The Westboro Baptist Church

This is both a frustrating and interesting watch, but it does help one get into the mindset of the WBC. If you'll notice they always point to the Bible for answers to their reasoning. That's key. They are really not that different from any other evangelicals, they just go over the Bible with a fine-tooth comb because she's a lawyer. So it just seems a bit more extreme. But you'll see that there's no reasoning with this kind of crazy (WBC or regular Evangelical). Certain disasters (or gunmen/shooters) they think were sent by God, other terrible events weren't? I guess? I suppose they decide on which by what they find in the Bible. Like I said, there's no reasoning with that kind of crazy, but this girl does about as well as you can.

I will at least give them credit that they don't seem determined to set out and get their views established in public policy or anything. They just want to get the word out. So that at least helps keep it contained somewhat.

Btw: FAIR WARNING: THIS IS EDGY

YouTube video

Originally posted by Eon Blue
Faith entails a myriad of beliefs.

Faith.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
This is both a frustrating and interesting watch, but it does help one get into the mindset of the WBC. If you'll notice they always point to the Bible for answers to their reasoning. That's key. They are really not that different from any other evangelicals, they just go over the Bible with a fine-tooth comb because she's a lawyer. So it just seems a bit more extreme. But you'll see that there's no reasoning with this kind of crazy (WBC or regular Evangelical). Certain disasters (or gunmen/shooters) they think were sent by God, other terrible events weren't? I guess? I suppose they decide on which by what they find in the Bible. Like I said, there's no reasoning with that kind of crazy, but this girl does about as well as you can.

I will at least give them credit that they don't seem determined to set out and get their views established in public policy or anything. They just want to get the word out. So that at least helps keep it contained somewhat.

Btw: [b]FAIR WARNING: THIS IS EDGY

YouTube video [/B]

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Ah, the old moral superiority of religion argument. First, our morals were not handed down by God on Mt. Sinai. They evolved in groups of 100-150 people or so because you saw those people all the time and you had a mutual understanding that you don't want to live in a tribe with stealing, murder, etc. And for further discussion I'll just copy and paste what I wrote in This Thread:

"...There aren't a lot of genuinely "bad people," but there are a lot of bad ideas that are contagious (just think of how ISIS gets recruits).

...it's entirely possible that belief in unsubstantiated religion could help some otherwise psychopath be more moral, but the truth is that people generally do [b]not need such unsubstantiated beliefs to be moral. And to imply otherwise is... intellectually dishonest.

The reason most of the Conservative Christian folks all around me (I live in the Bible belt) are generally moral people is not because they believe certain things from Christianity. They're generally moral because we evolved to be that way. And somehow that general sense of morality gets wrongly attributed to religion.

Who is morally superior, the person who doesn't steal, rape, murder etc because of delusional fear of punishment and hope for reward, or the person who avoids those things from a more inward and practical mindset having no belief of punishment or reward? The latter is more at peace, more grounded, more genuinely moral in my opinion." [/B]

You miss my point.

The facts of life prove Man has NOT evolved to be moral.

If man had, we would have no wars, no thiefs, or no near universal psychopathy among the financial/political/social elite.

If man was naturally moral, a large group of people wouldn't form into a mob, and riot.

If man was naturally moral, cult leaders would have nothing with which to control members, because their conscience would not let them take advantage of their members.

If man was moral, poverty wouldn't drive him to shoot down his brothers in the street, for no reason.

My point, is that I have less of an idyllic view of mankind then you do (Since I'm a cynical bastard), I'll take my moral code where I can find it.

With religion, that comes in the form of scripture, enforced by religious leaders.

With non-theists, there really is no moral code. Quite the opposite, there tends to be a rejection of universal moral ethics. People can argue that human life is NOT sacred, or that Saudi women do NOT have the same basic human rights as Americans, because of different cultural norms and political rules.

And sure, everyone is different, with a different moral framework. That's the point.

Men are HORRIBLE at morality, when left to their own devices.

Originally posted by cdtm
You miss my point.

The facts of life prove Man has NOT evolved to be moral.

If man had, we would have no wars, no thiefs, or no near universal psychopathy among the financial/political/social elite.

If man was naturally moral, a large group of people wouldn't form into a mob, and riot.

If man was naturally moral, cult leaders would have nothing with which to control members, because their conscience would not let them take advantage of their members.

If man was moral, poverty wouldn't drive him to shoot down his brothers in the street, for no reason.

My point, is that I have less of an idyllic view of mankind then you do (Since I'm a cynical bastard), I'll take my moral code where I can find it.

With religion, that comes in the form of scripture, enforced by religious leaders.

With non-theists, there really is no moral code. Quite the opposite, there tends to be a rejection of universal moral ethics. People can argue that human life is NOT sacred, or that Saudi women do NOT have the same basic human rights as Americans, because of different cultural norms and political rules.

And sure, everyone is different, with a different moral framework. That's the point.

Men are HORRIBLE at morality, when left to their own devices.

I've been waiting to wade into this argument because I still have a post I need to reply from PL. But you're correct man hasn't become more civlised and actually an argument could be made that we're even more uncivlised.

Like you said religion can be good or religion can be bad but in an atheistic universe even if an athiest chooses to do good you can justify anything. Fact of the matter is if you murder somebody and get away with it and they can't do anything in an atheistic universe it doesn't matter because there is no divine judgement. Also athiests have argued that there is no such thing as morailty and the end justify the means. To paraphrase what William Z Foster said in Syndicalism a Communist can do whatever he wants if it gets him results because morals were invented by his enemy ( I suspect that includes religious people). In other words there are no morals.

Originally posted by MythLord
OK. What exactly is your point here?

Scary stuff.

That belief comes in the form of non-belief quite often. It sounds paradoxical, I know, yet it’s truth. You underestimate the human race.

Originally posted by cdtm
You miss my point.

The facts of life prove Man has NOT evolved to be moral.

If man had, we would have no wars, no thiefs, or no near universal psychopathy among the financial/political/social elite.

If man was naturally moral, a large group of people wouldn't form into a mob, and riot.

If man was naturally moral, cult leaders would have nothing with which to control members, because their conscience would not let them take advantage of their members.

If man was moral, poverty wouldn't drive him to shoot down his brothers in the street, for no reason.

My point, is that I have less of an idyllic view of mankind then you do (Since I'm a cynical bastard), I'll take my moral code where I can find it.

With religion, that comes in the form of scripture, enforced by religious leaders.

With non-theists, there really is no moral code. Quite the opposite, there tends to be a rejection of universal moral ethics. People can argue that human life is NOT sacred, or that Saudi women do NOT have the same basic human rights as Americans, because of different cultural norms and political rules.

And sure, everyone is different, with a different moral framework. That's the point.

Men are HORRIBLE at morality, when left to their own devices.

Believe me, I'm plenty cynical. But give some balance to the cynicism: I think you're not giving the majority of people enough credit. Most people are generally moral in smaller groups. Because that's how we evolved: in groups of 100-150 people that we saw all the time. The problem is that our evolution didn't prepare us for huge cities and even a global civilization.

And the evolution of our psyche is complicated, so of course there's issues with psychosis, fears, greed, and tribalism, etc. And especially if resources become scarce or perceived injustices arise, of course 'immorality' will ensue. But at least then there's a reason for it. It's not just depravity for the sake of depravity. If there's no reason to steal or shoot someone people generally do not.

These false notions of 'divine mandates' and 'divine judgement' to establish morality are what's preventing a realistic understanding of the situation so that it can actually be handled in a realistic and effective way. If we're unable to deal with the reality of the situation then progress is not likely to happen, or will take much longer.

[Patient Leech]
Feel free to leave out bullshit like this. We’re having a debate, so obviously we think the other is wrong.
[]

Maybe, maybe not. Next time don't accuse me of making an argument you know full well I didn't make and then when I prove you wrong don't try to turn it around on me.

[Patient Leech]
I didn’t say you couldn’t possibly add beliefs to it, but atheism on its own does not come with a bunch of belief baggage like various religions do. Atheism, which is just a lack of belief in god(s) is fundamentally different from religions with their holy books that require belief to be included in the club. How is that not a fundamental difference? (that’s to say nothing of the weird, violent, barbaric nonsense in said books).
[]

Ok then theism on it's own is just a belief in a god or god then. See how that works?

[Patient Leech]
False analogy. And “atheism isn't nothing … theism it's a concept.” This says nothing concrete. It sounds like semantics that you keep wanting to complain about
[]

No this is you pretending that it doesn't make sense because you're losing the argument. The point is like theism atheism is a concept therefore you can build a belief system around it.

[Patient Leech]
That difference matters a lot, holy book vs. no holy book. Of course people can add beliefs to whatever they want. But that’s not atheism because atheism fundamentally requires no beliefs, just a lack of belief in God/gods.
[]

Right so you're arguing that you can build a belief system around it earlier and now you're arguing that you can't? So you were trying to argue that you can't build a belief system around atheism you just didn't want to admit because I proved logically that you can. Now you're trying to go back and are trying to say if you add beliefs to it then it's not atheism. Good job.

You're argumnet is logically flawed. Stop playing semantics. You can call it what you want a lack of belief, disbelief it's a concept and if it's a concept you can build a belief sytem around it. Period.

[Patient Leech]
I’m aware of the connected yin/yang relationship. That’s why “atheism” is sort of a term that shouldn’t need to exist. It only exists because of the need to distinguish itself from the alternative. As the great Sam Harris puts it, “We don’t have a word for non-Tennis players” (or whatever example he used).
[]

Don't care what he said both of you don't know what you're talking about. Sure it needs to exist because the most logical conclusion is to believe that god or gods exist. That argument is 1005 subjective.

[Patient Leech]
Very wrong there. It is a very different thing asserting, “There is no god” vs “lacking a belief in god.” Then the burden of proof shifts. The burden is on the believer to prove their claim that God does exist. It is not the atheist’s burden to prove that he does not. The classic example of the celestial teapot comes to mind.[]

Whatever. Theism is more logical than atheism as I explained earlier if you want to get into the specifics of the attributes of a god that's another matter.

[Patient Leech]
Of course people bring their own interpretations to scripture and cherry pick. But the salient problem is that Holy Scripture that can’t be changed exists in the first place. The problem is not “does the ‘peaceful stuff’ outnumber the ‘violent stuff.’” The problem is “God said it” so that dogma can always be rebooted (so to speak).
[]

People are choosing to believe in these books, the book isn't the problem people are.

Originally posted by Deadline
Oh by the way Adam Poe I'm ignoring you. I might read what you've posted later but right now not really in the mood to have my time wasted, and wasting my time is probably what you're doing.

No one runs from an argument he is winning, but it is your story, tell it anyway you want to.

Originally posted by Eon Blue
That’s a wise course of action. Adam mostly regurgitates psuedo- intellectualism to make himself seem sophisticated, when in reality he is a whiny little ogre.

Hey hows that collusion?

Originally posted by Deadline
I've been waiting to wade into this argument because I still have a post I need to reply from PL. But you're correct man hasn't become more civlised and actually an argument could be made that we're even more uncivlised.

Except you would be wrong, since this is the least violent and most prosperous time in history.

Originally posted by Deadline
Like you said religion can be good or religion can be bad but in an atheistic universe even if an athiest chooses to do good you can justify anything. Fact of the matter is if you murder somebody and get away with it and they can't do anything in an atheistic universe it doesn't matter because there is no divine judgement. Also athiests have argued that there is no such thing as morailty and the end justify the means. To paraphrase what William Z Foster said in Syndicalism a Communist can do whatever he wants if it gets him results because morals were invented by his enemy ( I suspect that includes religious people). In other words there are no morals.

In a Christian universe, you can justify anything. If you murder somebody, you can just say you are sorry, and god will forgive you. It is a get out of jail free card. That is why in Christian "morality," Hitler goes to heaven because he was a Catholic who believed in Jesus, and the 6-million Jews he had murdered go to hell because they did not believe in Jesus. Please, tell us more about your upstanding Christian "morals."

Please tell us more about Trump being a Traitor and that collusion that didn't exist.

Originally posted by Deadline
Ok then theism on it's own is just a belief in a god or god then. See how that works?

Yeah, exactly. But I was comparing to specific "holy book" religions, smart-ass. Not blank-slate "theism."

Originally posted by Deadline
Don't care what he said both of you don't know what you're talking about. Sure it needs to exist because the most logical conclusion is to believe that god or gods exist. That argument is 1005 subjective.

Originally posted by Patient Leech
Very wrong there. It is a very different thing asserting, “There is no god” vs “lacking a belief in god.” Then the burden of proof shifts. The burden is on the believer to prove their claim that God does exist. It is not the atheist’s burden to prove that he does not. The classic example of the celestial teapot comes to mind.

Originally posted by Deadline
Whatever. Theism is more logical than atheism as I explained earlier if you want to get into the specifics of the attributes of a god that's another matter.

😂 I know you are, but what am I? 😂

Dude, it's almost as if you're trying to be obnoxious and boring AF at the same time, lol.

The Burden of Proof. It's a thing, and you probably should know about it before getting into discussions like this. Look it up.

Originally posted by Deadline
People are choosing to believe in these books, the book isn't the problem people are.

Well that gets into the notion of free will which is a whole other can of worms that I have no interest in discussing with you. No offense.

Originally posted by Deadline
I've been waiting to wade into this argument because I still have a post I need to reply from PL. But you're correct man hasn't become more civlised and actually an argument could be made that we're even more uncivlised.

Originally posted by Adam Poe
Except you would be wrong, since this is the least violent and most prosperous time in history.

👆

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yeah, exactly. But I was comparing to specific "holy book" religions, smart-ass. Not blank-slate "theism."

I guess I am considering the point has gone over your head again. You're arguing that you can't add beliefs to atheism ie Communism doesn't have anything to atheism so now I'm arguing that the Bible doesn't have anything to do with theism. See how that works?

Originally posted by Patient_Leech

😂 I know you are, but what am I? 😂

Dude, it's almost as if you're trying to be obnoxious and boring AF at the same time, lol.

The Burden of Proof. It's a thing, and you probably should know about it before getting into discussions like this. Look it up.

This is you dodging the point and not addressing it because you know I'm right. You're an athiest, the reaason why you're an athiest is because you think it's the most rational position to take. It isn't, theism is, so if you were being rational you would become a theist.

I don't think there needs to be any burden of proof unless you believe people are going to hell for not worshipping your god.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech

Well that gets into the notion of free will which is a whole other can of worms that I have no interest in discussing with you. No offense.

👆

I actually said it could be argued so I'm not even sure about that. But I'm not going to get into some really upsetting stuff. There is a lot of evil going on at an industrial scale which is hidden, we could also go into the secret experiments and how companies have deliberatly poisoned people etc.

Originally posted by Deadline
I guess I am considering the point has gone over your head again. You're arguing that you can't add beliefs to atheism ie Communism doesn't have anything to atheism so now I'm arguing that the Bible doesn't have anything to do with theism. See how that works?

The difference is that the bible is contingent upon theism, whereas the other examples you listed are not contingent upon atheism.

Originally posted by Deadline
This is you dodging the point and not addressing it because you know I'm right. You're an athiest, the reaason why you're an athiest is because you think it's the most rational position to take. It isn't, theism is, so if you were being rational you would become a theist.

I don't think there needs to be any burden of proof unless you believe people are going to hell for not worshipping your god.

Wrong on both points.

Originally posted by Deadline
This is you dodging the point and not addressing it because you know I'm right. You're an athiest, the reaason why you're an athiest is because you think it's the most rational position to take. It isn't, theism is, so if you were being rational you would become a theist.

I don't think there needs to be any burden of proof unless you believe people are going to hell for not worshipping your god.

I'm dodging nothing. You're not making any sense, but just declaring victory. The Burden of Proof is key. Here, I'll do your homework for you...

Oh, right you think there is evidence, it's just covered up by nasty, deceptive atheists? Shit, I forgot. Well, I guess this is the point where we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Originally posted by Deadline
You're an athiest, the reaason why you're an athiest is because you think it's the most rational position to take. It isn't, theism is, so if you were being rational you would become a theist.

Yeah, so saying it twice doesn't lend it any more credence.

In the debate arena one usually has to back up assertions with reasons/evidence. 🙂

Maybe if he posts it a 3rd time it will?

I'm an agnostic-theist and even I find it odd to declare that theism is based on rational thought. We're believing in something that absolutely (or as far as we know right now) can't be proven, it's all faith. Even going "there seems to be some rhyme and reason to the universe, everything being random doesn't add up in terms of probability, so it's what makes sense to me" is still based on faith at its core that it's true.

Originally posted by Robtard
Maybe if he posts it a 3rd time it will?

Yeah, third time's probably a charm.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm an agnostic-theist Muslim...

Fixed. 👆