Advertisement

Find answers, ask questions, and connect with our community around the world.

  • An Atheist’s Utopia

    Posted by Unknown Member on May 15, 2008 at 4:17 am

    Congratulations!  You have just been elected President of the United States at a time when all three branches of government are dominated by fellow atheists/Darwinists due to a tragic meteor shower that killed all the godbelievers.  It is now your responsibility and privilege to organize a society in which all laws and ordinances are based on scientific principle alone.  What will your society look like?  What will you do with those individuals who deplete your society of resources and give nothing of scientifically-proven worth in return?  Will your society have laws?  If so, how do you justify them without relying on the scientifically laughable notion of Freedom of Will?

    (Warning: going off on anti-religious rants will do nothing but make you look like an incompetent fool, since all godbelievers were killed by the meteor shower.)

    btomba_77 replied 1 year, 1 month ago 20 Members · 285 Replies
  • 285 Replies
  • kayla.meyer_144

    Member
    May 15, 2008 at 4:37 am

    Come on, jack, give it up. Society would look largely like it does now. Except people wouldn’t be killed or persecuted for being non-believers, infidels or apostates. Remember the Constitution was not drawn up by clergymen to reflect the stories in the Christian Bible.

    You have this internal mythology that only God-fearing men could possibly be moral. Go to the East where their religion and society is not based on the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God YWH. Somehow they’ve been able to maintain a moral society for millennia. That feat would be impossible if you biased assumptions were correct.

    God does NOT create and dictate morality – people do. As much as you’d like to soothe your ego about the superiority of Believers over “Un-Believers of your narrow view” it’s just not a fact, it’s only ego.

    & what is this thing you have about “Freedom of Will?”

    • Unknown Member

      Deleted User
      May 15, 2008 at 4:45 am

      Number of posts that it took Frumious to revert to anti-religious rants to defend his utopia: 1.

      He has now been deemed an incompetent fool by the citizens of the United States and ousted from office.

      • kayla.meyer_144

        Member
        May 15, 2008 at 4:46 am

        ORIGINAL: jackbauer

        Number of posts that it took Frumious to revert to anti-religious rants to defend his utopia: 1.

        He has now been deemed an incompetent fool by the citizens of the United States and ousted from office.

        It takes the bigger fool to recognize others.

        • Unknown Member

          Deleted User
          May 15, 2008 at 5:08 am

          Wow

      • Unknown Member

        Deleted User
        May 15, 2008 at 11:41 am

        Oh.. and a few of jack bauer’s offerings on tweb.. perhaps this is a different one.. no way to know but I dunno.. the wording seems to be similar
         
        [link=http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/archive/index.php/t-111014.html]http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/archive/index.php/t-111014.html[/link]

    • Unknown Member

      Deleted User
      May 15, 2008 at 5:08 am

      they have kept a “moral” society in the east, but it is one based on a religion, even if it is not Chrisitian, and therefore an “inspired” set of values. that said, women are still second class citizens and not allowed the same opportunities as men.  people are killed for their beliefs everyday, but in this case it is because of a fight against oppression or whatever. so you see, how can men be the dictator of morality when we have no morals really? we will kill and wage war no matter what culture, even the untouched tribes in the australian outback do it. so with this know, what do you do in a “scientific society” based on survival of the fittest? the weaker kids on the play ground would never survive to become scholars or doctors, they would be killed off and the new morality would be that only the strong and beautiful survive. this would be a devolution in modern terms of progression would it not?

      • Unknown Member

        Deleted User
        May 15, 2008 at 5:22 am

        Sonny, I’m sorry but you were killed in the meteor shower.  There will only be scientific talk permitted on this thread.

        • Unknown Member

          Deleted User
          May 15, 2008 at 7:19 am

          Interesting Jack.. i noticed you plying your evil religionist trade over on tweb… trying to get some street cred before you brought it here, eh?
           
          I find it interesting your standard of morality here.. and it was questioned even in the ancient greek society when Socrates asked.. and I paraphrase.. of course..  “is it loved by the gods because it is moral.. or is it moral because it is loved by the gods?”.. 
           
          The question then comes down to the god you worship being a standard of morality and we can do that by looking in what you consider to be your main ‘book of spells”.. oh.. sorry.. your holy book.. I believe  you like the Bible if I am correct.
           
          We can look back and see the morals of your moral standard and then accept them as what you as a follower of your god believes should be moral. Since your god believes the killing of innocent babies is moral.. then perhaps so should you. After all.. we have ALL fallen short of god and All deserve death and eternal torment..is that not so? As such since all the little babies haven’t proclaimed Jesus as their lord and savior.. they then deserve hell and that eternal suffering that will be brought upon them by your god.. and this is just and moral .. because whatever god does is moral.
           
          David once peed off god as well and as a punishment for such, god gave his wives to david’s neighbors to rape in the street, puposely so all the people of the town could know david’s wives were being raped for what david has done. The wives of david ..of course.. had done nothing to deserve such treatment but since all god does is moral.. then this is all well and good in Jack’s eyes. Since jack’s moral standard is whatever his god desires it to be.
           
          This would say to me than that morality follows jack’s god’s desires.. since all god does is moral.. if someday god decides it is moral to kill all the firstborn sons of some civilization (re: egypt) then it is moral and just and righteous in Jacks eyes that all these babies be killed and the sooner the better.
           
          But..in answer to your question.. I would suggest you wouldn’t see a lot of change in the way things are run.. perhaps there would have been no slavery since that was justified using the bible.. and there would be more love and togetherness since gay marriage would be allowed instead of anyone having the right or any say what other consenting adults do. Perhaps a lot of they hypocracy we have now wouldn’t be existing.. you would be able to buy you liquor on Sunday in a lot of places.. people would be treated more like adults than children who must be admonished by pious jerks who believe they have a right to judge anyone else..
           
          as for the “rights” and what a society would look like the Humanists have already set up the basic outline for that.. Here is a copy of their “Bill of Rights”.. you will find it unlike the religionist one where the people have the respect.. no matter who they are.. not the godbeing.
           
          [link=http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html]http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html[/link]
           
          Not that I whole heartedly agree with all of them they do strive to make things fair for ALL .. not just those who believes in the god you do.

          • Unknown Member

            Deleted User
            May 15, 2008 at 8:06 am

            ORIGINAL: Hero of Reason

            Interesting Jack.. i noticed you plying your evil religionist trade over on tweb… trying to get some street cred before you brought it here, eh?

            Not quite sure what you meant by that.

            ORIGINAL: Hero of Reason

            I find it interesting your standard of morality here.. and it was questioned even in the ancient greek society when Socrates asked.. and I paraphrase.. of course..  “is it loved by the gods because it is moral.. or is it moral because it is loved by the gods?”.. 

            The question then comes down to the god you worship being a standard of morality and we can do that by looking in what you consider to be your main ‘book of spells”.. oh.. sorry.. your holy book.. I believe  you like the Bible if I am correct.

            We can look back and see the morals of your moral standard and then accept them as what you as a follower of your god believes should be moral. Since your god believes the killing of innocent babies is moral.. then perhaps so should you. After all.. we have ALL fallen short of god and All deserve death and eternal torment..is that not so? As such since all the little babies haven’t proclaimed Jesus as their lord and savior.. they then deserve hell and that eternal suffering that will be brought upon them by your god.. and this is just and moral .. because whatever god does is moral.

            David once peed off god as well and as a punishment for such, god gave his wives to david’s neighbors to rape in the street, puposely so all the people of the town could know david’s wives were being raped for what david has done. The wives of david ..of course.. had done nothing to deserve such treatment but since all god does is moral.. then this is all well and good in Jack’s eyes. Since jack’s moral standard is whatever his god desires it to be.

            This would say to me than that morality follows jack’s god’s desires.. since all god does is moral.. if someday god decides it is moral to kill all the firstborn sons of some civilization (re: egypt) then it is moral and just and righteous in Jacks eyes that all these babies be killed and the sooner the better.

            Number of posts it took Hero of Reason to revert to anti-religious rants to defend his utopia: 1

            The citizens of the United States are forgiving at this time, however, because HOR did attempt to address their concerns, so they will hold off on labeling him an “incompetent fool” for the time being.

            ORIGINAL: Hero of Reason

            But..in answer to your question.. I would suggest you wouldn’t see a lot of change in the way things are run.. perhaps there would have been no slavery since that was justified using the bible.. and there would be more love and togetherness since gay marriage would be allowed instead of anyone having the right or any say what other consenting adults do. Perhaps a lot of they hypocracy we have now wouldn’t be existing.. you would be able to buy you liquor on Sunday in a lot of places.. people would be treated more like adults than children who must be admonished by pious jerks who believe they have a right to judge anyone else..

            as for the “rights” and what a society would look like the Humanists have already set up the basic outline for that.. Here is a copy of their “Bill of Rights”.. you will find it unlike the religionist one where the people have the respect.. no matter who they are.. not the godbeing.

            [link=http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html]http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html[/link]

            Not that I whole heartedly agree with all of them they do strive to make things fair for ALL .. not just those who believes in the god you do.

            The members of Congress and the Supreme Court find your reasoning entirely unconvincing.  The Humanists document is based entirely on unscientific claims, beginning with the very first line:

            “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, …”

            What inherent dignity is there in members of the human family?  Why do they have more dignity than any other animal?  More importantly, why does any life form have “dignity” when it can be clearly demonstrated that these organisms are nothing more than protons, electrons, and neutrons?

        • Unknown Member

          Deleted User
          May 15, 2008 at 7:28 am

          Here goes—nothing really changes other than getting rid of any reference to god or spirituality in all the laws of the land since we know God doesn’t exist.  Freedom of religion is a nonsequitor under your conditions so we delete it.  
           
          Sonny is right religion is part of eastern philosophy and part of Indian, Japanese and Chinese concepts of right and wrong, Giri, Joss or Karma all relate to Buddhist tenets and concepts as well as Shintoism and its reverence for nature, ancestors, and divine Kami.  They were however free of the ridiculous western notions of puritanism, and original sin!  As such religion was less restrictive and their concepts of right and wrong were vastly different then our own.   Only recently have laws become more westernized and oriented to our own sense of right and wrong–likely due to our influence and spread of our culture.
           
           

          • kayla.meyer_144

            Member
            May 15, 2008 at 7:51 am

            ORIGINAL: OutpatientRadRules

            Sonny is right religion is part of eastern philosophy and part of Indian, Japanese and Chinese concepts of right and wrong, Giri, Joss or Karma all relate to Buddhist tenets and concepts as well as Shintoism and its reverence for nature, ancestors, and divine Kami. They were however free of the ridiculous western notions of puritanism, and original sin! As such religion was less restrictive and their concepts of right and wrong were vastly different then our own. Only recently have laws become more westernized and oriented to our own sense of right and wrong–likely due to our influence and spread of our culture.

            That’s a fudge. The problem as set by jack is “Godbelievers” and is silent on other religions so Eastern philosophy/religion is not excluded, Tao, Buddhism, Hinduism (has Gods, as in plural so is not a God-believer is singular, monotheism which is Judeo-Christian-Islam God). A society based on “scientific principles” sounds like a scientific fiction story – maybe L. Ron Hubbard & Dianetics can help.

          • Unknown Member

            Deleted User
            May 15, 2008 at 8:18 am

            ORIGINAL: OutpatientRadRules

            Here goes—nothing really changes other than getting rid of any reference to god or spirituality in all the laws of the land since we know God doesn’t exist.  Freedom of religion is a nonsequitor under your conditions so we delete it.  

            Congratulations to ORR, the first to withstand the temptation to revert to anti-religious rants!!

            So, not much changes.  The first question that the legislators have for you is this: How can we claim that rape is a crime based on our scientific theories?

            • Unknown Member

              Deleted User
              May 15, 2008 at 8:45 am

              Richard Dawkins for Pres=utopia…

              • Unknown Member

                Deleted User
                May 15, 2008 at 8:56 am

                Rape is a crime against an individuals right to chose whom they have sex with—how is this a religious issue…..One commits violence upon another individual a form of battery–this isn’t a religious crime but one which we as an atheistic society deem reprehensible bsaed on damage to a member of society rather than some arbitray concept of sin or “morality”……..dude come on better arguments are out there then that! 

                • kayla.meyer_144

                  Member
                  May 15, 2008 at 9:03 am

                  ORIGINAL: OutpatientRadRules

                  Rape is a crime against an individuals right to chose whom they have sex with—how is this a religious issue…..One commits violence upon another individual a form of battery–this isn’t a religious crime but one which we as an atheistic society deem reprehensible bsaed on damage to a member of society rather than some arbitray concept of sin or “morality”……..dude come on better arguments are out there then that!

                  Here it comes…what’s your “scientific” theory for that?

                  ORR, you’re missing his secret rules. His rule already allows rape because without God to say NO!, it’s allowed UNLESS! and only unless, you can show scientific theory that disproves the given that anyone can do anything because there is no God to say NO!, it’s allowed UNLESS! and only unless, you can show scientific theory that disproves the given that anyone can do anything because there is no God to say NO!, it’s allowed UNLESS! and only unless, you can show scientific theory that disproves the given that anyone can do anything because there is no God to say NO!, it’s allowed UNLESS! and only unless, you can show scientific theory that disproves the given that anyone can do anything because there is no God to say NO!, it’s allowed UNLESS! and only unless, you can show scientific theory that disproves the given that anyone can do anything because there is no God to say NO!, it’s allowed UNLESS! and only unless, you can show scientific theory that disproves the given that anyone can do anything because there is no God to say NO!,

                  Circular argument in a box

                  • Unknown Member

                    Deleted User
                    May 15, 2008 at 9:45 am

                    well, if you believe in abiogenesis and macroevolution, the “don’t rape” goes against it philosophically–spead your seed man!  More kids the better!  Her rights to control only exist if she’s the fittest, or if her man is fitter than you.  Is it moral?  Well, morals are just relative and not absolute, which just developed because somehow they were of benefit back when we lived as little herds.  If you’re going to claim that macroevolution is “scientifically proven” you can’t get away from this philosophy, unless you’re going to claim that something “supernatual” occured, or that science doesn’t prove macroevolution.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      May 15, 2008 at 9:54 am

                      Rape is non evolutionary in that it provides no inherent advantage in the propagation of the species–in fact it places humans at risk of perpetuating the DNA of undesirable individuals we therefore will execute all rapists making our DNA lines more “pure”.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      May 15, 2008 at 9:57 am

                      Frumious–the argument I made first re rape was based on the science of sociology—you disagree there are social reasons not to allow rape?  You disagree this is not proveable or related to theories already demonstrated in sociology or anthropology class? 

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      May 15, 2008 at 10:03 am

                      ORIGINAL: OutpatientRadRules

                      Frumious–the argument I made first re rape was based on the science of sociology—you disagree there are social reasons not to allow rape? You disagree this is not proveable or related to theories already demonstrated in sociology or anthropology class?

                      I completely agree with you. I don’t need a god to tell me what’s right or wrong. But my hunch is that you’ll argue till you’re blue in the face & jack will always rule that you lose, according to his inscrutable rules. Gwozz will go along because it suits his bias too.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      May 15, 2008 at 11:00 am

                      ORR–I’ve got no problem with capital punishment for rapists.  I say we lobby together for it.  Lets include murderers and pedophiles as well…  What say ye?

                • Unknown Member

                  Deleted User
                  May 15, 2008 at 12:20 pm

                  ORIGINAL: OutpatientRadRules

                  Rape is a crime against an individuals right to chose whom they have sex with—how is this a religious issue…..One commits violence upon another individual a form of battery–this isn’t a religious crime but one which we as an atheistic society deem reprehensible bsaed on damage to a member of society rather than some arbitray concept of sin or “morality”……..dude come on better arguments are out there then that! 

                  ORIGINAL: OutpatientRadRules

                  Rape is non evolutionary in that it provides no inherent advantage in the propagation of the species–in fact it places humans at risk of perpetuating the DNA of undesirable individuals we therefore will execute all rapists making our DNA lines more “pure”.

                  As a member of the hypothetical congress, I reject the notion of a right to remain sexually inactive, nor am I concerned about battery as long as the battered individual’s genetic material is not compromised.  I do, however, recognize the danger of  the strong overpowering the intelligent and promoting their genes more effectively, and intelligence in our society is much more evolutionarily advantageous than individual strength.  I thereby propose a bill that will require the sterilization of all those whom society deems “unfit”, and will require reproduction of those who are fit.

                  • Unknown Member

                    Deleted User
                    May 15, 2008 at 8:33 pm

                    sterilized if you cannot either A–bench press 300, or B–have an IQ higher than Marilyn monroe. (we’re talking males sterilization only though…I hope.)

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      May 15, 2008 at 8:49 pm

                      ORIGINAL: Gwozz

                      sterilized if you cannot either A–bench press 300, or B–have an IQ higher than Marilyn monroe. (we’re talking males sterilization only though…I hope.)

                      Crap.  Does that mean I have to castrate myself now?  Just kidding, I can easily bench press 300 lbs…

                      I was actually refering to members of both genders in my “bill”.  Although women are unable to commit rape (I think?), they are certainly able to pass on undesirable genes and should therefore be sterilized if deemed unfit.

                      But now that we have all these sterilized, unfit individuals, what do we do with them?  Surely it would not be scientifically reasonable to allow them to live, and thus consume valuable resources, produce carbon emissions, etc., unless they are able to somehow benefit society in some other evolutionarily advantageous manner.  I therefore amend my original bill to require not only the sterilization of the unfit, but their immediate slaughter as well, unless they can prove to aid in the progression of our society, intelectually or physically. 

                      Does anyone oppose this amendment?

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      May 15, 2008 at 9:05 pm

                      I totally disagree.  They should be used for scientific experiments.  forget the mouse model.  We go straight to the castrated.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      May 15, 2008 at 9:09 pm

                      ORIGINAL: Gwozz

                      I totally disagree.  They should be used for scientific experiments.  forget the mouse model.  We go straight to the castrated.

                      … in which case they would be useful to society.  See?  No need to disagree.

                    • 861984

                      Member
                      May 25, 2008 at 2:18 pm

                      Back to the original theme – what if one of these surviving non believers stumbles onto a New Testiment in the motel or at a library and converts to Christianity for some reason.  What happens then?  TK

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      May 26, 2008 at 4:38 am

                      ORIGINAL: thomas klauber

                      Back to the original theme – what if one of these surviving non believers stumbles onto a New Testiment in the motel or at a library and converts to Christianity for some reason.  What happens then?  TK

                       
                      Why would a non believer “convert” to chistianity after reading the new testament? Would you switch to Scientology after reading L.Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics?  These types of religious manicalisms takes years of pounding by the cult members to take hold in a normally functioning mind. 

                    • btomba_77

                      Member
                      August 1, 2013 at 5:56 am

                      Intersting piece I came across this morning.   Looking at how the politicizing of religion and the increasing number of secularists can have possile downstream effects.
                       
                      [link=http://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/08/our-challenges]http://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/08/our-challenges[/link]
                       

                      When First Things was founded, Richard John Neuhaus could presume a broad range of religiously engaged people who had diverse political commitments.  We saw ourselves speaking on behalf of the majority and against a narrow secular elite.
                      This is no longer true.
                       
                       Over the last twenty years, the percentage of Americans declaring themselves religiously unaffiliated (the Nones) has grown dramatically, now having reached 20 percent. Moreover, this group has become politically powerful and is now a large and favored constituency in the Democratic party. The Obama campaign calculated that it could energize this base of support (remember the war on women) without damaging its electoral chances. For the first time in American politics, a winning party took a tacitly anti-religious stance.
                       
                      The consequences?
                       
                      First, religiosity now strongly correlates with partisan loyalty. Nones are overwhelmingly Democrat. Regular churchgoers, especially but not exclusively Evangelicals, trend ­Republican. This politicizes religion.
                       
                      Second, religious people are becoming more and more dependent on the Republican party to protect their interests (religious liberty, for example). We could easily become a taken-for-granted base largely irrelevant to the partys larger policy debate, as African-Americans often are in the Democratic party.
                       
                      Third, religion, especially orthodox Christianity, may end up implicated in the inevitable failures and corruptions of the Republican party. We may be in danger of recapitulating in some ways the disastrous alliances of the Catholic Church with the European right in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
                       

                       
                       

                    • ka.amirzadeh

                      Member
                      February 4, 2016 at 8:59 pm

                      Ok….Huggy will bite. Why such deep discussion and possibly undeclared angst over something in which you claim to not exist?

                    • btomba_77

                      Member
                      February 5, 2016 at 4:42 am

                      Mostly because there is a strong stigma against non-belief in the US (and globally).   
                       
                      It would be better for society if atheism/secularism was more acceptable, if fewer people were bound to the arbitrary morality of various religious and instead focused simply on the fundamental of humanism.
                       
                      The world would be more peaceful and more free.
                       
                       

                      So I talk about it.   
                       
                      Like many groups that come out of the shadows, one of the early important steps is to have high profile members of society openly express their membership in the group.  In American politics professing overt religiosity is a virtual necessity.  It is good to see Sanders buck that trend.     It can help to give others who share that humanistic philosophy to come out as well.
                       
                       

                    • kaldridgewv2211

                      Member
                      February 5, 2016 at 7:22 am

                      I don’t think it’s that big of deal.  You can be whatever yo want.
                       
                       
                      Interesting news though about da Pope.  Maybe they can patch up the relationship.
                       
                      [link=http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/europe/pope-francis-patriarch-kyril-meeting/]http://www.cnn.com/2016/0…triarch-kyril-meeting/[/link]

                  • Unknown Member

                    Deleted User
                    May 16, 2008 at 6:55 am

                    ORIGINAL: jackbauer

                    ORIGINAL: OutpatientRadRules

                    Rape is a crime against an individuals right to chose whom they have sex with—how is this a religious issue…..One commits violence upon another individual a form of battery–this isn’t a religious crime but one which we as an atheistic society deem reprehensible bsaed on damage to a member of society rather than some arbitray concept of sin or “morality”……..dude come on better arguments are out there then that! 

                    ORIGINAL: OutpatientRadRules

                    Rape is non evolutionary in that it provides no inherent advantage in the propagation of the species–in fact it places humans at risk of perpetuating the DNA of undesirable individuals we therefore will execute all rapists making our DNA lines more “pure”.

                    As a member of the hypothetical congress, I reject the notion of a right to remain sexually inactive, nor am I concerned about battery as long as the battered individual’s genetic material is not compromised.  I do, however, recognize the danger of  the strong overpowering the intelligent and promoting their genes more effectively, and intelligence in our society is much more evolutionarily advantageous than individual strength.  I thereby propose a bill that will require the sterilization of all those whom society deems “unfit”, and will require reproduction of those who are fit.

                     
                    Wonderful since god thought it fit to kill all the firstborn males..  this does sit well within your moral standard

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      May 16, 2008 at 7:11 am

                      ORIGINAL: jackbauer

                      ORIGINAL: Hero of Reason

                      I find it interesting your standard of morality here.. and it was questioned even in the ancient greek society when Socrates asked.. and I paraphrase.. of course..  “is it loved by the gods because it is moral.. or is it moral because it is loved by the gods?”.. 

                      The question then comes down to the god you worship being a standard of morality and we can do that by looking in what you consider to be your main ‘book of spells”.. oh.. sorry.. your holy book.. I believe  you like the Bible if I am correct.

                      We can look back and see the morals of your moral standard and then accept them as what you as a follower of your god believes should be moral. Since your god believes the killing of innocent babies is moral.. then perhaps so should you. After all.. we have ALL fallen short of god and All deserve death and eternal torment..is that not so? As such since all the little babies haven’t proclaimed Jesus as their lord and savior.. they then deserve hell and that eternal suffering that will be brought upon them by your god.. and this is just and moral .. because whatever god does is moral.

                      David once peed off god as well and as a punishment for such, god gave his wives to david’s neighbors to rape in the street, puposely so all the people of the town could know david’s wives were being raped for what david has done. The wives of david ..of course.. had done nothing to deserve such treatment but since all god does is moral.. then this is all well and good in Jack’s eyes. Since jack’s moral standard is whatever his god desires it to be.

                      This would say to me than that morality follows jack’s god’s desires.. since all god does is moral.. if someday god decides it is moral to kill all the firstborn sons of some civilization (re: egypt) then it is moral and just and righteous in Jacks eyes that all these babies be killed and the sooner the better.

                      Number of posts it took Hero of Reason to revert to anti-religious rants to defend his utopia: 1

                      The citizens of the United States are forgiving at this time, however, because HOR did attempt to address their concerns, so they will hold off on labeling him an “incompetent fool” for the time being.

                      ORIGINAL: Hero of Reason

                      Wonderful since god thought it fit to kill all the firstborn males..  this does sit well within your moral standard

                      The citizens tried to be understanding the first time, but now it’s official.  You have been labeled an “incompetent fool” for your inability to defend a science-based society and your continued anti-religious rants in a nation with no religion. Please join Frumious in the peanut gallery.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      May 16, 2008 at 7:45 am

                      I reserve my right to sit proudly by their side—-the peanut gallery is where its at.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      May 16, 2008 at 7:52 am

                      ORIGINAL: OutpatientRadRules

                      I reserve my right to sit proudly by their side—-the peanut gallery is where its at.

                      Denied.  You’ll have to go on an anti-religious tirade first.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      May 16, 2008 at 8:04 am

                      Wonderful.. Frumious has the best chicks and booze..
                       
                      However.. I already have given you the society based on secular rules..  dignity does not come from any god that I know of.. for there is NO dignity of a being of it’s only resaon for existence is the servitude the christian god expects according to the christians. What dignity is there to prostrate yourself on the ground begging forgiveness for sins you didn’t even commit… Isn’t it the entire ideal of christianity that none are righteous and you start out fallen short.
                       
                      You make claims of rules and rights and wrongs and dignity.. but you have none based on godthought.. Dignity comes from what your peers give to you.. not any magic being.
                       
                      So, jack.. you ignored my posting of you and tweb..is that you or what?

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      May 16, 2008 at 8:12 am

                      I reject the notion of “original guilt.”  It makes no sense that you’re guilty for something that you didn’t do.  My church says: “we believe that man will be judged for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.”  Original guilt makes no sense if God really is just.  Babies go to hell if they’re not sprinkled?  Dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      May 16, 2008 at 8:14 am

                      Even dumber is believing the whole concept of guilt and subsequent judgement after death.  God ain’t going to judge us…..

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      May 16, 2008 at 8:26 am

                      Keep telling yourself that to justify your actions of which you felt guilty.  Good luck in the afterlife pal.  You’re wrong, you’ll be held accountable, and you’re sure going to wish you didn’t reject God here and now…

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      May 16, 2008 at 8:32 am

                      ORDER IN THE COURT!!!

                      How is it that a group of relatively intelligent people cannot discuss scientific theory without digressing to religion-bashing, even when a meteor shower has preemptively eliminated the need for that discussion?

                      ORR, that’s it for you.  To the peanut gallery you go!

                      Gwozz, stop trying to wriggle free of the meteorite sitting on your chest.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      May 19, 2008 at 8:39 am

                      ORIGINAL: Hero of Reason

                      So, jack.. you ignored my posting of you and tweb..is that you or what?

                      I’m affraid it is not.  Sorry to disappoint.

  • kayla.meyer_144

    Member
    May 15, 2008 at 8:13 am

    ORIGINAL: jackbauer

    The members of Congress and the Supreme Court find your reasoning entirely unconvincing. The Humanists document is based entirely on unscientific claims, beginning with the very first line:

    “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, …”

    What inherent dignity is there in members of the human family? Why do they have more dignity than any other animal? More importantly, why does any life form have “dignity” when it can be clearly demonstrated that these organisms are nothing more than protons, electrons, and neutrons?

    Nice rigged rules – you always win by default since you make the rules and judge the discussion.

    Looks like you do know Anton Chigurh after all.

  • Unknown Member

    Deleted User
    May 15, 2008 at 11:08 am

    As long as you don’t bring religion  or god into it.

    • Unknown Member

      Deleted User
      May 15, 2008 at 11:09 am

      ok…lol….as long as you have irrefutable scientific proof they did it–we don’t want to execute someone if they didn’t do it—-that would be a sin………

      • Unknown Member

        Deleted User
        May 15, 2008 at 11:19 am

        ORIGINAL: OutpatientRadRules

        ok…lol….as long as you have irrefutable scientific proof they did it–we don’t want to execute someone if they didn’t do it—-that would be a sin………

        well, lets just set alpha at .05.

      • Unknown Member

        Deleted User
        May 15, 2008 at 11:21 am

        ORR you could not be more wrong. rape is the ultimate way to propigate the stronger of the species. if i see you out with your wife/girlfriend and want some, i will just beat you to death and take it. my babies will be stronger than your babies. i will do that to all women until i run into a mate that can beat me, then his babies will be stronger. either way, the weaker is sytematically eliminated. we should not kill rapists, we should kill the weaklings that cannot keep their women from being taken, that will speed up the weeding out of the weaker genes won’t it?

        • Unknown Member

          Deleted User
          May 15, 2008 at 11:29 am

          Wrong by mixing your obviously inferior and weak DNA with my wifes you’ll simply perpetuate neanderthal man….by choosing to mate with me my wife maintains precious intellectual ability and ultimately a better gene line……and BTW a black belt 5th dan says I can kick your patootie between here and the hole you crawled out of in a heartbeat.  Weak?  I laugh……..BTW my wife prefers bigger arguments if you know what I mean.

          • Unknown Member

            Deleted User
            May 15, 2008 at 11:50 am

            ORR…
             
            now we are on my kind of topic. 5th degree in ballet you say? funny. i will give you the benefit of the doubt because you have never seen me, but lets just say you wife would love to know what a big argument is really like, not those little skirmishes she gets with you!!  neanderthal no doubt, come from a gene pool of hulks. you know this dude, women marry the man with money but while he is out earning it nail the pool boy!  i am the pool man with money!!!
             
            enough of that, you know i am only kidding.  hey, maybe we can get our wives together and all talk bout it as a foursome? mine is HOT!!! and with me way before i had money.
             
            now, the point stands that monkeys/great apes have been around as long or longer than us depending on the species and still have order based on the alpha male, like me. big boy gets all the booty right? the “smart” variations of the species would never get the chance to prove it cause they would never get laid or worse would be killed off.  i know you will say homo sapiens beat out neanderthal, but in direct conflict is unpoven and the most likely scenario is they lost out to inability to adapt to environment right? give me a weapon other than a gun all day long and big as i am i would lose to a gorilla bare handed any day.

        • Unknown Member

          Deleted User
          May 15, 2008 at 11:39 am

          Interesting that you believe that without a god there are no rules or laws governing how society behaves. We do have prisons which if the world was god-controlled I would believe there would be no need for..since god already knows the future god is aware of all future crimes and would weed out those liable to commit such acts.
           
          When man realized the benefits of living in groups these “rules” came about in the attempt to keep the group dynamic alive with as little stress as possible. This is seen today in all sorts of animal groups.. for instance the wolf.. The only ones who mate are the alphas.. no one else gets to mate. Why would you think humans couldn’t figure out that there are rules to living in groups if the lowly animals have?
           
          I do not believe there to be objective morals in any society at all.. each culture and society makes it’s own morality.  I would love for anyone to give me something they consider immoral that has never been considered moral in some society in the past

          • Unknown Member

            Deleted User
            May 15, 2008 at 11:41 am

            ur making my head hurt!

          • Unknown Member

            Deleted User
            May 15, 2008 at 11:53 am

            heroin….
             
             
            seriously, do you talk just to hear yourself? everyone trying to have a good time and you delve off into i’m smarter than you are topics. only you believe that so please. do you know anyone smarter than you?  i’m sure none of us do either, there someone said it. now lighten up guy, these are pointless topics anyway that don’t matter in our worlds. you should have been a cardiologist so you could treat your own impending coronary.

  • kayla.meyer_144

    Member
    May 15, 2008 at 11:55 am

    ORIGINAL: sonny

    ORR…

    now we are on my kind of topic. 5th degree in ballet you say? funny. i will give you the benefit of the doubt because you have never seen me, but lets just say you wife would love to know what a big argument is really like, not those little skirmishes she gets with you!! neanderthal no doubt, come from a gene pool of hulks. you know this dude, women marry the man with money but while he is out earning it nail the pool boy! i am the pool man with money!!!

    enough of that, you know i am only kidding. hey, maybe we can get our wives together and all talk bout it as a foursome? mine is HOT!!! and with me way before i had money.

    now, the point stands that monkeys/great apes have been around as long or longer than us depending on the species and still have order based on the alpha male, like me. big boy gets all the booty right? the “smart” variations of the species would never get the chance to prove it cause they would never get laid or worse would be killed off. i know you will say homo sapiens beat out neanderthal, but in direct conflict is unpoven and the most likely scenario is they lost out to inability to adapt to environment right? give me a weapon other than a gun all day long and big as i am i would lose to a gorilla bare handed any day.

    WTF!

    You’re from the ‘moral’ god-side of the tracks? I’ll stay on this side thanks. You’re effin creepy.

    • Unknown Member

      Deleted User
      May 15, 2008 at 12:05 pm

      thats right flatulance, i mean frumious, stay over there. the neanderthals on my side of the tracks may put you in a dress, if you are not already in one. i just switched to darwanism cause it would be so easy for a guy like me to throw all this morality out the window and dominate my environment.
       
      seriously, did not know that spritually oriented people could not joke around? wow, is that what you think? we run around thumping bibles and preaching doomsday? come on man, God absolutely has a sense of humor, he made you didn’t he? 

    • Unknown Member

      Deleted User
      May 15, 2008 at 12:08 pm

      Have you done the bouncer thing or the body guard thing—I did both while in college…..my sensei hires out promising students…..Ballet no…..although I did have an interesting experience with a ballerina……contortionism has its benefits!!!!!!  Sonny where have you been up till now…a breath of hot I mean fresh air…….

      • Unknown Member

        Deleted User
        May 15, 2008 at 12:09 pm

        The bigger they are the harder they fall…….Literally man…don’t forget viagra….

        • Unknown Member

          Deleted User
          May 15, 2008 at 12:15 pm

          did bouncer and powerlifting. still have 2 state records. right now 245 with 8% body fat. fought in the prison circut not as a resident, but we got a deal together with them cause i come from a rough background and literally no one could even touch us. i was the biggest. never lost, but most times never had to fight once the shirt came off!
           
          enough bragging, i am the hot air king dude!!!!!  down with the fresh air scene, that is no fun!
           
          ain’t enough viagra in the world to raise the dead in some cases dude, my wife is so gonna have a team of freaking pool boys when i get to that age!
           
           

  • Unknown Member

    Deleted User
    May 15, 2008 at 9:17 pm

    ORIGINAL: OutpatientRadRules

    WHo else but humans would screw up somethig as wonderful as the act of sex by making it a taboo and creating all kinds of societal guilt to the point everyone needs therapy to achieve an orgasm or an erection.

    ORIGINAL: OutpatientRadRules
    Literally man…don’t forget viagra….

    Sounds like ORR is going to be one of the first to be considered “unfit”…

  • Unknown Member

    Deleted User
    May 16, 2008 at 8:33 am

    And what if there is no afterlife–all that time wasted on trying to get into heaven.  Makes me laugh.  I am very secure and without any guilt.  If you feel guilty try volunteering in a soup kitchen instead of going to church at least you will be fulfiing some useful function while satisfying your neuroses.

    • Unknown Member

      Deleted User
      May 16, 2008 at 8:39 am

      I’ve done it for years.  How bout yourself?  But seeing that we’re basing our statments upon the scientific rules of the forum, why in the world would we give the poor food? waste of resources.  We could make gasoline with it!  They’re not contributing to society. So, lets test biological weapons on them, to create something we could exterminate the other societies in the world with… 

      • Unknown Member

        Deleted User
        May 16, 2008 at 8:42 am

        I volunteer at our local free clinic, am assistant scout master in my sons scout troop, and I travel to Kenya to volunteer teach at Nairobi University medical school. I assuage my guilt in far more life affirming activities than with organized religion.

        • Unknown Member

          Deleted User
          May 16, 2008 at 8:44 am

          OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORDEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!

          • Unknown Member

            Deleted User
            May 16, 2008 at 8:45 am

            (Whoa, I’m pretty sure that was the perfect number of characters on my last post!)

            • Unknown Member

              Deleted User
              May 16, 2008 at 8:47 am

              Was that a fart or belch?  Or just your usual exhalation of useless hot air.

              • Unknown Member

                Deleted User
                May 19, 2008 at 8:33 am

                Alright, so here’s what I’ve observed:

                Atheists are so accustomed to attacking religion that, when they are questioned on their own beliefs, the automatically resort to attacking religion.  I have never heard an atheist actually defend their own ideas of society, unless they admit to being determinist-anarchists.

                My intent is not to alter anyone’s beliefs, or to prove anyone wrong.  I would simply like to find out if there is a way to reconcile atheism and the incorporation of any sort of moral standard into society.

                I know, I know… “more atrocities have been committed in the name of religion…” and “if you need religion to keep you from killing other humans…”  Blah, blah, blah.  We’re talking about your beliefs, not mine or anyone elses.

                So, can you do it?  Can you defend your own position?  I think it’s impossible, and I’ve heard others claim that it’s impossible, but of course those “others” are right-wing religious zealots.  So I ask you: is it possible?

                • Unknown Member

                  Deleted User
                  May 19, 2008 at 8:49 am

                  ORIGINAL: jackbauer

                  Alright, so here’s what I’ve observed:

                  Atheists are so accustomed to attacking religion that, when they are questioned on their own beliefs, the automatically resort to attacking religion.  I have never heard an atheist actually defend their own ideas of society, unless they admit to being determinist-anarchists.

                  My intent is not to alter anyone’s beliefs, or to prove anyone wrong.  I would simply like to find out if there is a way to reconcile atheism and the incorporation of any sort of moral standard into society.

                  I know, I know… “more atrocities have been committed in the name of religion…” and “if you need religion to keep you from killing other humans…”  Blah, blah, blah.  We’re talking about your beliefs, not mine or anyone elses.

                  So, can you do it?  Can you defend your own position?  I think it’s impossible, and I’ve heard others claim that it’s impossible, but of course those “others” are right-wing religious zealots.  So I ask you: is it possible?

                   
                  Actually.. you were given the humanist view.. and you claimed one can only get dignity from religion.. when you were proven wrong on that point you claimed it an attack on religion. When you give your reasons based on religion.. and you are shown how ridiculous a concept can be.. you claim it an attack on religion.. I suppose that’s your persecuted christian complex coming through?
                   
                  And of course.. morality HAS been reconciled. We all know Society is what determines moral standard for their memebers..if you are not willing to live up to the moral stanards of the Society..out you go.. whether that be outcasted or put in prison..  Each culture decides the worthiness of each person… In god’s eye all are worthless because all have fallen short..  god has no compunction about killing one or all..
                   
                  However..I digress.. Jack..  when you use religion as your proof.. expect it to be attacked..

                • kayla.meyer_144

                  Member
                  May 19, 2008 at 10:05 am

                  ORIGINAL: jackbauer

                  I have never heard an atheist actually defend their own ideas of society, unless they admit to being determinist-anarchists.

                  So, can you do it? Can you defend your own position? I think it’s impossible, and I’ve heard others claim that it’s impossible, but of course those “others” are right-wing religious zealots. So I ask you: is it possible?

                  The problem jack, is that you create an impossible scenario. Your beliefs are simple, God exists, God creates Laws that all must follow, an absence of a belief (that includes agnosticism) in God means no God-given laws, ergo, lawlessness. That is your given and assumption & ask others who don’t believe as you do to “prove” otherwise, all the while with the de facto argument that an absence of God-given laws means lawlessness. erad has stated his belief in sociology, Hero in Humanism, I in other “religious” flavors such as Buddhism, observed animal/mammal social behavior and philosophy and Law. You apparently accept none of these, presumably because they are contrary to your given that without God there is no Law, period. It is YOUR belief and assumption that without God, non-believers are “determinist-anarchists,” not any of ours.

                  BTW, please define that term, “determinist-anarchists” as it makes no sense to me & I would assume neither does it relate to Hero and erad)

                  If that is the given in this puzzle, how can your proposal be argued at all? Do you allow that Laws can exist without God for the sake of your question?

                  • Unknown Member

                    Deleted User
                    May 19, 2008 at 10:30 am

                    ORIGINAL: Frumious

                    The problem jack, is that you create an impossible scenario. Your beliefs are simple, God exists, God creates Laws that all must follow, an absence of a belief (that includes agnosticism) in God means no God-given laws, ergo, lawlessness. That is your given and assumption & ask others who don’t believe as you do to “prove” otherwise, all the while with the de facto argument that an absence of God-given laws means lawlessness. erad has stated his belief in sociology, Hero in Humanism, I in other “religious” flavors such as Buddhism, observed animal/mammal social behavior and philosophy and Law. You apparently accept none of these, presumably because they are contrary to your given that without God there is no Law, period. It is YOUR belief and assumption that without God, non-believers are “determinist-anarchists,” not any of ours.

                    I created the “impossible scenario” with the goal of completely eliminating any religion-based assumptions and therefore the need to attack those assumptions.  My whole intent is to discuss morality in the absence of religion, not to defend religion.  I want to know how those who rely on science alone justify a society that promotes any form of morality.  For the life of me, I cannot why anyone should care about what happens to a bunch of randomly moving particles, which is exactly what “life” is barring any sort of supernatural influence.

                    ORIGINAL: Frumious

                    BTW, please define that term, “determinist-anarchists” as it makes no sense to me & I would assume neither does it relate to Hero and erad)

                    Um, yeah, I invented that term for lack of a better one.  My appologies.  It was meant to describe a person who ascribes to both the view that all things are determined by random motion (determinism) and the view that laws are absurd (anarchy).

                    ORIGINAL: Frumious

                    If that is the given in this puzzle, how can your proposal be argued at all? Do you allow that Laws can exist without God for the sake of your question?

                    I certainly allow laws in the given scenario, but I demand that the laws be based on scientific reason.  Not just surface-level reason, like “if people kill each other it will be bad for the species,” but deeper reason, like “why does the species matter in the first place?”

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      May 19, 2008 at 11:16 am

                      ORIGINAL: jackbauer

                      For the life of me, I cannot why anyone should care about what happens to a bunch of randomly moving particles, which is exactly what “life” is barring any sort of supernatural influence.
                      ————-
                      Um, yeah, I invented that term for lack of a better one. My appologies. It was meant to describe a person who ascribes to both the view that all things are determined by random motion (determinism) and the view that laws are absurd (anarchy).
                      ————–
                      I certainly allow laws in the given scenario, but I demand that the laws be based on scientific reason. Not just surface-level reason, like “if people kill each other it will be bad for the species,” but deeper reason, like “why does the species matter in the first place?”

                      “Randomly moving particles” shows your bias. That is NOT a phrase that I would consider accurate – I do not consider any of us as “randomly moving particles.” I don’t have any idea what concept you are trying to form with that phrase. It’s completely foreign as an idea to me. There are groups of organisms (fungi, bacteria)that will coalesce into a single organism and function as an organized organism even though they are individuals, ie slime mold

                      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/944790.stm

                      They are anything but “random moving particles.”

                      As for “deeper reason” I also do not understand. The survival instinct all by itself is a pretty considerable argument by itself. Define “deeper reason.” you mean in the Universe, as in the whole Universe, what is our purpose, what is our point? Compared to what exactly?

                      With or without God, what is our purpose, what is the meaning of life is something we all personally try to discover, so God is not relevant. Ask your Minister or Priest or Rabbi of whomever & the best they could ever tell you is that it is one of God’s mysteries. You want more from non-believers than that, more than what a believer can provide and answer?

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      May 19, 2008 at 11:37 am

                      ORIGINAL: Frumious

                      “Randomly moving particles” shows your bias. That is NOT a phrase that I would consider accurate – I do not consider any of us as “randomly moving particles.” I don’t have any idea what concept you are trying to form with that phrase. It’s completely foreign as an idea to me. There are groups of organisms (fungi, bacteria)that will coalesce into a single organism and function as an organized organism even though they are individuals, ie slime mold

                      [link=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/944790.stm]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/944790.stm[/link]

                      They are anything but “random moving particles.”

                      Really?  We’re not made up of randomly moving particles?  Protons?  Electrons?  Neutrons?  Not random? 

                      Don’t all chemical reactions depend on two compounds randomly running into each other?  If not random movement, what power is directing these particles?

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      May 19, 2008 at 12:21 pm

                      ORIGINAL: jackbauer

                      Really? We’re not made up of randomly moving particles? Protons? Electrons? Neutrons? Not random?

                      Don’t all chemical reactions depend on two compounds randomly running into each other? If not random movement, what power is directing these particles?

                      And the significance? Brownian motion is random but what are you asking it to say? “Power” vs random? Meaning? Context? “God” is moving all & if God stops or is not, then…?

                      This is meaningless. Please provide cross-references of similar thoughts by others. this all means nothing to me & I can’t conceive this as having any sort of meaning or even being a lucid question.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      May 19, 2008 at 12:59 pm

                      ORIGINAL: Frumious

                      This is meaningless. Please provide cross-references of similar thoughts by others. this all means nothing to me & I can’t conceive this as having any sort of meaning or even being a lucid question.

                      My goal is not to plagiarize others’ ideas.  These are my own.  Just curious if there are answers (or if the questions make sense to others – I guess not).

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      May 20, 2008 at 4:58 am

                      You want a natural law to cover this.. and there are none.. You want an absolute.. and there are none.. not anywhere that we can find.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      May 19, 2008 at 11:41 am

                      Bleh.. this is an exercice in futility.. ORR gave prime examples based on something other than religion about why DNA gets passed around as it does.. you have been given reasons morality has developed without a god.. I am thinking this is not an exercice in science so much as an exercice in sociololgy and anthropology. Perhaps this is why your confusion reigns.. Sir Jack?
                       
                      [b][i]There are no [/i][/b][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_nature][u][color=#0000ff][b][i]laws[/i][/b][/color][/u][/link][b][i] in [/i][/b][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science][u][color=#0000ff][b][i]social science[/i][/b][/color][/u][/link][b][i] that parallel the laws in the [/i][/b][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science][u][color=#0000ff][b][i]natural science[/i][/b][/color][/u][/link][b][i]. A law in social science is a universal generalization about a [/i][/b][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_%28set_theory%29][u][color=#0000ff][b][i]class[/i][/b][/color][/u][/link][b][i] of [/i][/b][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact][u][color=#0000ff][b][i]facts[/i][/b][/color][/u][/link][i][b].[/b] A fact is an observed [/i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon][u][color=#0000ff][i]phenomenon[/i][/color][/u][/link][i], and [/i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation#The_role_of_Observation_in_the_Scientific_Method][u][color=#0000ff][i]observation[/i][/color][/u][/link][i] means it has been seen, heard or otherwise experienced by researcher. A theory is a systematic explanation for the observations that relate to a particular aspect of social life. [/i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept][u][color=#0000ff][i]Concepts[/i][/color][/u][/link][i] are the basic building blocks of theory and are abstract elements representing classes of phenomena. [/i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom][u][color=#0000ff][i]Axioms[/i][/color][/u][/link][i] or [/i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulate][u][color=#0000ff][i]postulates[/i][/color][/u][/link][i] are basic assertions assumed to be true. [/i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition][u][color=#0000ff][i]Propositions[/i][/color][/u][/link][i] are conclusions drawn about the relationships among concepts, based on analysis of axioms. [/i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis][u][color=#0000ff][i]Hypotheses[/i][/color][/u][/link][i] are specified expectations about [/i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical][u][color=#0000ff][i]empirical[/i][/color][/u][/link][i] [/i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality][u][color=#0000ff][i]reality[/i][/color][/u][/link][i] which are derived from propositions. Social research involves [/i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis_testing][u][color=#0000ff][i]testing[/i][/color][/u][/link][i] these hypotheses to see if they are true.[/i]
                      [i]Social research involves creating a theory, [/i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operationalization][u][color=#0000ff][i]operationalization[/i][/color][/u][/link][i] ([/i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement][u][color=#0000ff][i]measurement[/i][/color][/u][/link][i] of [/i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable][u][color=#0000ff][i]variables[/i][/color][/u][/link][i]) and [/i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation][u][color=#0000ff][i]observation[/i][/color][/u][/link][i] (actual collection of [/i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data][u][color=#0000ff][i]data[/i][/color][/u][/link][i] to test hypothesized relationship).[/i]
                      [i][/i] 
                      [i][link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_research]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_research[/link][/i]
                      [i][/i] 
                      methinks thee may be looking for some sort of “natural law’ example here. .and there are none.
                       
                      And randomness is in question.. as it should be.. there is NO evidence of randomness anywhere.. each ‘thing” is acted on by at least one other “thing” thereby eliminating randomness.

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      May 19, 2008 at 11:45 am

                      ORIGINAL: Hero of Reason

                      And randomness is in question.. as it should be.. there is NO evidence of randomness anywhere.. each ‘thing” is acted on by at least one other “thing” thereby eliminating randomness.

                      Interesting.  So why do we ever use the word “random”?

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      May 19, 2008 at 11:57 am

                      ORIGINAL: Hero of Reason

                      Bleh.. this is an exercice in futility.. ORR gave prime examples based on something other than religion about why DNA gets passed around as it does.. you have been given reasons morality has developed without a god.. I am thinking this is not an exercice in science so much as an exercice in sociololgy and anthropology. Perhaps this is why your confusion reigns.. Sir Jack?

                      [b][i][/i][/b]

                      Possibly, but  I think the same conflict exists between science and sociology/anthropology as seems to exist between science and religion.

  • Unknown Member

    Deleted User
    May 19, 2008 at 10:15 am

    ORIGINAL: Hero of Reason

    Actually.. you were given the humanist view.. and you claimed one can only get dignity from religion..

    Um, no I didn’t.  Here was my response:

    ORIGINAL: jackbauer

    ORIGINAL: Hero of Reason

    But..in answer to your question.. I would suggest you wouldn’t see a lot of change in the way things are run.. perhaps there would have been no slavery since that was justified using the bible.. and there would be more love and togetherness since gay marriage would be allowed instead of anyone having the right or any say what other consenting adults do. Perhaps a lot of they hypocracy we have now wouldn’t be existing.. you would be able to buy you liquor on Sunday in a lot of places.. people would be treated more like adults than children who must be admonished by pious jerks who believe they have a right to judge anyone else..

    as for the “rights” and what a society would look like the Humanists have already set up the basic outline for that.. Here is a copy of their “Bill of Rights”.. you will find it unlike the religionist one where the people have the respect.. no matter who they are.. not the godbeing.

    [link=http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html]http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html[/link]

    Not that I whole heartedly agree with all of them they do strive to make things fair for ALL .. not just those who believes in the god you do.

    The members of Congress and the Supreme Court find your reasoning entirely unconvincing.  The Humanists document is based entirely on unscientific claims, beginning with the very first line:

    “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, …”

    What inherent dignity is there in members of the human family?  Why do they have more dignity than any other animal?  More importantly, why does any life form have “dignity” when it can be clearly demonstrated that these organisms are nothing more than protons, electrons, and neutrons?

    ORIGINAL: Hero of Reason

    … when you were proven wrong on that point you claimed it an attack on religion. When you give your reasons based on religion.. and you are shown how ridiculous a concept can be.. you claim it an attack on religion.. I suppose that’s your persecuted christian complex coming through?

    Let’s see.  Here were your responses to my arguments wherein I mentioned nothing of religion:

    ORIGINAL: Hero of Reason

    Interesting that you believe that without a god there are no rules or laws governing how society behaves. We do have prisons which if the world was god-controlled I would believe there would be no need for..since god already knows the future god is aware of all future crimes and would weed out those liable to commit such acts.

    When man realized the benefits of living in groups these “rules” came about in the attempt to keep the group dynamic alive with as little stress as possible. This is seen today in all sorts of animal groups.. for instance the wolf.. The only ones who mate are the alphas.. no one else gets to mate. Why would you think humans couldn’t figure out that there are rules to living in groups if the lowly animals have?

    I do not believe there to be objective morals in any society at all.. each culture and society makes it’s own morality.  I would love for anyone to give me something they consider immoral that has never been considered moral in some society in the past

    ORIGINAL: Hero of Reason

    Wonderful since god thought it fit to kill all the firstborn males..  this does sit well within your moral standard

    ORIGINAL: Hero of Reason
    However.. I already have given you the society based on secular rules..  dignity does not come from any god that I know of.. for there is NO dignity of a being of it’s only resaon for existence is the servitude the christian god expects according to the christians. What dignity is there to prostrate yourself on the ground begging forgiveness for sins you didn’t even commit… Isn’t it the entire ideal of christianity that none are righteous and you start out fallen short.

    You make claims of rules and rights and wrongs and dignity.. but you have none based on godthought.. Dignity comes from what your peers give to you.. not any magic being.

    Do you notice how you continue to bring up religion and attack its claims?  Yeah, that why I said that you continue to bring up religion and attack its claims.  It had nothing to do with a “persecuted Christian complex”.

    ORIGINAL: Hero of Reason

    … when you were proven wrong on that point you claimed it an attack on religion. When you give your reasons based on religion.. and you are shown how ridiculous a concept can be.. you claim it an attack on religion.. I suppose that’s your persecuted christian complex coming through?

    And of course.. morality HAS been reconciled. We all know Society is what determines moral standard for their memebers..if you are not willing to live up to the moral stanards of the Society..out you go.. whether that be outcasted or put in prison..  Each culture decides the worthiness of each person… In god’s eye all are worthless because all have fallen short..  god has no compunction about killing one or all..

    However..I digress.. Jack..  when you use religion as your proof.. expect it to be attacked..

    First of all, when was I proven wrong? 

    Secondly, you continue to skip over the science and go straight to assume that people have freedom of will (a notion which you, yourself, have challenged) and ignore the very question at hand: Does it make sense for there to be morality at all?  Yes, I know that societies set their own morals.  That’s not the question.  The question is whether said morals can be justified by “science”.  If so, what is the scientific proof?  If not, then wouldn’t a society based on science reject the very notion of morality?

    • kayla.meyer_144

      Member
      May 25, 2008 at 4:32 am

      Not trying to restart this topic but an interesting article that underlines this issue, basically we’re wired that way, our social structure is that.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/magazine/25wwln-essay-t.html

      When you look at apes and children in situations requiring them to put their heads together, a subtle but significant difference emerges. We have observed that children, but not chimpanzees, expect and even demand that others who have committed themselves to a joint activity stay involved and not shirk their duties. When children want to opt out of an activity, they recognize the existence of an obligation to help the group they know that they must, in their own way, take leave to make amends. Humans structure their collaborative actions with joint goals and shared commitments.

      Another subtle but crucial difference can be seen in communication. The great apes chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans communicate almost exclusively for the purpose of getting others to do what they want. Human infants, in addition, gesture and talk in order to share information with others they want to be helpful. They also share their emotions and attitudes freely as when an infant points to a passing bird for its mother and squeals with glee. This unprompted sharing of information and attitudes can be seen as a forerunner of adult gossip, which ensures that members of a group can pool their knowledge and know who is or is not behaving cooperatively. The free sharing of information also creates the possibility of pedagogy in which adults impart information by telling and showing, and children trust and use this information with confidence. Our nearest primate relatives do not teach and learn in this manner.

    • waltermfernandesyahoo.com.br

      Member
      August 1, 2013 at 10:29 am

      Jack, 
       
      what in gODs name are you talking about? You continue to claim atheist offense on religion and ask for a scientific rebuttal???? Dude, you are asking for a scientific rebuffing of religion? Huh? Perhaps also a scientific rebuttal to unicorns? Santa? Ouija Boards? 
       
      Here’s my scientific rebuttal: There is no proof of god. Onus is on the believers to prove non believers otherwise. There is no data (sustained belief by the masses does not qualify). A concrete god concept has been at best a moving target since we climbed down from trees (read Zoroastrianism, Greek mythology, Christianity on and on and on), wishful speculation attempting to pacify our “original” fears of the dirt nap.
       
      Religious and non-religious/ theistic and non theistic societies have grown, prospered and some tanked together while establishing a fairly constant set of guiding morals. Non-theistic – Let’s take Buddhism for an example. Depending on the branch (Mahayana, Theravada, or Vajayana) there is no “God” to speak of. Buddha was just “enlightened”. In many of Buddhist traditions no deities. Just “be a lamp unto yourself”. They seem to be a pretty moralistic and reasonable society? No? And there are quite a few non-theistic Buddhists, no? And they have been around for quite a while, no? And there have been some pretty nasty non-theists as well as theists. Several good theistic societies as well. 
       
      So enough already with your “prove I am wrong” scientifically. Hows about you provide some stats and data (again sustained belief by masses does not qualify)  

      • mattsimon

        Member
        August 1, 2013 at 10:57 am

        First I’d like to give out an award for resurrecting a 5 year old thread.  This one must have been before my time or early in my AM time as I didn’t watch the Off Topic threads.
         
        Anyway, here’s my take on this thread.  When Jack’s theoretical meteor shower hits and kills everyone that has any semblance of belief in a religion of any kind, the only humans left alive will be babies and young infants, who will be unable to care for themselves and the human race will die out. Case closed.

        • xavivillagran_893

          Member
          August 2, 2013 at 4:49 am

          Quote from Icthruu74

          First I’d like to give out an award for resurrecting a 5 year old thread.  This one must have been before my time or early in my AM time as I didn’t watch the Off Topic threads.

          Anyway, here’s my take on this thread.  When Jack’s theoretical meteor shower hits and kills everyone that has any semblance of belief in a religion of any kind, the only humans left alive will be babies and young infants, who will be unable to care for themselves and the human race will die out. Case closed.

          Especially since everyone will find God (or other deity) in those seconds before the meteor hits. (;0{)}

          • kayla.meyer_144

            Member
            August 2, 2013 at 5:07 am

            But wouldn’t it be God who is directing the meteor, as in Noah and The Flood?

        • btomba_77

          Member
          August 2, 2013 at 5:20 am

          Quote from Icthruu74

          First I’d like to give out an award for resurrecting a 5 year old thread. 

          Thanks.  Sorry for doing it, but I’ve been desperate to find [i]anything[/i] people would start talking about in OT that wasn’t Zimmerman.

          • btomba_77

            Member
            October 3, 2013 at 3:44 am

            [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/us/poll-shows-major-shift-in-identity-of-us-jews.html?src=me&ref=general]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/us/poll-shows-major-shift-in-identity-of-us-jews.html?src=me&ref=general[/link]
             
            US jews follow the path toward non-religious in the same manner as Christians.
             

            …the percentage of Jews of no religion has grown with each successive generation, peaking with the millennials (those born after 1980), of whom 32 percent say they have no religion.
             
            The trend toward secularism is also happening in the American population in general, with increasing proportions of each generation claiming no religious affiliation.
             
            But Jews without religion tend not to raise their children Jewish, so this secular trend has serious consequences for what Jewish leaders call Jewish continuity. Of the Jews of no religion who have children at home, two-thirds are not raising their children Jewish in any way. This is in contrast to the Jews with religion, of whom 93 percent said they are raising their children to have a Jewish identity.
             
            When Jews leave the movements they grew up in, they tend to shift in the direction of less tradition, with Orthodox Jews becoming Conservative or Reform, and Conservative Jews becoming Reform. Most Reform Jews who leave become nonreligious. (Two percent of Jews are converts, the survey found.)
             

             

            • Unknown Member

              Deleted User
              October 10, 2013 at 1:32 pm

              Evolutionary biologic altruism is well documented scientifically in such varied settings as coevolved tropical flora, and low and high fauna systems from ant colonies to Benobo apes, usually attributed to favorable genetic selection or “kin selection”, and can be shown to produce proto-moral or group beneficial  and even self-sacrificing behaviors, which over milennia evolve to more complex social group and sub group success promoting cooperative activities, including group hunting, division of labor, and even maintaining general tranquility with attendant decreases in stress hormones, thus leading to more rigorously moral or ethical social, and then cultural norms, which in turn, with increasing complexity  and evolution of frontal cortical volume becomes overlaid with adaptive social emotional, and discrete normative behaviors and enforcements (guilt, shame, altruistic satisfaction), which only much later are codified into written laws.  There would be little change in the overall appearance, laws or activities of the Atheist utopia, as the scientific source of the underlying moral and later societal and legal behaviors is in fact evolutionary.  Except we wouldn’t have the embarassment of widespread adherence to the belief that these are “divine laws” delivered to the species by magical instruments.  But give’m a break, they were late neolithic, copper age, and early bronze age grunts in a hostile world, with lots of scary and frankly freaky phenomena and fears to explain and allay, and didn’t have our millenias later better informed hindsight.

              • btomba_77

                Member
                June 26, 2014 at 7:28 am

                Here’s An Atheist’s Dystopia:
                 
                [link=http://thehumanist.com/news/international/nigerian-atheist-held-in-psychiatric-ward]http://thehumanist.com/ne…ld-in-psychiatric-ward[/link]
                 
                Nigerian man committed to a psychiatric institution for declaring himself an atheist.
                 
                 

                • Unknown Member

                  Deleted User
                  June 26, 2014 at 11:54 am

                  Atheists utopia:
                   
                  a world where killing others because of a fable passed down over 4000 years is considered crazy, rather than admired.
                   
                  BTW – OP seems to have disappeared
                   
                   
                   

                  • btomba_77

                    Member
                    June 29, 2014 at 5:44 am

                    Was watching Bill Maher on [i]The Daily Show[/i] last week.     Two interesting points — 1) Obama is an atheist, 2) Atheists are the nation’s biggest minority.
                     
                     
                    The lead-is was Stewart and Maher discussing Hillary and her claim that her favorite book is “The Bible” —
                     
                     

                    BILL MAHER: You know who is a liar about this? Obama. Obama is always spouting spiritual bullsh*t and I don’t believe it for a second.

                    JON STEWART, “DAILY SHOW” HOST: You don’t believe it?

                    MAHER: He’s a drop dead atheist. Absolutely.

                    STEWART: No.

                    MAHER: And by the way —

                    STEWART: He spent a lot of years — how many years did he spend in Reverend Wright’s church? He spent a long time in the Chicago —

                    MAHER: He never went. He joined, because it was politically necessary. 

                    STEWART: But he didn’t go?

                    MAHER: Absolutely not.

                    STEWART: Not even to the picnics?

                    MAHER: No, nothing. He joined because he wanted to move ahead in the political world and of course you had to be part of a church.

                    STEWART: Don’t they say that, in this country, if you want to be elected, the one thing you can’t be — you can be gay, a woman, Jewish —

                    MAHER: An atheist.

                    STEWART: You can’t be an atheist. I find that so bizarre.

                    MAHER: So bizarre and so wrong because it is the single biggest minority in this country.

                    STEWART: Atheism?

                    MAHER: Absolutely.
                     

                • Unknown Member

                  Deleted User
                  June 26, 2014 at 11:54 am

                  Atheists utopia:
                   
                  a world where killing others because of a fable passed down over 4000 years is considered crazy, rather than admired.
                   
                  BTW – OP seems to have disappeared
                   
                   
                   

          • btomba_77

            Member
            December 31, 2013 at 9:58 am

            [link=http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/number-american-atheists-has-doubled-while-belief-evolution]http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/number-american-atheists-has-doubled-while-belief-evolution[/link]#
             
             
            [b]Number Of American Atheists Has Doubled, While Belief In Evolution Is Up[/b]
             

            The number of Americans who claim theyre not religious at all has nearly doubled since 2006, while belief in Charles Darwins theory of evolution has increased, according to a new Harris poll.
            About 74 percent of Americans believe in God, an 8 percent decrease since 2009. About 23 percent reported they are not at all religious, a figure that has almost doubled since 2007.

             
            Moving in the right direction.   I still look forward to the day where public figures can “come out” as atheists without being considered somehow evil or amoral.
             
             

            • kayla.meyer_144

              Member
              December 31, 2013 at 10:19 am

              Depends what Party you belong to. Republicans have further entrenched into anti-science.
               
              [link=http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/12/30/258423189/on-evolution-a-widening-political-gap-pew-says]http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/12/30/258423189/on-evolution-a-widening-political-gap-pew-says[/link]
               

              “The gap is coming from the Republicans, where fewer are now saying that humans have evolved over time,” says Cary Funk, a Pew senior researcher who conducted the analysis,[link=http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/30/us-usa-poll-evolution-idUSBRE9BT0LC20131230]according to Reuters[/link].
              Nearly a quarter (24 percent) of those surveyed by Pew said they believed that a “supreme being guided evolution for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today.”
              According to Pew:
              [blockquote]
              “A majority of white evangelical Protestants (64%) and half of black Protestants (50%) say that humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. But in other large religious groups, a minority holds this view. In fact, nearly eight-in-ten white mainline Protestants (78%) say that humans and other living things have evolved over time. Three-quarters of the religiously unaffiliated (76%) and 68% of white non-Hispanic Catholics say the same. About half of Hispanic Catholics (53%) believe that humans have evolved over time, while 31% reject that idea.”

              [/blockquote] Broken down by age, respondents 18-29 years old were about 20 percent more likely to accept evolution as were the 65+ age group. The gap between college graduates (72 percent accepted evolution) and people with a high school diploma or less (51 percent accepted evolution) was also fairly pronounced.
              The Pew survey sampled 1,983 respondents, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
              As [link=http://www.npr.org/2012/04/13/150577766/war-of-the-worlds-when-science-politics-collide]we reported last year[/link], the issue of evolution in particular in states where there have been high-profile fights over how it is presented in public school classrooms has increasingly placed members of the scientific community at odds with politicians and local school boards.

               
              The full report:
              [link=http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/]http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/[/link]

  • Unknown Member

    Deleted User
    May 20, 2008 at 7:26 am

    ORIGINAL: Hero of Reason

    You want a natural law to cover this.. and there are none.. You want an absolute.. and there are none.. not anywhere that we can find.

    Fair enough.  So a society based strictly on “science” wouldn’t even be able to address this?

    • Unknown Member

      Deleted User
      May 20, 2008 at 7:47 am

      ORIGINAL: jackbauer

      ORIGINAL: Hero of Reason

      You want a natural law to cover this.. and there are none.. You want an absolute.. and there are none.. not anywhere that we can find.

      Fair enough.  So a society based strictly on “science” wouldn’t even be able to address this?

       
      [i]1[b]:[/b] the state of knowing [b]:[/b] knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding2 a[b]:[/b] a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b[b]:[/b] something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>3 a[b]:[/b] knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through [link=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientific][u][color=#0000ff]scientific[/color][/u][/link] method b[b]:[/b] such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena [b]:[/b] [link=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural+science][u][color=#0000ff]natural science[/color][/u][/link]4[b]:[/b] a system or method reconciling practical ends with [link=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientific][u][color=#0000ff]scientific[/color][/u][/link] laws <cooking is both a science and an art>[/i]
      [i][/i] 
      These are the definitions of science as taken from old merriam-webster.. Which of these definitions do you feel morality fits under? Morality, right, wrong, good, evil…. all these are subjective issues. Each person has his own idea of what is moral.. what is right and what is wrong.. and that usually comes from the culture they were associated with.. The ancient Inca saw the sacrifices of life to appease the gods an necessary thing while today we see it as wrong.. Can we really say they were wrong in their thinking?.. but at that same time they will say YOU are wrong based on their morality and religion..
       
      What I would need to see is why your morality and your culture is correct in their actions while their actions are not wrong and how you base that compared to their times and morality.
       
       

  • kayla.meyer_144

    Member
    August 2, 2013 at 5:12 am

    Dylan Thomas
     
    [link]http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15377[/link]

  • kayla.meyer_144

    Member
    June 29, 2014 at 10:29 am

    “Favorite” book? Any particular chapter or the whole thing? Genesis 1 or 2? Which character is best? OT or NT? Paul or Jesus? How about the chapters eliminated?
     
    <BARF> in my mouth.
     
     

    • btomba_77

      Member
      August 11, 2014 at 7:31 am

      [link=http://tobingrant.religionnews.com/2014/08/05/the-great-decline-61-years-of-religion-religiosity-in-one-graph-2013-hits-a-new-low/]http://tobingrant.religio…h-2013-hits-a-new-low/[/link]
       
       
      [b]The Great Decline[/b] —- The “Aggregate Religiosity Index” drops to an all time low in 2013 
      [img]https://richarddawkins.net/file/2014/08/61Years-700×525.png[/img]
       

       
      Religiosity in the United States is in the midst of what might be called The Great Decline. Previous declines in religion pale in comparison. Over the past fifteen years, the drop in religiosity has been twice as great as the decline of the 1960s and 1970s.
       
      Last year brought a continuation of this decline. 2013 was a new low for the level of religiosity in the country.
       
      The graph of this index tells the story of the rise and fall of religious activity. During the post-war, baby-booming 1950s, there was a revival of religion. Indeed, some at the time considered it a third great awakening. Then came the societal changes of the 1960s, which included a questioning of religious institutions. The resulting decline in religion stopped by the end of the 1970s, when religiosity remained steady. Over the past fifteen years, however, religion has once again declined. But this decline is much sharper than the decline of 1960s and 1970s. Church attendance and prayer is less frequent. The number of people with no religion is growing. Fewer people say that religion is an important part of their lives.

    • btomba_77

      Member
      October 24, 2014 at 3:57 pm

      [link=http://www.religionnews.com/2014/10/24/secularism-is-on-the-rise-as-more-u-s-christians-turn-churchless/]http://www.religionnews.c…tians-turn-churchless/[/link]
       
      [b]
      Secularism grows as more U.S. Christians turn churchless[/b][/h1] 38% of Americans now fit into a role of “Churchless”.  That number adds “nones” (atheists and agnostics) to Americans that would “likely check the box” as Christian but have no actual religious activity in their lives.
       

      The research looked at church worship attendance and participation, views about the Bible, God and Jesus, and more to see whether folks were actually tied to Christian life in a meaningful way or tied more by habit or personal history.
      Ed Stetzer, president of LifeWay Research, once called nominals people attached by name only  [link=http://www.religionnews.com/2013/10/01/meet-nominals-drifting-judaism-christianity/]survey Christians.[/link] They dont want to cut ties with their parents or go all the way to atheism, Stetzer said, so they just say Christian since it is the default category from their heritage.
       
      Kinnaman now has the numbers to back that up.
       
      We are far from becoming an atheist nation, he said. There are tens of millions of active believers in America today. But the wall between the churched and the churchless is growing higher and more impenetrable as more people have no muscle memory of what it means to be a regular attender at a house of worship.
       
      How these people think, pray and use their time is shifting away from a faith-based perspective. As a result, a churchless or secular worldview is becoming its own social force.

  • btomba_77

    Member
    November 19, 2014 at 7:00 am

    [link=http://www.alternet.org/belief/6-types-atheists-and-non-believers-america-0?page=0%2C0]http://www.alternet.org/b…s-america-0?page=0%2C0[/link]

    Nice little article on the 6 types of atheists.

    [b]1. Intellectual Atheist/Agnostic. [/b]By far, the most common kind of non-believer, at nearly 38 percent. This group enjoys intellectual discourse, and while theyre often very certain about their beliefs, theyre not belligerent about it. These types often get mistaken for dogmatic atheists, however, because they have a tendency to join skeptics groups or otherwise find avenues to discuss non-belief with others. 

    [b]2. Activist.[/b] This group also gets commonly accused of being dogmatic, but like the intellectual atheist, while theyre firm in their beliefs, theyre intellectually flexible and dont prioritize attacking believers. Instead, they are motivated by a strong sense of humanist values to make change in the world, often making related issuessuch as feminism, gay rights, or the environmenta priority over simply advocating atheism. This group also advocates for a better, more egalitarian atheist community.

    [b]3. Seeker-Agnostic.[/b] This group, which makes up 7.6 percent of non-believers, are unlikely to be as critical of religion as most other groups. They prioritize not-knowingness. 

    [b]4. Anti-Theist. [/b]This group tends to get conflated with all atheists by believers, but they only constitute 15 percent of non-believers. Like the Intellectual Atheists, they like to argue about religion, but they are much more aggressive about it and actively seek out religious people in an effort to disabuse them of their beliefs. While most atheists limit themselves to supporting a more secular society, anti-theists tend to view ending religion as the real goal. 

    [b]5. Non-Theist.[/b] They dont believe in any gods, but dont think about those who do very often. In such a religious society, simply opting out of caring much about religion one way or another is nearly impossible, which is why this group is only 4.4 percent of non-believers. 

    [b] 6. Ritual Atheist/Agnostic.[/b] While you might think the anti-theist is the non-believer type that scares Christians the most, it turns out that it may very well be the Ritual Atheist/Agnostic. This group, making up 12.5 percent of atheists, doesnt really believe in the supernatural, but they do believe in the community aspects of their religious tradition enough to continue participating. 

    __________________
    Personally I’m a bit of #1 and #2 slurried together.  

    • suyanebenevides_151

      Member
      November 19, 2014 at 11:36 am

      So you finally see how self ID means nothing?
       
      Maher nails it again.

      • kayla.meyer_144

        Member
        November 19, 2014 at 12:25 pm

        No, I don’t. Explain.

        • suyanebenevides_151

          Member
          November 19, 2014 at 4:08 pm

          Obama calling himself something means nothing, apart from him being someone who fibs.
           
          Before you question me, please know that I am from the South Side and have intricate knowledge of what Maher is referring to, and something which Stewart clearly knows nothing about.

          • kayla.meyer_144

            Member
            November 20, 2014 at 3:37 am

            South side of Boston?
             
            No, you are clear about nothing. Question you? What are you talking about?

          • btomba_77

            Member
            November 20, 2014 at 6:47 am

            Quote from Cigar

            Obama calling himself something means nothing, apart from him being someone who fibs.

            Before you question me, please know that I am from the South Side and have intricate knowledge of what Maher is referring to, and something which Stewart clearly knows nothing about.

            Quote from Cigar

            So you finally see how self ID means nothing?

            Maher nails it again.

             
             
            I seriously have [i] no idea [/i] what either of these posts are supposed to be saying.

            • kayla.meyer_144

              Member
              November 20, 2014 at 6:49 am

              Must be code. 

              • suyanebenevides_151

                Member
                November 20, 2014 at 10:10 am

                Did you read and comprehend the dialogue between Stewart and Maher? What was the point?
                 
                Putting together thoughts I can understand can be difficult but I didn’t expect reading comprehension to be a problem.
                 
                Hint: Obama is nothing but constantly says he is something he isn’t. That’s Maher’s point, specifically regarding “religion” in that discourse. Am I being too harsh here?

  • suyanebenevides_151

    Member
    November 20, 2014 at 10:13 am

    Quote from Frumious

    South side of Boston?

    No, you are clear about nothing. Question you? What are you talking about?

     
    Yes, Obama is from the South Side of Boston. It’s hysterical that so many of his supporters know really nothing about him. They love the idea of him; it’s actually really sad.
     
    And yet I don’t know what I’m talking about. As far as politics goes, I practically grew up with the dude.

    • kayla.meyer_144

      Member
      November 20, 2014 at 10:27 am

      You still are saying nothing comprehensible.
      No, I am not going to read the transcript trying to figure out what you are trying to say or imply but won’t or can’t. This is not Where’s Waldo.

      • suyanebenevides_151

        Member
        November 20, 2014 at 4:05 pm

        Somebody just quoted it. Dergon post 91. Ok, that was as weird for me as it was for you, so I’ll just move on.
         
        Frumi, are you really female? That’s more interesting than this thread.

        • kayla.meyer_144

          Member
          November 20, 2014 at 5:01 pm

          That’s it? Underwhelmed, really. But I do recall Hill saying her favorite book was THE BIBLE (Angelic trumpets!) & I think dergon posted that. I believe my response at the time was along the lines of, “OMG, Gag me!”So if your point, cigar, war Obama being silent about religious belief, so what. Hill on the other hand of her “favorite book” crosses the line. But all this religion on the sleeves is fake anyway. didn’t Jesus say something about people praying out loud being hypocrites? And yet that is the requirement in this country.
           
          No cigar, I am not female.

          • suyanebenevides_151

            Member
            November 20, 2014 at 6:02 pm

            You use biblical literalism to fight against … biblical literalism. That’s another one of the hypocrisies of the left. Odd that it comes full circle, huh?
             
            You are getting your wish, man. The human being is rapidly becoming a soul-less consumer (led by soul-less power mongers). CS Lewis and Aldous Huxley were indeed visionaries.

            • kayla.meyer_144

              Member
              November 21, 2014 at 3:09 am

              You still make no sense. You almost get there and then..

            • btomba_77

              Member
              November 21, 2014 at 4:28 am

              Quote from Cigar

              You are getting your wish, man. The human being is rapidly becoming a soul-less consumer (led by soul-less power mongers). CS Lewis and Aldous Huxley were indeed visionaries.

               
              Something I can actually respond to!
               
              There is no link between lack of religious belief/atheism and consumerism.    In fact, if you look around the developed world you will find that the countries with the highest rates of non-belief (take France and the Netherlands in northern Europ) have a less consumeristic culture than does the US which is both more religious and more consumeristic.
               
               
              It does not follow that being more religious makes a person less consumeristic.
               
               
              In a broader sense, the decline in religiosity of a culture does not equate to cultural decline.
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
              ((Anecote alert! In my family there is exactly [i]one[/i] person who shops on Black Friday.  That would be my living word Christian sister.    }}
               
               

              • kayla.meyer_144

                Member
                November 21, 2014 at 6:01 am

                CS & Aldous were both from an earlier time, both born in the 1890’s & the complaint of a “soulless” future was familiar to them in their young lives. It was also considered by others long before them. That was even the theme of Mary Shelley’s “Dracula.” Thoreau was also looking for meaning. Shakespeare. Back to the Greek plays.
                 
                It is a built in theme of being human. Is that the point?

              • kaldridgewv2211

                Member
                November 21, 2014 at 7:34 am

                Quote from dergon

                Quote from Cigar

                You are getting your wish, man. The human being is rapidly becoming a soul-less consumer (led by soul-less power mongers). CS Lewis and Aldous Huxley were indeed visionaries.

                Something I can actually respond to!

                There is no link between lack of religious belief and atheism.    In fact, if you look around the developed world you will find that the countries with the highest rates of non-belief (take France and the Netherlands in northern Europ) have a less consumeristic culture than does the US which is both more religious and more consumeristic.

                It does not follow that being more religious makes a person less consumeristic.

                In a broader sense, the decline in religiosity of a culture does not equate to cultural decline.

                ((Anecote alert! In my family there is exactly [i]one[/i] person who shops on Black Friday.  That would be my living word Christian sister.    {{

                Is it because she’s a Christian or a woman.  I’ve always found the shop black Friday to be more of a woman thing.  I hate shopping even when it’s not crowded, I’d rather just buy it on Amazon and have it shipped.

                • suyanebenevides_151

                  Member
                  November 21, 2014 at 8:57 am

                  dergon,
                   
                  “There is no link between lack of religious belief and atheism.” I have no problem with this statement, it’s not my claim.
                   
                  Frumi, looking for meaning isn’t my point either, I agree it’s human, which should lead you to other thoughts, but those also don’t interest you.
                   
                  That said, my point is that they had sound and verifiable predictions which were WAY beyond their times. Ones like,
                   
                  “In a few years, no doubt, marriage licenses will be sold like dog licenses, good for a period of twelve months, with no law against changing dogs or keeping more than one animal at a time. As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase. And the dictator (unless he needs cannon fodder and families with which to colonize empty or conquered territories) will do well to encourage that freedom. In conjunction with the freedom to daydream under the influence of dope and movies and the radio, it will help to reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate.”
                   
                  This is very specific and nails it. These were traditional culture people, who, even though they had distinct societies, had similar characteristics (obviously, since UK and USA are historically related). It has vanished, and will continue to, just as they say. If you refuse to see this point, I just think it’s sorta sad. These men were great thinkers and the evidence is right here in front of us.

  • btomba_77

    Member
    April 3, 2015 at 9:51 am

    I’m not a big Hitchens fan, but I like [url]http://www.openculture.com/2015/04/christopher-hitchens-revises-the-10-commandments-for-the-21st-century.html]this[/url]

    A revised 10 Comandments for the 21st Century:

    I: Do not condemn people on the basis of their ethnicity or color.
    II: Do not ever use people as private property.
    III: Despise those who use violence or the threat of it in sexual relations.
    IV: Hide your face and weep if you dare to harm a child.
    V: Do not condemn people for their inborn nature.
    VI: Be aware that you too are an animal and dependent on the web of nature, and think and act accordingly.
    VII: Do not imagine that you can escape judgment if you rob people with a false prospectus rather than with a knife.
    VIII: Turn off that f*cking cell phone.
    IX: Denounce all jihadists and crusaders for what they are: psychopathic criminals with ugly delusions.
    X: Be willing to renounce any god or any religion if any holy commandments should contradict any of the above

    • kaldridgewv2211

      Member
      April 3, 2015 at 10:29 am

      #8 is an interesting thought.  I was watching a TED talk on the treadmill from a journalist who was covering some memory contest.  He made some good points about how over the course of time we’ve sort of outsourced memory various ways, cell phones being the latest.  You dont have to remember things.  So sort of the moral of his story was put down the device and live in the moment.
       
      As a side note it’s pretty interesting you can actually train your brain.  The guy went from nothing, to a year later being the memory champion.  It’s like a contest where you memorize the order of 30 decks of cards, binary numbers, names of people, etc….

    • leann2001nl

      Member
      April 3, 2015 at 8:37 pm

      Quote from dergon

      I’m not a big Hitchens fan, but I like [link=http://www.openculture.com/2015/04/christopher-hitchens-revises-the-10-commandments-for-the-21st-century.html]http://www.openculture.co…-the-21st-century.html[/link]]this

      A revised 10 Comandments for the 21st Century:

      I: Do not condemn people on the basis of their ethnicity or color.
      II: Do not ever use people as private property.
      III: Despise those who use violence or the threat of it in sexual relations.
      IV: Hide your face and weep if you dare to harm a child.
      V: Do not condemn people for their inborn nature.
      VI: Be aware that you too are an animal and dependent on the web of nature, and think and act accordingly.
      VII: Do not imagine that you can escape judgment if you rob people with a false prospectus rather than with a knife.
      VIII: Turn off that f*cking cell phone.
      IX: Denounce all jihadists and crusaders for what they are: psychopathic criminals with ugly delusions.
      X: Be willing to renounce any god or any religion if any holy commandments should contradict any of the above

      I love Hitchens so much 

      • btomba_77

        Member
        June 2, 2015 at 7:35 am

        Bill Nye and Amy Schumer: [url=http://thehumanist.com/arts_entertainment/culture/bill-nye-and-amy-schumer-no-the-universe-is-not-trying-to-tell-you-something] No, the Universe is not trying to tell you something![/url]

        “Scientists once believed the Universe was a chaotic collection of matter. We now know that the Universe is essentially a force, sending cosmic guidance to white women in their 20s.” 

        • btomba_77

          Member
          November 3, 2015 at 4:21 am

          New Pew study shows fairly abrupt decrease in American religiosity.   (35,000 polled too … so pretty good big data)

          Youngest Americans are the least religious.Split on political ideology and religious beliefs also widening.  Religious people become more devout and more Republican, non-religious becoming less devout and more Democratic.

          Polarization of American through the lens of religious observance.

          [url=http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-public-becoming-less-religious/]
          [h1]U.S. Public Becoming Less Religious[/h1] [/url]

          The share of U.S. adults who say they believe in God, while still remarkably high by comparison with other advanced industrial countries, has declined modestly, from approximately 92% to 89%, since Pew Research Center conducted its first Landscape Study in 2007.1 The share of Americans who say they are absolutely certain God exists has dropped more sharply, from 71% in 2007 to 63% in 2014. And the percentages who say they pray every day, attend religious services regularly and consider religion to be very important in their lives also have ticked down by small but statistically significant margins.

          The falloff in traditional religious beliefs and practices coincides with changes in the religious composition of the U.S. public. A growing share of Americans are religiously unaffiliated, including some who self-identify as atheists or agnostics as well as many who describe their religion as nothing in particular. Altogether, the religiously unaffiliated (also called the nones) now account for 23% of the adult population, up from 16% in 2007.

          As older cohorts of adults (comprised mainly of self-identified Christians) pass away, they are being replaced by a new cohort of young adults who display far lower levels of attachment to organized religion than their parents and grandparents generations did when they were the same age.  The same dynamic helps explain the declines in traditional measures of religious belief and practice. Millennials especially the youngest Millennials, who have entered adulthood since the first Landscape Study was conducted are far less religious than their elders. For example, only 27% of Millennials say they attend religious services on a weekly basis, compared with 51% of adults in the Silent generation. Four-in-ten of the youngest Millennials say they pray every day, compared with six-in-ten Baby Boomers and two-thirds of members of the Silent generation. Only about half of Millennials say they believe in God with absolute certainty, compared with seven-in-ten Americans in the Silent and Baby Boom cohorts. And only about four-in-ten Millennials say religion is very important in their lives, compared with more than half in the older generational cohorts.

          • suyanebenevides_151

            Member
            November 3, 2015 at 7:57 am

            Any nation that loses its christian heritage, loses the basis on which it became a great nation, whether its citizens believe it or not. Materialism has set in big time in the western world, and they are asking for civil war on so many fronts, but particularly now in Europe with the carelessness of letting in people from dysfunctional, tribal good-for-nothing societies.
             
            Without any understanding of where you came from, you deserve what you will get. And it will be civil war in our lifetimes, particularly in those places where the elites have sold out their countrymen for a globalist agenda.

            • kayla.meyer_144

              Member
              November 3, 2015 at 8:51 am

              Where we came from? “We” were here long before Christianity.
               
              And letting in and helping the less fortunate is the Christian thing to do, not shut the doors in their faces letting them suffer & die for faults not their own. These migrants/immigrants are innocents.
               
              You are not being charitable. That is not Christian.

              • suyanebenevides_151

                Member
                November 6, 2015 at 2:51 pm

                Quote from Frumious

                Where we came from? “We” were here long before Christianity.

                And letting in and helping the less fortunate is the Christian thing to do, not shut the doors in their faces letting them suffer & die for faults not their own. These migrants/immigrants are innocents.

                You are not being charitable. That is not Christian.

                 
                The society that gave you the freedom and prosperity, all of them in the world currently, were from White, Christian Men. The fact that you can’t be honest about this shows that you have no hope, because reality doesn’t make a difference to you.
                 
                We let Christians in the Middle East suffer and die daily, doing nothing to help their plight. But we should help those that systematically support that genocide?
                 
                You are diseased.

                • kayla.meyer_144

                  Member
                  November 6, 2015 at 3:06 pm

                  You make no sense & side step a dance of incomprehensibility.
                   
                  You are going to give a religion test to refugees to be sure they are of the correct religion? To see if they are worthy of help? Is that waht Jesus preached? I never read that in the Scriptures. Show me where it is.
                   
                  That’s not Christian.
                   
                  And BTW, odds are the Jesus was not exactly “white.” He was not Nordic European, he was Jewish & therefore likely looked Jewish – Semitic. Brown-ish Only in movies is it true that,
                   
                  “Funny, you don’t look Jewish.”
                   
                   

                  • eyoab2011_711

                    Member
                    November 6, 2015 at 4:37 pm

                    If only Egypt would release the grain from the pyramids to feed the refugees

  • btomba_77

    Member
    November 6, 2015 at 1:47 pm

    [url=http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)01167-7]
    The Negative Association between Religiousness and Childrens Altruism across the World[/url][/h1]  
     

    Across all countries, parents in religious households reported that their children expressed more empathy and sensitivity for justice in everyday life than non-religious parents. However, religiousness was inversely predictive of childrens altruism and positively correlated with their punitive tendencies. Together these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences childrens altruism, challenging the view that religiosity facilitates prosocial behavior.

  • kayla.meyer_144

    Member
    November 6, 2015 at 6:01 pm

    Just heard that according to Carson, Joseph of the coat of many colors built the pyramids.
     
    Oy vey!

    • kayla.meyer_144

      Member
      November 10, 2015 at 12:52 pm

      Looking forward to this year’s “War on Christmas.”
       
      Save me Jesus from these idiots, please.
       
      Speaking of Michelle Bachmann, the Rapture is coming as is Jesus’s 2nd Coming. So convert the Jews.
       
      Question, Jesus died a Jew – so he didn’t go to Heaven? Confusing.
       

      Ex-U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) warned Wednesday that Jesus is coming soon, making the task of converting the masses particularly Jews even more urgent.

      We recognize the shortness of the hour, Bachmann said in a radio interview with Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council. The duo recorded the interview during their tour of Israel, which was organized by FRC.

      The one-time Republican presidential candidate continued: Thats why we as a remnant want to be faithful in these days and do what it is that the Holy Spirit is speaking to each one of us, to be faithful in the Kingdom and to help bring in as many as we can even among the Jews share Jesus Christ with everyone that we possibly can because, again, Hes coming soon.

      Bachmann also said violence in Israel shows the second coming of Christ is imminent, and events are speeding up…were seeing the fulfillment of scripture right in front of our eyes.

      • eyoab2011_711

        Member
        November 10, 2015 at 3:19 pm

        Stay out of Starbucks….the Jewish CEO didn’t put Christmas images on their red holiday cups…

        • btomba_77

          Member
          November 27, 2015 at 9:52 am

          [url=https://personalliberty.com/white-christians-are-now-less-than-half-of-u-s-population-says-pew/]White Christians are now less than half of U.S. population, Pew survey[/url]

          For the first time since the countrys founding, white Christians dont constitute a majority of the U.S. population.
           

          As the nation relentlessly diversifies, both in its racial composition and religious preferences, White Christians now represent just 46 percent of American adults, according to Pew data provided in response to a request from Next America. Thats down from a 55 percent majority as recently as 2007, and much higher figures through most of U.S. history.

          • scottgood421

            Member
            December 6, 2015 at 11:37 am

            found this nice article about bertrand russell:
             
            [link=https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/02/03/bertrand-russell-immortality-good-life/]https://www.brainpickings…immortality-good-life/[/link]
             
            Worth a read…………..

            • suyanebenevides_151

              Member
              December 7, 2015 at 9:45 am

              Quote from adopted canuck

              found this nice article about bertrand russell:

              [link=https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/02/03/bertrand-russell-immortality-good-life/]https://www.brainpickings…immortality-good-life/[/link]

              Worth a read…………..

               
              It can be useful, but glosses over the realities of human beings. Namely, that we cannot measure everything, and that the things [b][i]that matter most to us[/i][/b] are those which almost by definition can’t be measured.
               
              We only have 5 senses. Yet with just these 5 should we conclude that only they provide the basis of reality? Certainly not. It is silly naive to think with any common sense that we should limit ourselves, that’s what distinguishes us from the beasts.
               
              The more and more we think of ourselves as just material, the more dehumanized we become. Yes, people will do evil in all areas, but never is it solely based on abstract ideas to shame.
               
              Talking about love in a purely physical world is the most ironic of all; it betrays the simplest notion of being human by not recognizing that love is immaterial and rooted in the spiritual, though it permeates the entirety of our being; as such, it is not confined nor should it be opposed as purely one thing (material) or the other (immaterial).

              • vascular28_304

                Member
                December 7, 2015 at 12:52 pm

                [blockquote][size=”4″]”And letting in and helping the less fortunate is the Christian thing to do, not shut the doors in their faces letting them suffer & die for faults not their own. These migrants/immigrants are innocents. You are not being charitable. That is not Christian. ” [/size]
                  
                [size=”4″]I find it interesting how liberals like to cherry pick which tenets of Judeo-Christian tradition they choose to call upon when they want to point fingers (Charity in this case) [/size]
                [size=”4″]but love to ignore or even berate the same folks when they wish to live and believe according to their (Morality and Values), which is often at odds with their (liberal) world beliefs. [/size]
                [size=”4″]SO not letting the refugees in, is not Christian enough, but expressing and defending  Judeo-Christian mores and values is too much.  [/size]
                [size=”4″]Damned if you do, so to speak.  [/size]
                [/blockquote]

                • suyanebenevides_151

                  Member
                  December 7, 2015 at 2:34 pm

                  That’s always been the progessive hypocrisy. They call on a gov’t to be “Christian” when they see it fit (supports their non-Christian based world view, whatever it is) but they reject Christian beliefs and teaching otherwise.
                   
                  So which one is it, lefties? Do you want a Christian informed society and gov’t, or not?
                   
                  Another proof they are schizophrenic, unhealthy thinkers. Or non-thinkers using emotion to support world views.
                   
                  xrayer31 nails it, because she is a disciplined, honest thinker. 
                   
                  I love people who tell the truth — kudos.
                   

                  • btomba_77

                    Member
                    December 7, 2015 at 2:50 pm

                    Not.

                    I want a secular government and society that provides charity out of humanistic principles, not religious ones.

          • suyanebenevides_151

            Member
            December 7, 2015 at 9:35 am

            Quote from dergon

            [link=https://personalliberty.com/white-christians-are-now-less-than-half-of-u-s-population-says-pew/]White Christians are now less than half of U.S. population, Pew survey[/link]

            For the first time since the countrys founding, white Christians dont constitute a majority of the U.S. population.

            As the nation relentlessly diversifies, both in its racial composition and religious preferences, White Christians now represent just 46 percent of American adults, according to Pew data provided in response to a request from Next America. Thats down from a 55 percent majority as recently as 2007, and much higher figures through most of U.S. history.

             
            “Diversity” is, in fact an “anti-white” agenda.
             
            Ironically, “whites” are the ones that sold out the populace to buy into the propaganda.
             
            Others have anti-freedom cultures? That’s their culture, how dare you talk about it with disgust!
             
            You want to preserve European formed societies of free will and human dignity? How dare you, you White Supremacist!

Page 1 of 3