could think C.S. Lewis was dumb?) He thinks that one of their premises about the universe is irrational.

Well, compassion and empathy (and maybe friendship) would suggest that you help your neighbor. Self preservation may come into play as well- if you kill that family then there won't be anyone to help when you come for me.

So, I can make up scenarios where your philosophy falls apart.
Scenario the first:
You are a German during the Holocaust. You decide to shelter a family of Jews. Soldiers come to the door and ask you if the family is here- if you lie then you've committed a 'wrong' but if you tell the truth you've committed an atrocity.

Let's take this further:
New scenario- a close friend in the government lets you know about a corrupt official that is willing to help you in some way. Let's say he's going to give you a job. Your friend also tells you that this man is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocents. You will have the opportunity at some point during negotiations (cronyism is tough work) to kill him, but only if you plan it carefully. You will definitely be found out by the strangely impartial attorney general and court. If you kill him then you prevent a greater wrong but have committed murder, which you have stated is always bad.

So personal/political gain is 'bad'? This is why I want you to define evil.

Religious moderates make the world a safer place for extremists. They make it OK to believe (faith is the absence of evidence).

Moving on, religion has been the cause of the vast majority of the hardship and cruelty in the world- the brutality of the slave system in the Americas, the longevity of the slave system of the Muslim world, countless wars, countless killed and tortured. The psychological angst (fear of hell) alone is a mark against it. Succinctly, religion has done a lot of harm and not a enough good (although it has inspired some terrific art).

Why do you think it is true?

I would argue that these things are the result of increasing population and other pressures (Germany was dirt poor from losing the last war) rather than a dearth of religious conviction.

Originally posted by Eminence
And from those two examples alone, one naturally deduces that atheism is a harbinger of genocide. Right?

Well, since people following "the word of God" are responsible for the Crusades, the Inquisition, this, the India/Pakistan conflict [and what preceded it] and modern Middle Eastern terrorism, I guess we're even. [/B]

Which I conceded time and time again.