- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Stunning Admission By Renowned Atheist; Decline of Christianity is Hurting Society
Posted on 11/8/19 at 8:52 am to Perfect Circle
Posted on 11/8/19 at 8:52 am to Perfect Circle
Mayor Pete espouses Christianity when he exhorts Americans to "defend the poor, and the immigrant, and the stranger, and the prisoner, and the outcast".
These are all Jesus' teachings. It's about time that public policy decisions reflect moral standards.
Although I don't believe Pete Buttigieg is the most electable Democrat in a binary choice for President, these very tenets of morality should be incorporated into the eventual nominee's platform.
These are all Jesus' teachings. It's about time that public policy decisions reflect moral standards.
Although I don't believe Pete Buttigieg is the most electable Democrat in a binary choice for President, these very tenets of morality should be incorporated into the eventual nominee's platform.
0
Posted on 11/8/19 at 8:53 am to Perfect Circle
Yep. Do you have anything that's also relevant?
Posted on 11/8/19 at 9:02 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Whether a person's personal preference is the same tomorrow as it is today is irrelevant to the notion that their personal preference is just that, a subjective preference.
How can it be irrelevant when the change in preference itself is what denotes subjectivity?
quote:
Subjectivity isn't a spectrum just like objectivity isn't.
It absolutely is. Because subjectivity is influenced by personal aspects (opinions formed by feelings, tastes, experiences), the degree to which those aspects influence behavior can vary as the drivers change.
Take someone's view on Catholicism, for instance. There is an objective source for the framework of belief. Unless someone believes everything the Catholic Church professes, they are being subjective in their faith.
Let's say Steve doesn't believe in contraception because of his Catholic faith. Steve eventually has 5 kids and all have severe physical and mental disabilities. The stress on himself and his wife (emotional as well as financial) in trying to handle such a demanding life can well influence his thoughts on contraception (and hers as well). He moves from objective to subjective, but to him it's only because of his specific instance and overall he still believes contraception should not be used.
As Steve goes through life he experiences other issues that add to his thoughts on allowances for contraception. Each new allowance is moving his subjectivity on the subject farther along until he no longer believes it's the Church's business.
That's a spectrum for subjectivity and it varies far more wildly and quickly when trying to look at a societal issue or discussion on an individual level.
Posted on 11/8/19 at 9:19 am to DisplacedBuckeye
Well hell, I put this in the wrong thread. Any mod want to move it over for me? Thanks.
Meanwhile in the once land of Clinton this happened yesterday:
The vote was 51-41. Eight decided not to show up. Dems on the politicking trail mostly I'd imagine.
LINK
BTW, what the hell is going on with GA. The only two Repbs. not voting were both from GA - Isakson and Perdue. I'm disappointed in my Dem man Manchin. He voted nay. There wasn't one crossover vote that I saw.
LINK
Meanwhile in the once land of Clinton this happened yesterday:
quote:
U.S. Senate confirms Rudofsky as federal judge in Eastern District of Arkansas
The vote was 51-41. Eight decided not to show up. Dems on the politicking trail mostly I'd imagine.
LINK
BTW, what the hell is going on with GA. The only two Repbs. not voting were both from GA - Isakson and Perdue. I'm disappointed in my Dem man Manchin. He voted nay. There wasn't one crossover vote that I saw.
LINK
This post was edited on 11/8/19 at 9:23 am
Posted on 11/8/19 at 9:27 am to goatmilker
quote:
It's very Darwinian to take, rob, kill and do everything one can to promote one's own genes over any others by any means necessary.
Survival of the fittest.
If no God no morals.
I think athiest want religion around to make the world safer and just easier for them to bitch about religion lol.
I am an atheist. I don't crap on religion because life is hard, believe what gives you comfort in life. Just don't ask non believers to believe what they cannot believe.
However, my post is not about atheism it's about what is absolutely false in the above statements.
Some Atheist are assholes most are not, I'll try not to be.
First, Darwin wasn't a prophet, sage, or messiah. If you don't like an Atheist saying Dr. Jesus, don't say Darwinian. No intelligent human has ever worshiped at the cult of Darwin. Darwin was a naturalist who by reason, observations and evidence turned idea of evolution, a hypothesis that scientists were pursuing before Darwin was ever born, by proposing that natural processes rather than an artificial process was responsible for species transmutation i.e. evolution.
Darwin wasn't on a crusade against god. He just illustrated that different lifeforms are not the work of god or aliens or any other artificial force. Darwin showed it happens in nature and he provide compelling evidence of how the process happens in nature. This is what we know as natural selection. Life evolves and species thrive because the life most "fit" to reproduce in the natural world leaves more copies of itself. NATURE SELECTS the "fitness" of an organism fitness to reproduce.
Robbing raping and killing have nothing to do with an organism's ability to reproduce. Bro bacteria don't work out at the gym to impress the shorties back where ever bacteria hook up. Yet, NATURE SELECTS the fitness of bacteria to reproduce. Survival of the fittest is a phrase people who don't understand biology use to explain some generalization that involves a human activity that is by it's very nature unnatural.
Darwin is one of the great contributors to the collection of human knowledge because his work met the standard required by science that settled a debated hypothesis and made it a theory. That theory radically expanded human understanding of the "Origins of Life."
So, if you can't accept that supernatural forces aren't responsible for the various lifeforms, at least site more than one book if your going to try to disprove a mountain of evidence or better yet look at the "freaking evidence." Faith in God is not built on willful ignorance.
If no God no morals? Morals exist therefore must god exist? I don't need to explain the fallacy.
Did all the people that existed for 10s of millennia before monotheism rob, rape and kill to survive in a world with no morals?... Rhetorical question, if you still insist that there is no morality without a god, we're too far apart.
Atheists want religion around to make the world a better place of Atheists? I'll tell you that being an atheist isn't all it's cracked up to be in a world of believers. In Louisiana you might as well be a satanist, at least satanists look like their having fun. Ever had defend what you believe by evidence to people who literally don't want to hear any evidence. Ever had an Atheist try to convert you in an afterlife pyramid scheme? I know many atheists and most really don't care what you believe we'd just like you to be decent people and let not believe what we can't believe.
Here is something you might not know about many atheists, at least atheists that are good at math. We know with absolute certainty we could be wrong. We also know if we are wrong an all knowing all powerful creator of the universe is not going to trick us into damnation by spreading a bunch of evidence that says every religion can't be right wrong. However, if such a trickster god does exist, he's a really committed prankster, have fun with that eternity.
However, here's what is either going to piss people off regardless of believing. If you combine everything that every human being that has ever existed has known, the collection of everything ever known is infinitesimally small compared everything we don't know as human beings. ATHEIST OR BELIEVER YOU MUST LOOK AT THE UNKNOWN AND KNOW THERE IS NO HUMAN ON THIS EARTH THAT CAN THINK WITHOUT FAITH.
Believer's are willfully ignorant to believe nature hasn't equipped humans with any morals need to continue as a species. Atheists are willfully ignorant to believe you go about your life relying on intelligence, reason, evidence, but not faith like those unintelligent believers. Understand your own absurdity. Be a decent human being. Live and let live.
Posted on 11/8/19 at 11:06 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
My big problem with Christians is that many of them want to be Christian just on Sundays
I can agree somewhat here - I am a Christian - mostly by birth - I think I would be equally at ease with having been born as Jewish, or Catholic - or some of the Asian religions of which I am woefully ignorant. I cannot believe that my intellect would ever allow me to have embraced any brand of Islam that tolerates jihadism in any form.
My 'religion' is an unshakeable belief that there is a God of mercy and morality which is centered on 'the greater good' of continuing advancement of human civilization rather than individual profit or pleasure.
What I see of today's culture is 'instant personal gratification' = to hell with anyone else
Posted on 11/8/19 at 12:19 pm to RobbBobb
quote:That's ridiculous. If a religion can't "pop" into existence then how is there ever anything to "pass down"?
Religions just didn't pop into existence from nowhere. They were passed down
quote:Multiple cradles of civilization emerged independently of one another. Mesopotamia is one but there's also the Mesoamerican and Andean that developed culture, farming, and domestication independently of any Near East influence.
And anthropologists have all agreed that the source of all things language, culture, farming, domestication of animals, metallurgy, etc all came from somewhere in Turkey. Guess what, so did all the worlds religions
quote:You're using these terms way too loosely. "Kurgans" were not a people but a group of similar cultures that orginated from the Pontic Steppe which spanned many regions other than just the Caucasus and are certainly not known as the "Caucasians".
Kurgans - founded in the Caucus mountains of Russia, Yeah that's right Buddha descended from the Caucasians, who went on to found a boatload of Christian religions.
quote:
So from Abraham, you can get to any religion by following his lineage
There's no evidence that an actual Abraham even existed, let alone anyone from which he's said to descend.
So, if all religion is from a single progenitor, which is highly unlikely considering the chronology of human migration patterns, language development, written records, and archaeology, it surely isn't anything resembling an Abrahamic one.
As an aside, the existence of a common "ancestor" does not preclude independent development of seperate branches.
Posted on 11/8/19 at 1:16 pm to WildManGoose
quote:
That's ridiculous. If a religion can't "pop" into existence then how is there ever anything to "pass down"?
Wow, how dumb are you?
Three of the worlds largest religions trace their origins in great detail to a guy you say never existed. And he wasn't a member of any of those religions. His religious upbringing was an offshoot of whatever practices his ancestors followed. And much like Buddha, he went searching for a different truth and was led to Judaism. The rest is history
Let us not even get into the WELL DOCUMENTED trail of Judaism, becoming Catholicism, becoming Protestantism, becoming Baptists, Greek Orthodoxia, Mormons, Pentecostals, Episcopalians, Methodists, 7th day Adventists, snake handlers, Presbyterians, etc. You cant look at Judaism and see anything remotely akin to a snake handling church, but we know exactly how that happened.
Same thing with Buddhism, Confucius, Hindi, Christianity, paganism, Norse theology, etc. All evolved from the first religion observed by men.
I'm just sorry your instructors were intellectually dishonest with you
Posted on 11/8/19 at 1:42 pm to WildManGoose
quote:
Multiple cradles of civilization emerged independently of one another. Mesopotamia is one but there's also the Mesoamerican and Andean that developed culture, farming, and domestication independently of any Near East influence.
uh, seriously?
Mesoamerica and Andeans didn't come across the land bridge after LEAVING the fertile crescent? You might want to reread your source documents, friend.
quote:
The earliest signs of a process leading to sedentary culture can be seen in the Levant to as early as 12,000 BC
quote:
the Beringia land bridge was covered by the sea about 11,000 years BC
That's a full 1,000 years for an established sedentary culture to cross in the Americas and begin your so-called independent civilizations.
Posted on 11/8/19 at 2:24 pm to League Champs
quote:
Mesoamerica and Andeans didn't come across the land bridge after LEAVING the fertile crescent? You might want to reread your source documents, friend.
They crossed in to the Americas as hunters/gatherers, friend.
quote:
That's a full 1,000 years for an established sedentary culture to cross in the Americas and begin your so-called independent civilizations.
You don't see the idiocy of that statement? An "established sedentary culture" by definition was NOT nomadic and would not have crossed into the Americas.
Otherwise, maybe you think agriculture was developed in the fertile crescent then brought to people that had left the area thousands to tens of thousands of years earlier?
Both of those are ridiculous. It's not even controversial to say that those cultures developed and domesticated plants and animals independently of one another.
Posted on 11/8/19 at 3:19 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
Three of the worlds largest religions trace their origins in great detail to a guy you say never existed. And he wasn't a member of any of those religions. His religious upbringing was an offshoot of whatever practices his ancestors followed. And much like Buddha, he went searching for a different truth and was led to Judaism. The rest is history
That's dogma and incorrect at that. Abraham was not led to Judaism. His chronology predates the creation of the Jewish people at Mount Sinai. He was a Noahide, until God promised his descendants would inherit Israel and he was the first Hebrew, but he was never a Jew.
quote:
Let us not even get into the WELL DOCUMENTED trail of Judaism, becoming Catholicism, becoming Protestantism, becoming Baptists, Greek Orthodoxia, Mormons, Pentecostals, Episcopalians, Methodists, 7th day Adventists, snake handlers, Presbyterians, etc.
It is well documented. Everyone knows those connections. Are you saying the branching of Judaism into Catholicism then the multitude of offshoot Christian denominations is analogous to the differences between Judaism and the Norse pantheon or Native American animistic beliefs?
quote:
You cant look at Judaism and see anything remotely akin to a snake handling church
Except that they worship the same God. That's a pretty big link.
quote:
All evolved from the first religion observed by men.
I get the feeling you want to tell me what this is, but you don't want to ruin your "credibility"
quote:lol
Wow, how dumb are you?
Posted on 11/8/19 at 5:17 pm to Azkiger
quote:I'm not telling God what he will do. He's told us what He will do.
Hold on a second there lump of clay, your not in the position to tell the potter what he is and isn't going to do.
quote:It's within God's moral purview to judge sin, even through destroying sinners. He would be unjust not to punish sin at all since He is so holy.
Besides you've already agreed when you said since God gave us life it's perfectly within his objective moral to end someone's life.
quote:God didn't command people to kill others very often. It was a special decree to accomplish a specific purpose. It also didn't mean that God's chosen people could kill whoever they wanted to for any reason as if they had special permission. God gave the people His law and set boundaries in regards to what they could and couldn't morally do. Murder wasn't something that people were (or are) allowed to do.
If you're still having a hard time imagining this just pretend you lived 3000 years ago, they were, according to your own belief system, living through exactly what I just described.
They couldn't even subjectively disagree.
Posted on 11/8/19 at 5:17 pm to ShortyRob
quote:Where have I not been internally consistent?
That's the problem with his whole argument in these threads. Forgetting what anybody else says the stuff he says isn't internally consistent with itself. He's basically built up his own personal framework and declared it God's
Posted on 11/8/19 at 5:22 pm to millerf43
quote:
Believer's are willfully ignorant to believe nature hasn't equipped humans with any morals need to continue as a species. Atheists are willfully ignorant to believe you go about your life relying on intelligence, reason, evidence, but not faith like those unintelligent believers.
I haven't seen any theists claim that nature can't equip humans with morals. Of course it can, but they would be utilitarian, not based on good/evil, and they would be completely subjective.
One good working definition of "faith" is acting with incomplete knowledge. And you're right; everybody does that.
Posted on 11/8/19 at 5:24 pm to Bard
quote:Not in this context. Subjectivity is denoted by the origin of the standard: does it come from individual humans or from something transcendent outside of humanity?
How can it be irrelevant when the change in preference itself is what denotes subjectivity?
quote:Perhaps I haven't communicated myself well seeing that you and others are having such a hard time with this. I'll try again:
It absolutely is. Because subjectivity is influenced by personal aspects (opinions formed by feelings, tastes, experiences), the degree to which those aspects influence behavior can vary as the drivers change.
Take someone's view on Catholicism, for instance. There is an objective source for the framework of belief. Unless someone believes everything the Catholic Church professes, they are being subjective in their faith.
Let's say Steve doesn't believe in contraception because of his Catholic faith. Steve eventually has 5 kids and all have severe physical and mental disabilities. The stress on himself and his wife (emotional as well as financial) in trying to handle such a demanding life can well influence his thoughts on contraception (and hers as well). He moves from objective to subjective, but to him it's only because of his specific instance and overall he still believes contraception should not be used.
As Steve goes through life he experiences other issues that add to his thoughts on allowances for contraception. Each new allowance is moving his subjectivity on the subject farther along until he no longer believes it's the Church's business.
That's a spectrum for subjectivity and it varies far more wildly and quickly when trying to look at a societal issue or discussion on an individual level.
When I speak of moral objectivity, I'm not talking about how people experience morality. I'm talking about how people receive morality. Moral objectivity is referencing a moral standard that transcends the individual human mind and exists outside of humanity.
Moral subjectivity is also not simply how we experience morality but how morality comes from within ourselves. It's the origin that matters. If morality is subjective and thus originates within our own minds, then it cannot be objective and therefore there cannot be one, single standard that can be rationally used to compare to others. It's why I used the analogy of ice cream flavors. We can argue about which ones we, individually, like better than others, but we have no point of reference to judge others' favorite flavors as being objectively wrong. Morality is the same way if it's subjective as there is no transcendent point of reference to compare against.
In this sense, morality is on a spectrum. There is either objective right and wrong (moral objectivity), or an infinite number of moral standards that are neither better or worse than any other (moral subjectivity).
Posted on 11/8/19 at 5:25 pm to FooManChoo
quote:In every thread you've ever discussed this.
Where have I not been internally consistent?
Look. If you think I'm gonna engage in watching you run in circles again for 10 pages, you're out of your delusional fricking mind.
Posted on 11/8/19 at 5:30 pm to ShortyRob
quote:OK... example? I don't mean an example of a thread or a post. I want an example of an actual argument or belief that has not been internally consistent with other arguments or beliefs that I hold.
In every thread you've ever discussed this.
quote:You don't have to; you're free to engage or disengage as you please. I'm just asking for an example of the inconsistency that's been leveled against me.
Look. If you think I'm gonna engage in watching you run in circles again for 10 pages, you're out of your delusional fricking mind.
This post was edited on 11/8/19 at 5:30 pm
Posted on 11/8/19 at 5:34 pm to FooManChoo
quote:They've been pointed out before. By multiple people
You don't have to; you're free to engage or disengage as you please. I'm just asking for an example of the inconsistency that's been leveled against me.
You refuse to acknowledge them.
Posted on 11/8/19 at 5:38 pm to ShortyRob
quote:I'm sorry, and I might just be dense here, but I don't recall anywhere I've been specifically told that I'm not being consistent, and I'm pretty sure I've been consistent with addressing everyone's statements and/or overall themes directed toward me. It's one reason why my posts are so long.
They've been pointed out before. By multiple people
You refuse to acknowledge them.
Could you please be gracious to me and provide me an example where I've been internally inconsistent and where I haven't addressed or acknowledged it? I promise I'll address it.
Page 17 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News