When you have a Muslim

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

they will castigate their own mother over a typo




histrionics, hyperbole, testosterone (well on the part of some), and good ol overbearing loutishness coupled with anonymity tends to create fever pitches




its like mentioning something about your foot and then finding that you excited at least one person's perv, if you type in here, you will offend someone.





now i love you

You mention that "anonymity tends to create fever pitches"; I absolutely agree. We might have political disagreements with a neighbor or coworker but we don't go ballistic and start ad hominem attacks because we know there will be consequences to our harsh language. That fear of consequences forces us to remain reasonably civil.

What we do here is a sort intellectual road rage. I'm not sure it's ethical, but it is fun.

[sfb]

The Spaghetti monster is freakin pink and not blue... GOSH I totally learned that in my 3rd grade Algebra class, where were you... I'm going to feed my llama now

(shuffle, shuffle, shuf... trip "damnit", shuffle...)

Vote for Pedro

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Diomidis

Ahem, my only comment in this thread will be this:

As an atheist, I thank you to not stereotype me as a hater of religion or the religious. My conversion to atheism was personal and does not affect my views of those who believe in a deity of any kind. I have no agenda other than to raise my children as valuable contributors to society and ensure that I have a legacy once I'm gone.

If that is truly your only intention in your newly adopted religion as an atheist, then have at it. If, however, you ever ‘stereotype’ yourself as being intellectually and/or morally superior to those who do subscribe to believe in a divine being, please remember that atheists have infamously demonstrated that those who adhere to your adoptive religion are quite capable of despicable and heinous atrocities.

“When there is not enough to eat, people starve to death. It is better that half of the people die, so that the other half can eat their fill.” Mao: Minutes of Mao’s Talk, Gansu 25 March 1959. pp. 44-48.

“It does not amount to more than one finger out of ten.” Mao

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

If that is truly your only intention in your newly adopted religion as an atheist, then have at it. If, however, you ever ‘stereotype’ yourself as being intellectually and/or morally superior to those who do subscribe to believe in a divine being, please remember that atheists have infamously demonstrated that those who adhere to your adoptive religion are quite capable of despicable and heinous atrocities.

“When there is not enough to eat, people starve to death. It is better that half of the people die, so that the other half can eat their fill.” Mao: Minutes of Mao’s Talk, Gansu 25 March 1959. pp. 44-48.

“It does not amount to more than one finger out of ten.” Mao

The real danger of atheism is that without a belief in god, there is no way of establishing absolute truth. Everything just becomes a matter of opinion; in philosophy, that's called nihilism. Nihilism, by definition, is the belief that its impossible to actually KNOW anything and that consequently, life has no meaning or purpose. Modern day liberalism is nihilistic. The radical left believes that since life is essentially meaningless, we have to give it meaning by striving to create a socialist Utopia; since there is no afterlife (no Heaven) we must make one in this world.

Without deferring to God, the highest standard for truth is only Man. At any given time, the majority of people may will believe almost anything. If the majority of people agree that killing new born babies with birth defects is morally acceptable, who will tell them no, and by what standard? Taking god out of the equation lets the State do pretty much whatever it wants. That's why Marx and Mao were so vehemently anti-god. They wanted the State to assume the role which would otherwise be filled by a belief in god.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Without deferring to God, the highest standard for truth is only Man. At any given time, the majority of people may will believe almost anything. If the majority of people agree that killing new born babies with birth defects is morally acceptable, who will tell them no, and by what standard? Taking god out of the equation lets the State do pretty much whatever it wants.

I agree that a no-god view of life can lead to this in an extreme. Unfortunately deferring to god--or more accurately deferring to those who claim to speak for god of whatever variation--can lead to the same thing. How many people have committed atrocities because "God told me to do it".

The problem is extremists in any direction. And people who believe they truly understand what god wants in even the smallest matters. I sincerely doubt god truly cares if we eat pork, cows, or fish. I sincerely doubt he cares which day of the week we pray more on. I think he does care a lot about how we treat other people. Essentially good Buddhists, good Christians, good Hindus, good Muslims, and good atheists can all be good people. And the opposite is also true, in spite of what zealots of any religion may believe.

[sfb]

What?!? Without god there is no way of establishing absolute truth??? Religion is what creates the doubt in any sort of absolute truth as everyone believes in their own faith. Religion can not be proven, it is based on faih, and unless there is some sort of divine intervention that happens while we are alive and witness to it everything that we have to argue on was written by people long dead whose social and political motivations can not be ascertained with any sort of reliable precision.

I am not atheist and not taking the stance of the spaghetti monster and arguing that which can't be proven can't be true, but to claim that religion is what creates absolute truth denies the fact that of the 7 billion people on this earth there is no majority belief that accounts for even 50% of everyone.

I would argue that the only thing that can offer absolute truth is science, aka repeatable and obvious results through experimentation. However every scientist that has meant something to the community to date has been proven wrong in some way or another in the years after his/her research so that argument loses ground as well

[Guest032414-2]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

If that is truly your only intention in your newly adopted religion as an atheist, then have at it. If, however, you ever ‘stereotype’ yourself as being intellectually and/or morally superior to those who do subscribe to believe in a divine being, please remember that atheists have infamously demonstrated that those who adhere to your adoptive religion are quite capable of despicable and heinous atrocities.

“When there is not enough to eat, people starve to death. It is better that half of the people die, so that the other half can eat their fill.” Mao: Minutes of Mao’s Talk, Gansu 25 March 1959. pp. 44-48.

“It does not amount to more than one finger out of ten.” Mao

Every "religion" has its fanatics who will do anything for their beliefs, even slaughter thousands or millions of people.

Don't tell me that the other great religions of the world don't have smug buffoons who feel that their shit doesn't stink, because if you did, I think you'd spontaneously combust.

As for no higher authority than man, that too is BS, it's tantamount to those that claim I can't have or raise my children to have morals because I don't believe in a god. Nihilism as a result of mass atheism is just another slippery slope logical fallacy.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Diomidis

Every "religion" has its fanatics who will do anything for their beliefs, even slaughter thousands or millions of people. As pointed out above.

Don't tell me that the other great religions of the world don't have smug buffoons who feel that their shit doesn't stink, because if you did, I think you'd spontaneously combust. You are the one who is 'exploding' despite your protesting that such anger in this regard was not in your nature.

As for no higher authority than man, that too is BS, it's tantamount to those that claim I can't have or raise my children to have morals because I don't believe in a god. Nihilism as a result of mass atheism is just another slippery slope logical fallacy. Chairman Mao's cadre disinterred the recent dead and used the bodies as fertilizer on the fields: they had no sense of morality.

..

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by Old-T

I agree that a no-god view of life can lead to this in an extreme. Unfortunately deferring to god--or more accurately deferring to those who claim to speak for god of whatever variation--can lead to the same thing. How many people have committed atrocities because "God told me to do it".

The problem is extremists in any direction. And people who believe they truly understand what god wants in even the smallest matters. I sincerely doubt god truly cares if we eat pork, cows, or fish. I sincerely doubt he cares which day of the week we pray more on. I think he does care a lot about how we treat other people. Essentially good Buddhists, good Christians, good Hindus, good Muslims, and good atheists can all be good people. And the opposite is also true, in spite of what zealots of any religion may believe.

I pretty much agree with your position. I'm certainly not advocating for a theocracy. I think the founding fathers had a good feel for the proper balance of church (god) and state (man).

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

I pretty much agree with your position. I'm certainly not advocating for a theocracy. I think the founding fathers had a good feel for the proper balance of church (god) and state (man).

Agree with you there. It ain't perfect but I don't know a better one yet.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

.Chairman Mao's cadre disinterred the recent dead and used the bodies as fertilizer on the fields..

I'm not a Maoist but let me ask you a couple practical question:

Once a body is dead, what is it's value rotting in a casket? If it is burried without a casket, is it not going to be fertilizer one way or another? And in that case, why not where it will be useful to keep the living alive?

I do not concur with the Great Leap Forward and the other abominations of the Maoists, but in the context of their system, this was a very benign practice when compaired to many others.

Which is the greater evil:
--Desecrating a dead body that almost certainly doesn't care that it's being desecrated (in which case can you actually desecrate it?)
--Or letting people starve

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by sfb

What?!? Without god there is no way of establishing absolute truth??? Religion is what creates the doubt in any sort of absolute truth as everyone believes in their own faith. Religion can not be proven, it is based on faih, and unless there is some sort of divine intervention that happens while we are alive and witness to it everything that we have to argue on was written by people long dead whose social and political motivations can not be ascertained with any sort of reliable precision.

I am not atheist and not taking the stance of the spaghetti monster and arguing that which can't be proven can't be true, but to claim that religion is what creates absolute truth denies the fact that of the 7 billion people on this earth there is no majority belief that accounts for even 50% of everyone.

I would argue that the only thing that can offer absolute truth is science, aka repeatable and obvious results through experimentation. However every scientist that has meant something to the community to date has been proven wrong in some way or another in the years after his/her research so that argument loses ground as well

When I said, that without god there is no way to establish absolute truth, I was referring to questions of good and evil, subjective questions. This is why I used the example of infanticide. Most people would agree that killing babies with birth defects is evil (Obama does not) and must be prohibited. But this belief, as obvious as it may seem, is still subjective.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

I'm not a Maoist but let me ask you a couple practical question:

Once a body is dead, what is it's value rotting in a casket? If it is burried without a casket, is it not going to be fertilizer one way or another? And in that case, why not where it will be useful to keep the living alive?

I do not concur with the Great Leap Forward and the other abominations of the Maoists, but in the context of their system, this was a very benign practice when compaired to many others.

Which is the greater evil:
--Desecrating a dead body that almost certainly doesn't care that it's being desecrated (in which case can you actually desecrate it?)
--Or letting people starve

Old-goaT, an FYI: Mao confiscated the crops from the farmers and exchanged those crops for weapons and weapons technology. The desecration of the bodies was a ploy used by Mao's henchmen to increase production in accordance with Mao's 'demand economy' dictates. Mao starved his people AND desecrated the bodies of their beloved. Mao was an atheistic communist. Mao was evil, Old-goaT!

“When there is not enough to eat, people starve to death. It is better that half of the people die, so that the other half can eat their fill.” Mao: Minutes of Mao’s Talk, Gansu 25 March 1959. pp. 44-48.

“It does not amount to more than one finger out of ten.” Mao

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The desecration of the bodies was a ploy used by Mao's henchmen to increase production in accordance with Mao's 'demand economy' dictates. Mao starved his people AND desecrated the bodies of their beloved. Mao was an atheistic communist. Mao was evil, Old-goaT!

“When there is not enough to eat, people starve to death. It is better that half of the people die, so that the other half can eat their fill.” Mao: Minutes of Mao’s Talk, Gansu 25 March 1959. pp. 44-48.

Once again you are clueless and happy to be so.

I never said Mao was a nice guy. I never supported his actions as a whole. But contrary to what your small mind can absord, increased food production did keep more people alive than otherwise would have been. Is half dieing better than 70% dieing?

The desecration was not a ploy--it was what it was claimed to be: a way to increase crops. Yes, the central gov't then confiscated much of the harvest but there is no government that can keep a hungry farm worker--especially in a labor intensive agricultural system--from eating some of the produce. And all governments, communist or not, understand that dead farmworkers are of little value to bringing in the harvest.

[Guest032414-2]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

..

That was merely an inference that such a bold-faced lie (stating that any religion could be without fanatics bent on destroying those that don't believe) could make someone spontaneously combust. Funny how people seem to know anger from a typed post on a message board. I'm far from angry, just wanted to point out the fallacies in your statements. Instead of just acknowledging my decision, you felt compelled to backhand my "beliefs" in such a way that necessitated a response.

Yes, Mao was a very evil person and he would have probably been just as evil under the guise of any religion. He isn't a hero of mine nor someone that I view as having the values that an atheist should have. True evil knows no boundaries. To use him as some kind of example of what atheism is all about would be about the same as using the purging of pagans in Europe as an example of Christianity. I would rather view Christians as believers in a man who wanted his followers to be able to love all people, regardless of differing points of view.