So does anyone agree with him? How evil (or irrational) is the writer for saying that atheists (Christians) might be doing anything corrupting the world?
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
There's a lot of things in that article I don't agree with. For instance he says: "3. In Everyday Life, You're Not That Different
You Christians, if the transmission in your Camaro explodes, are you going to use prayer to reconstruct it? No, you'll call a mechanic. When your tooth hurts, you don't assume it's possessed by demons. You look for a cavity. Basic, everyday troubleshooting." and then goes to say: "Atheists, even if you reject the idea of God completely and claim to live according only to the cold logic of the physical sciences, you all still live as if the absolute morality of some magical lawgiver were true.".
I don't live as if there is an absolute morality by some almighty lawgiver. I think theres things that are right and wrong based on my own sense of it. If someone still's 80 bucks from me i think "damn i just got took". I don't think you'll get yours or anything like that. Another example is that he says Christians believe atheists are only atheists b/c they think it's cool to rebel. I'm sure not all of them think that. He also says that atheist believe Christians think they're better than everyone else. I know that's not true because I'm 100% atheist and I don't feel every Christians think they're better than non-christians. I'm sure some do, but that would be the same with anything; not just religion. So yea, in all some of that article is true. But some of it is just a narrow minded view on the whole situation.
You yourself would be said giver of absolute law. Taking from you is *wrong* you might know that rationally there is no "good" or "evil" and that objectively someone stealing from you is as meaningless as atoms in a molecule taking electrons from another but you will still act on the concept that the person who took from you did a bad thing. He even makes that exact point if you read the next paragraph.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
But the way he makes it out in the article is that I assume it's wrong based on my own personal belief system which has no actual meaning. I think it's wrong because he took 80 bucks from me and I need that money. If he took it from me b/c he needed it more or w/e then I would understand that and accept it. He uses the example if my girlfriend sleeps with someone while im away it's wrong by my standards, but if i think it's wrong for christians to freak out about seeing a boob then that makes me a hypocrite. If my girlfriend cheats on me I'm going to be pissed but I realize she did it b/c she's a girl and wants to have sex. All people want to have sex, and given the right circumstances will for random reasons because it's in our genetic nature. Theres a difference between common sense and faith. If i think somethings wrong theres a common sense reason i think it's wrong. I don't just think it's wrong because it was written somewhere that I should. If someone kills someone it's wrong. It's not wrong because God says not to kill, it's wrong because that person probably didn't want to die. So unless they were causing harm there's no reason to do that. If they were going to kill someone who hadn't done anything to them for no reason other than they just felt like it that would be wrong. It shows a lack of understanding to try to compare my thinking somethings wrong based on common sense, to someone elses thinking it's wrong based on an imaginary set of rules written in a book. Of course I also recognize that in the big picture it doesn't matter if someone dies because they will eventually die anyway. The thing that matters is that they're being killed against their wishes. Do you see the difference? or should I try to explain it in a clearer fashion?
This mentality is exactly what you're arguing against, though. I know you said a lot after this line, but hundreds have done so before you. But, the person professing your position is most often tested by actual life and not the life you hope you project, much less the one they're hoping you'll buy into. Getting baseless and hypothetical is exactly what people who argue the antithetical point hope the most you'll debate with them. That's how they create a platform for their own ignorant points. That's how they bring you down to their level. You're arguing above the heads of the people you're arguing with. You understand morals, perspective and objectivity, they don't and they debunk your argument by turning it into a god-based, absoulte and right/wrong argument. Just don't fall for it. Right is right and wrong is wrong; we all accept that. But don't let right and wrong be defined by the people you're arguing with; that's all. Their entire argument is based on gay relationships or jesus is god or the founding fathers wanted christianity to rule the world. These are half truths. Argue from the perspective that gay sex might be normal, jesus might be god and that christianity itself disproves the absolutes it's own followers preach as fact. When you're done arguing it on the internet, start living it like you actually believe it as much as you preach it.
I do actually live my life in a very logical manner I'm probably one of the most emotionless people you would ever meet. I live life each day, not worrying about what was or what could be. To do that would be pointless because it's not what is. But yea I love how people love to try to compare their religious beliefs to common sense ones as if they're even remotely similar. Then they don't understand that they're not. :-/ Interesting thing too, someone tried arguing with me the other day on here that the founding fathers wanted the U.S. based on judeo-christians beliefs, despite the fact it's on paper saying that they didn't want religion influencing the government in any way what so ever. :-P silly religious people
I liked the article. It was well meaning and it raised some interesting and important points.
Personally, I despise both extremes. Atheists with breath taking arrogance of being convinced that something that cannot be and is not defined cannot possibly exist, and on the other side Abrahamics with conviction that they are the one the only and the right about some deity who takes interest in my sex life all day long, then casts me to hell for not following a particulars such as eating proper food. Also enormous arrogance.
I respect people who are open for philosophical discussion on theology and God, metaphysics, universe, possibilities...
Anyone who is trying to convince me that they know the truth about God, or insisting to me that it doesn't exist - is an instant moron.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
Last edited by lil bitchiness on Apr 9th, 2009 at 08:47 AM
I tend to agree with you.
I don't think anyone can have the absolute truth.
We all have our beliefs on what we believe to be true,but to force them on someone and look at them and claim they are wrong or stupid is just a bad idea.
We can disagree,and that's ok.
But their are a lot of people who ride high horses on both sides of the argument.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
I think the article is leaning more against the rabid atheists. At least most of his examples he says that piss him off are Atheists, rather than Religious people. Regardless he makes some good points.
1. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One
Yes, you surely can. Of course that topic needs more discussion but he just says that this statement is right. And it is.
As for this quote
"And can we further admit it's actually physically impossible to calculate whether, if your side had its way, the volume of terrible things happening would go up, or down, or stay the same? I know you have an opinion on that, and I can guess what it is. But we don't know, and can't state it like it's fact. Right?"
Well, yes, but the old, we can't prove anything 100% now can we, is a pretty dumb approach to this, I think.
2. Both Sides Really Do Believe What They're Saying
Many, maybe even most, yes, probably.
Though I disagree with some of his reasoning and statements within that part.
3. In Everyday Life, You're Not That Different
I think he disregards quite a few schools of subjective morality as well as other reasons for objective morality in this part. I would say though that in my every day life I am probably quite similar to some Christians, just as I am different to some Atheists and vice versa.
4. There Are Good People on Both Sides
Yes, no doubt, there are people on both sides that are "good" in my opinion.
5. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them
I guess one can argue about the word "legitimately", but yes, I would say they have their own, maybe good, reasons to be offended, like I have mine.
6. We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Guy
Some do. Personally I don't think I do.
7. We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too
Hmm, yes, in the heat of debate you might go to far in the opposite direction just to disagree. Though again, personally, I try not to, but of course it is not easy.
8. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You Stupid
Not necessarily. But the whole picture is of course most important.
9. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table
Yes. Though I think his examples aren't the best.
10. You'll Never Harass the Other Side Out of Existence
Seems like a pretty baseless statement. Who knows, really. I agree though that other ways might be better to convince people.
I think he has sought out evangelical extremists on both sides in order to make his point seem more pertinent. I think most of what he says is pretty much either common sense or reasonable assumptions (though not certain assumptions), and that his audience isn't the vast majority of either Christians or Atheists. I suppose I could nod at some of the statements in agreement (and do so, metaphorically) but really just found myself shrugging in indifference at a man clearly jaded by the vocal polarized minorities in religious society.
So were Quijote's. I actually found the article boring and pointless, much like this comment, and that last remark too, and so on and so forth.
EDIT: Just realized you pretty mcuh said that in the post preceding that one. Anyway, some of the pictures were funny.
__________________ "The difficult task of knowing another soul is not for young gentlemen whose consciousness is chiefly made up of their own wishes."
George Eliot.
Don Quijote (or Quixote) was meant to be the exact opposite of a hero when he was written. The point was to outright mock the contemporary idea of heroism.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
Anyone that graduated from high school knows it was satire, I think he was talking about him being something of a poetic hero.
__________________ "The difficult task of knowing another soul is not for young gentlemen whose consciousness is chiefly made up of their own wishes."
George Eliot.
Agreed. He virtually defined atheism as the celebration of Christ's death and as anti-Christianity. None of his atheist friends informed him they just don't acknowledge his existence.
"You Christians, if the transmission in your Camaro explodes, are you going to use prayer to reconstruct it? No, you'll call a mechanic. When your tooth hurts, you don't assume it's possessed by demons. You look for a cavity. Basic, everyday troubleshooting."
Pretty funny, but I think they pray for God to fix it, and then or have already called the mechanic, and not put A and B together.
Well yes, clearly it was intended as farce. But I hold to my point: that Quixote was a hero. A bumbling, failed hero. But a hero. Shall sanity be a requirement for heroism? Or success? Most would feel much more comfortable judging such things by one's intentions.
KMC Community Forums
Apr 9th, 2009 03:39 AM
I'm probably one of the most emotionless people you would ever meet. I live life each day, not worrying about what was or what could be. To do that would be pointless because it's not what is. But yea I love how people love to try to compare their religious beliefs to common sense ones as if they're even remotely similar. Then they don't understand that they're not. :-/ Interesting thing too, someone tried arguing with me the other day on here that the founding fathers wanted the U.S. based on judeo-christians beliefs, despite the fact it's on paper saying that they didn't want religion influencing the government in any way what so ever. :-P silly religious people
