The Theism/Atheism Discussion

[Jae Onasi]

Sometimes *too* set in stone, in my opinion. Simple morality is completely inflexible in its "tenants" and much harder to use to justify things that violate them. There is no way you can say murder is moral, for instance.

 

Religion, however, can override simple morality. When you bring God into the whole thing, you bring in something that can be used to justify any action no matter how immoral. Look at the case of that one mother who drowned her children a few months ago - from a moral perspective, murdering children is a bad thing. But introduce religion into it and that changes things. What if she killed them to save their souls from Satan, as she claimed? There, you've just justified a perfectly monstrous act with an appeal to authority.

 

When you introduce a power as high as God to something, you completely negate your own sense of morals - they are inferior to God. Worse yet, you can't ever question the will of God, no matter how immoral He may appear.

 

Come on, Emperor Devon. She was seriously mentally ill. There's a big difference between someone trying to justify an act using God (and that's an incorrect usage anyway), and someone who's so mentally ill that she believes she's seeing Satan in front of her and God is one of the many voices she's hearing in her head telling her to go kill it. The lady who drowned her kids was the latter--terribly psychotic, and that is very different from a moral problem.

 

So how do you benchmark morals if you have nothing that is ultimately good? Atheists have nothing that is Ultimate Good (God) that serves as the definitive standard. That is not to say that atheists are immoral--let me be clear about that--my 2 close atheist friends are every bit as moral as I am.

But who's the 'good person' who provides that defining sense of morality? And why should I accept your benchmark? Or you mine? if there is no defining ultimate good, then anything goes. Your 'good' is just as valid as my 'good', and we end up depending on nothing more than feelings about what's right or wrong, with no basis to say 'x is always wrong' and 'y is always right'.

 

Furthermore, the fact that anyone can say something is 'good' or 'evil' means we know there is an ultimate standard. It's not 'my culture says this is the right thing to do' or 'I internally feel this is the right thing to do', all of which are variable. The only way we can definitively know that murder is wrong or molesting children is reprehensible is if there is non-changing standard of good with which we can compare such acts.

 

The atheist:criminal ratio--atheists tend to be more highly educated. Criminals tend to be less educated. The crime rate is lower among the more highly educated, regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof. Since atheists are more highly educated and more likely to be gainfully employed, of course there are going to be fewer atheist criminals. If you could control for educational status along with religion/lack thereof, I suspect the ratios would be more similar.

 

This article in Criminology states that involvement in religious activities lowers the probability that someone will commit a crime.

[Achilles]

Maybe I'm not giving you the answers you want to hear. Maybe I'm not saying 'religion is evil, we must stop it at all costs'. The problem isn't as cut and dry as you might like to make it out to be. We cannot just lump every Christian, Jew and Muslim in the one box. By doing that the innocent are punished as well as the guilty.

Does this mean you aren't going to answer those questions?

 

I'm simply trying to point out that there are some inconsistencies in your positions. Several pertinent points to the dialog are denied, ignored, or dismissed as incredible. I try to address the points you raise, but frequently it seems as though you're unwilling to show me the same level of respect.

 

A few points:

 

Movies, television shows, and video games are great forms of entertainment and can sometimes be used to express important messages. However they make for very poor sources when trying to shore up your position in a debate.

 

You seem interested in actual facts when presented, but you also seem equally willing to ignore their implications if you don't agree with the conclusions they support.

 

Your message implies that my goal is to "punish". As I've stated several times, my goal is to have a dialog. I am not interested in (nor do I support) persecution of anyone or any group. I don't have a problem with any religious people. I have several problems with religious beliefs.

 

If you have some information that you feel contradicts, disproves, or weakens my position, I would be more than happy to listen to whatever you have to say. All I ask is that you act with reciprocity.

 

As always, thanks for reading.

[Nancy Allen``]

Alright. Put down your question again, all of them, and be as descriptive as you can, and I'll lay it all out for you, facts, sources, even if the best I can point to is some fiction in religious texts.

[Achilles]

Come on, Emperor Devon. She was seriously mentally ill. There's a big difference between someone trying to justify an act using God (and that's an incorrect usage anyway), and someone who's so mentally ill that she believes she's seeing Satan in front of her and God is one of the many voices she's hearing in her head telling her to go kill it. The lady who drowned her kids was the latter--terribly psychotic, and that is very different from a moral problem.

I'm reminded of William James arguing the idea that maybe the ones we refer to as "sane" are the ones with mental deficiencies. There are countless horrible act that have been done throughout history in the name of God. Surely some of the people that committed them were crazy, but not all of them.

 

So how do you benchmark morals if you have nothing that is ultimately good? Atheists have nothing that is Ultimate Good (God) that serves as the definitive standard. That is not to say that atheists are immoral--let me be clear about that--my 2 close atheist friends are every bit as moral as I am.

What if you don't need an "ultimate good"? I don't believe in not killing people because it conflicts with some concept of ultimate good. I don't kill people because I don't believe we should live in a world where people should be allowed to walk around killing whomever they want. Since I wouldn't want someone to kill me, I don't kill others. No ultimate good necessary.

 

But who's the 'good person' who provides that defining sense of morality? And why should I accept your benchmark? Or you mine? if there is no defining ultimate good, then anything goes.

As I just showed, this isn't true. I'm a big fan of truth being self-evident. I don't know anyone that encounters the Golden Rule and says, "yeah, I don't know...". You may choose not to accept the Golden Rule, but I'm willing to wager than you can't make one argument against it that would cause a rational person to say, "You're right. That golden rule stuff is BS.". The problem is that if your morality comes from religion, then you don't have to have a rational reason for your belief. Furthermore, it's generally accepted that if you say, "Well, that's what I believe", then the other person has to respect that. I obviously don't subscribe to that way of thinking

 

Your 'good' is just as valid as my 'good', and we end up depending on nothing more than feelings about what's right or wrong, with no basis to say 'x is always wrong' and 'y is always right'.

Unfortunately, I think you'll find that this only happens in religion. I can't think of any other institution in which this type of thinking is permitted.

 

Furthermore, the fact that anyone can say something is 'good' or 'evil' means we know there is an ultimate standard.

Referring to things as "good" and "evil" is only evidence that we are enculturated to think in those terms. Nothing more.

 

It's not 'my culture says this is the right thing to do' or 'I internally feel this is the right thing to do', all of which are variable.

Actually, this is known as "moral relativism". Eating dogs in Asia is perfectly normal, however it's animal cruelty here. By way of comparison, most of us have no problem sitting down to a burger or a steak, but Hindus would sooner chew off their own tongues than eat cow.

 

The only way we can definitively know that murder is wrong or molesting children is reprehensible is if there is non-changing standard of good with which we can compare such acts.

I agree with your conclusion but not for the same reasons that you do.

 

The atheist:criminal ratio--atheists tend to be more highly educated. Criminals tend to be less educated.

Atheists tend to be highly educated. Criminals tend to be less educated. Therefore Atheists tend not to be criminals. Criminals are not usually atheists. Therefore criminals are usually religious people.

 

Am I missing something? Wasn't that what I said?

 

The crime rate is lower among the more highly educated, regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof. Since atheists are more highly educated and more likely to be gainfully employed, of course there are going to be fewer atheist criminals.If you could control for educational status along with religion/lack thereof, I suspect the ratios would be more similar.

You're stretching. I'm not seeing anything here that refutes my argument that religious people are more likely to break the law and go to jail.

 

This article in Criminology states that involvement in religious activities lowers the probability that someone will commit a crime.

*Ignores that article is 12 years old*

 

Does Religion Really Reduce Crime?

 

Paul Heaton (2006). Journal of Law and Economics XLIX (April).

University of Chicago.

 

Previous studies have found evidence that increased religious membership in a jurisdiction leads to reduced crime rates. However, many of these studies have examined the relationship using a statistical technique (ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions) which may have produced biased results. The reason for the potential bias is that criminal activity may itself affect religious activity. That is, high crime areas might lead religious organizations to locate there. Alternatively, criminal activities might lead individuals to abandon religious participation because of guilt. This study controls for the influence of crime on religion and re-examines the impact of religious activity on crime rates. The author finds no statistically significant relationship between religious membership and property or violent crime.

—Niels Veldhuis and Jason Clemens

[Emperor Devon]

Come on, Emperor Devon. She was seriously mentally ill.

 

But Jae, it's hardly unique. She wasn't the first case in which God was used to justify an immoral action. Another example (apart from the one in my previous post) are people who strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in crowded places. If you look at it from a moral perspective, is it horrible? Yes. If God says so? A-okay!

 

Atheists have nothing that is Ultimate Good (God) that serves as the definitive standard.

 

You are forgetting that God is merely an individual who meets that standard better than we do (supposedly). It's the standards themselves we should be striving to meet, not how well someone else has met them.

 

my 2 close atheist friends are every bit as moral as I am.

 

Might I ask why you're debating this if you think atheists can be just be as moral as the religious?

 

Achilles addressed the rest...

[Achilles]

Alright. Put down your question again, all of them, and be as descriptive as you can, and I'll lay it all out for you, facts, sources, even if the best I can point to is some fiction in religious texts.

I respectfully decline your invitation to start over from scratch. You're more than welcome to pick up at post 118 on page 3. There are also a few lingering questions in post 123 earlier on this page.

 

I look forward to reading your responses.

[Jae Onasi]

Just a quick post because I have a bunch of appts today, and I just wanted to ask a couple questions more than anything else.

 

@Achilles--just because the article is 12 years old doesn't make it invalid. It's been quoted by a good number of other articles, so someone thought it must have been useful.

 

@ED--God doesn't define the standard, He _is_ the standard.

Mentally ill people would use Flying Spaghetti Monster as the reason for killing if they happened to worship such--they're not killing because of God, they're killing because they are mentally ill, and the brain is so screwed up that God happens to get mixed in. This isn't a moral question at all in this case, because they aren't able to process morals correctly at all.

 

Achilles started to answer this but hasn't completely. Stalin and Mao thought that promotion of Communism and their view of how to run Soviet Russia and China respectively justified all the deaths they caused to achieve their end. For them, death was not evil if it meant promotion of their ideals, and they surely did not find the Golden Rule to be self-evident in this case. This is very clearly a case of their own human standard being applied to morals with disastrous results for millions, and in fact I'd submit that these two alone were responsible for more deaths than all of the religious wars combined.

If Atheism uses man as the standard, then something like the actions of Mao and Stalin can no longer be considered 'wrong'. Why is your brand of morality any better than these two, in this case?

[Achilles]

@Achilles--just because the article is 12 years old doesn't make it invalid. It's been quoted by a good number of other articles, so someone thought it must have been useful.

Sorry. I guess I'm just used to academic standards. For the past decade, I haven't been permitted to cite anything that isn't peer-reviewed or less than 5 years old.

 

@ED--God doesn't define the standard, He _is_ the standard.

How can you tell us that you have moral atheist friends and then say this? What explanation can you offer for the morality of Buddhists or Jains?

 

Mentally ill people would use Flying Spaghetti Monster as the reason for killing if they happened to worship such--they're not killing because of God, they're killing because they are mentally ill, and the brain is so screwed up that God happens to get mixed in. This isn't a moral question at all in this case, because they aren't able to process morals correctly at all.

As I pointed out earlier, some are insane. Others are just really devoted.

 

Achilles started to answer this but hasn't completely. Stalin and Mao thought that promotion of Communism and their view of how to run Soviet Russia and China respectively justified all the deaths they caused to achieve their end. For them, death was not evil if it meant promotion of their ideals, and they surely did not find the Golden Rule to be self-evident in this case. This is very clearly a case of their own human standard being applied to morals with disastrous results for millions, and in fact I'd submit that these two alone were responsible for more deaths than all of the religious wars combined.

Actually I have answered this completely. The problem that you cite is facism, not atheism. Your examples just happen to be Atheists. Even I wouldn't go so far as to say that Hitler isn't the gold standard for Catholic leaders.

 

If Atheism uses man as the standard, then something like the actions of Mao and Stalin can no longer be considered 'wrong'. Why is your brand of morality any better than these two, in this case?

Fine. If Religiosity is the standard, then something like the actions of Hitler can no longer be considered 'wrong'.

 

As you can see, that argument fails for obvious reasons. If we didn't have a "moral compass" that was independent of religion, then we would still be stoning people to death of working on the Sabbath, using the Bible to justify slavery, etc. Because we do, we opt to cherry-pick the parts the reinforce what we consider to be moral behavior. Until you can address this point (which I have brought up several times before), then I don't see how we can move forward.

[JediMaster12]

using the Bible to justify slavery,

Actually this has been done. I believe it is Joshua 9:20 that is the popular favorite. "The children of Ham turned black for their sins and shall be unto the rest hewers of wood and drawers of water. They shall be as servants unto us." I would think that this would be used to justify the slavery in particular the African slave trade. And these people who used this were God fearing people who believed in helping their neighbor, just not the ones who were physically different.

 

How can you tell us that you have moral atheist friends and then say this? What explanation can you offer for the morality of Buddhists or Jains?

It was more of an ethnocentric statement which even the most enlightened people make. The founding fathers were the same way. As for Buddhists, if I remember correctly, they believe that all life is suffering and that they believe that by achieving balance, they will be enlightened or something like that. Very rusty there. Buddhism is more philosophical if I'm not mistaken as well as Confucianism and both address standard modes of behavior.

[Darth InSidious]

Hitler was less Catholic than Calvin.

 

After he left school he abandoned his faith (Michael Rissmann, Hitlers Gott. Vorsehungsglaube und Sendungsbewußtsein des deutschen Diktators, Zürich München: Pendo, 2001, p. 94-96 ISBN 3-85842-421-8.).

 

Yes, in addresses to the Reichstag and in public, as on March 23rd 1933, he claimed Catholicism, but in private, he clearly held no such beliefs, and this was probably just another facet of what Ian Kershaw refers to as 'the Hitler Myth'. This was probably an attempt to placate the Christian churches into believing he still followed their moral codes.

 

Speer notes that Hitler asked why he was raised a Christian: "Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?". Hitler also seems to claim that it was the 'disintegrating effect of Christianity' that was solely responsible for the destruction of the Roman Empire. Goebbels noted in his diary that Hitler believed Christianity was a 'symptom of decay'. He regarded Christianity as a corrupted teaching of an Aryan, anti-semitic Christ (Steigmann-Gall, p. 257, 260).

 

He also, claimed not to believe in Christianity with 'its weak pity ethics', but rather, in a strong, 'active', perhaps militant God, with his somewhat odd 'positive Christianity'.

 

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter." - Cited in Norman H. Baynes, The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1, New York: Oxford University Press, 1942, p. 19-20 ISBN 0-598-75893-3. In a speech delivered on 12 April 1922, Munich

 

Catholic by birth, perhaps. But Catholic in belief? I think not.

 

Hitler, if we were to momentarily ignore everything I have said above, Hitler, by performing the atrocities he did, contravenes an absolute moral law that is laid down by Catholicism in pretty well every act of legislation, and in every major deed that he performed.

 

Mao and Stalin, however, contravene a much less absolute moral law. Theirs would seem to based upon (although I do not claim authority on atheism, and please, do contradict me if I am wrong), what is good for society. Now that is a very relative term, no?

[Achilles]

Actually this has been done.

Yep. While liberals were using the Bible to promote Abolition, southern concervatives were using the Bible to refute it.

 

It was more of an ethnocentric statement which even the most enlightened people make. The founding fathers were the same way.

I'm afraid I don't follow. What is this in regards to?

 

As for Buddhists, if I remember correctly, they believe that all life is suffering and that they believe that by achieving balance, they will be enlightened or something like that. Very rusty there. Buddhism is more philosophical if I'm not mistaken as well as Confucianism and both address standard modes of behavior.

Pretty close. Life is suffering and acceptance leads to enlightment. Enlightenment makes happiness possible in the face of suffering. At least that's my understanding of the philosophy.

 

I raised the point because Jae claimed that God is the only source of morality. The fact that non-christians display moral behavior directly contradicts such a claim. This claim was made after I pointed to sources that show that Christians are significantly more likely to be imprisoned for crime than Atheists (or even non-christians for that matter).

 

Hitler was less Catholic than Calvin.

I appreciate the comparison, however the fact still remains that he was not an an atheist.

 

“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” - Adolf Hitler

 

I concede that his apparent belief may have been political rather than personal, however this is theory and not fact. Taking Hitler at his word, it's clear that he was a religious man.

 

Mao and Stalin, however, contravene a much less absolute moral law. Theirs would seem to based upon (although I do not claim authority on atheism, and please, do contradict me if I am wrong), what is good for society. Now that is a very relative term, no?

Their regimes were based upon what they thought best for society, not necessarily what reasoned examination of ethics would prescribe. Again, Mao and Stalin are examples of the dangers of dogmatic thinking, not atheistic thinking.

 

My point has been to show that Mao, Stalin, and arguably Hitler are all red herrings. They are frequently paraded out to show how terrible a world of atheistic nations would be. Unfortunately, the true problem in these examples is fascism, not atheism. If someone would like to provide an example of atheism run amok that doesn't involve a fascist regime, I'd be more than happy to stand corrected.

[mimartin]

They're just doing what their Gods have told them to do.

 

Nothing I’ve every read in the scriptures has told me to harm another. To the contrary what I’ve got from the bible was to love everyone especially my enemy. I’d like to know the book and verse where this could be found.

 

I agree with a lot of what you have written in this tread, but I do not believe their “Gods” have told them to harm another. I don’t know much about Buddhists or Judaism, but I’ve read the bible and in college I read the Koran and neither condone violence against another. Just because someone misinterprets it for their own selfish reasons does not make everyone of a particular faith “evil.” I do believe millions have been killed in the name of religion, but I see no proof that God told anyone to harm another.

 

On Topic: I have the same view on Atheists that I have for any other person. It is their right to choose their own faith or lack there of. According to my faith it is not my job to judge anyone, but myself.

 

The only problem I have with Atheists or any other group is when they try to force their own beliefs on me or belittle my beliefs.

 

Personally I believe in god and I’m a Christian, but I don’t believe in organized religion. I only believe in my own interruption of his word. I understand the bible was written by man and then translated by man, so personally I use it for guidance not as the final word.

 

“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” - Adolf Hitler

I concede that his apparent belief may have been political rather than personal, however this is theory and not fact. Taking Hitler at his word, it's clear that he was a religious man.

 

Just because Hitler says he was a Catholic does not make him one, any more then me saying I’m a mongoose makes me a mongoose. I attend the Catholic Church as a child, but I’m no Catholic. It takes more than just going to the Church to be a part of any particular religion. Also no organization should be condemned for one homicidal lunatic did. Just as Austrian people or the entire German population should not be looked down upon for what Hitler and the Nazi’s did.

 

Why would you take known liar and murder at his word anyways?

[JediMaster12]

I'm afraid I don't follow. What is this in regards to?

The statement that Jae made about God being the standard. Ethnocentrism in general terms is the attitude that my culture and all the trimmings are better than yours. It is look that one person has on the world. Looking at Jae's statement I pointed out that it was ethnocentric purely from an anthropological viewpoint. As a Christian I somewhat hold this view but being more liberal and having a library full of pagan works I am more inclined to listen and in the mood for possible acceptance. Which is why I like some ideas of Buddhism and other religions.

 

I raised the point because Jae claimed that God is the only source of morality. The fact that non-christians display moral behavior directly contradicts such a claim. This claim was made after I pointed to sources that show that Christians are significantly more likely to be imprisoned for crime than Atheists (or even non-christians for that matter).

Again why I said the statement was ethnocentric.

[SilentScope001]

As for the subject of atheists not being criminals...

 

I actually read an autobiography of a atheist who was also criminal (a robber and a coke dealer, actually). He claimed that he basically did not believe in God, and saw it as useless. He basically did not believe in God, because he is a criminal (the problem of evil and all). The concept of God doesn't really help one surivie out on the streets, after all, and what use is praying to an invisible diety when you have to threaten to kill and harm others in order to live. In prison, he was known as "Satan", due to his disbelief.

 

[i got this from "Autobiography of Malcom X", which talks about Malcom X's life on the street before he went into prison and discovered the Nation of Islam, and later on in his life, Othrodox Islam.]

 

What I am getting at is that, well, the belief that atheism will get people to stay loyal to state and do moral behavior...may not actually work. Prehaps immoral people, like criminals, MAY embrace atheism, prehaps as a justification for their crimes.

 

Religion has nothing to do with if a person does crimes or not. It is all about the individual.

--

discussion about Hitler

 

...Really, shouldn't someone be invoking Godwin's Law here?

[Achilles]

Nothing I’ve every read in the scriptures has told me to harm another.

Are you simply stating that you aren't familiar with the scriptures that I'm referencing or are you claiming that they don't exist?

 

To the contrary what I’ve got from the bible was to love everyone especially my enemy.

There are certainly some scriptures that promote such behavior. Unfortunately, such sentiments are only limited to a few books in the bible.

 

I’d like to know the book and verse where this could be found.

Too many to cite here I'm afraid. The Skeptic's Annotated Bible might be a good source for you. The "Cruelty and Violence" section has over 850 references. "Intolerance" has almost 550. Since those are closest to the topic at hand, I'd recommend starting there.

 

I agree with a lot of what you have written in this tread, but I do not believe their “Gods” have told them to harm another. I don’t know much about Buddhists or Judaism, but I’ve read the bible and in college I read the Koran and neither condone violence against another.

 

The Christian God on how to treat those of other faiths:

If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying,

 

Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;

 

Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;

 

Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.

 

And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.

 

And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and shew thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers;

 

When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God.

 

Deuteronomy 13:12-18

 

The Qu'ran on how to treat those of other faiths:

And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

 

The Cow 2:191

 

As you can see, these books do in fact not only condone but promote violence toward one another.

 

Just because someone misinterprets it for their own selfish reasons does not make everyone of a particular faith “evil.” I do believe millions have been killed in the name of religion, but I see no proof that God told anyone to harm another.

Please see above as well as sources.

 

Just because Hitler says he was a Catholic does not make him one, any more then me saying I’m a mongoose makes me a mongoose. I attend the Catholic Church as a child, but I’m no Catholic.

I don't know how one would go about disproving another person's beliefs. How would you go about proving that I'm not really an atheist? How would I prove that you don't really believe in God?

 

It takes more than just going to the Church to be a part of any particular religion. Also no organization should be condemned for one homicidal lunatic did. Just as Austrian people or the entire German population should not be looked down upon for what Hitler and the Nazi’s did.

I don't believe anyone here is condemning Catholicism becasue of Hitler.

 

Why would you take known liar and murder at his word anyways?

Call me foolish, but I tend to take people at their word when it comes to their beliefs. If you tell me that you believe in God, I'm going to believe you. If you tell me that you worship the Greek pantheon, I'm going to believe you. Since religious people also lie and commit murder, I see no reason not to take them at their word as well.

[SilentScope001]

I think here is something, Achilles, that you have to realize.

 

WE define religion.

 

Not you. Us.

 

We are the ones that answer to our God. We are the ones that write and read our Holy Books. You cannot tell us what to believe, because we tell ourselves what to believe.

 

And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

 

The Cow 2:191

 

Here's an answer your own quote:

 

[2:192] But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

 

Right after the aytah that you quote. Basically, if you are being attacked, you have the right to fight back. When the other sects say, "You know what? I don't want to fight!" then you don't fight. Simple. Don't take things out of context.

 

It's basically an quote that justifies 'self-defense'. Better to fight against people who are enslaving you, then to consent to being enslaved.

 

We understand our own religion. And if we are "reading" our own religion wrong, well then, that is exactly what we are doing. So? Let us be accountable to our own God that, by the way, we invented! If we invented God, we can invent religion.

[Nancy Allen``]

I invoke Godwin's Law. I win.

[Jae Onasi]

Is this the article you're quoting, Achilles?

 

Studies: Atheists Supply

less than One Percent

of Prison Populations

by Dale Clark

 

* Index: Atheism and Awareness (News)

* Home to Positive Atheism

 

Received July, 1997

 

It's surprising how many people remark to me, "You're an Atheist? You must have no conscience about committing crime then." Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, if we examine the population of our prisons, we see a very different picture.

 

In "The New Criminology," Max D. Schlapp and Edward E. Smith say that two generations of statisticians found that the ratio of convicts without religious training is about one-tenth of one percent. W.T. Root, Professor of Psychology at the University of Pittsburgh, examined 1,916 prisoners and said, "Indifference to religion, due to thought, strengthens character," adding that Unitarians, Agnostics, Atheists and Free-Thinkers were absent from penitentiaries, or nearly so.

 

During 10 years in Sing-Sing, of those executed for murder 65 percent were Catholics, 26 percent Protestants, six percent Hebrew, two percent Pagan, and less than one-third of one percent non-religious.

 

Steiner and Swancara surveyed Canadian prisons and found 1,294 Catholics, 435 Anglicans, 241 Methodists, 135 Baptists, and one Unitarian.

 

Dr. Christian, Superintendent of the N.Y. State Reformatories, checked records of 22,000 prison inmates and found only four college graduates. In "Who's Who," 91 percent were college graduates; Christian commented that "intelligence and knowledge produce right living," and, "crime is the offspring of superstition and ignorance."

 

A survey of Massachusetts reformatories found every inmate to be religious.

 

In Joliet Prison, there were 2,888 Catholics, 1,020 Baptists, 617 Methodists and no prisoners identified as non-religious.

 

Michigan had 82,000 Baptists and 83,000 Jews in the state population; but in the prisons, there were 22 times as many Baptists as Jews, and 18 times as many Methodists as Jews. In Sing-Sing, there were 1,553 inmates, 855 of them (over half) Catholics, 518 Protestants, 117 Jews, and 8 non-religious.

 

Steiner first surveyed 27 states and found 19,400 Christians, 5,000 with no preference and only 3 Agnostics (one each in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Illinois). A later, more exhaustive survey found 60,605 Christians, 5,000 Jews, 131 Pagans, 4,000 "no preference," and only 3 Agnostics.

 

In one 19-state survey, Steiner found 15 non-believers, Spiritualists, Theosophists, Deists, Pantheists and one Agnostic among nearly 83,000 inmates. He labeled all 15 as "anti-Christians." The Elmira, N.Y. reformatory system overshadowed all others, with nearly 31,000 inmates, including 15,694 Catholics (half) and 10,968 Protestants, 4,000 Jews, 325 refusing to answer, and no unbelievers.

 

In the East, over 64 percent of inmates are Roman Catholic. Throughout the national prison population, they average 50 percent. A national census of the general population found Catholics to be about 15 percent (and they count from the diaper up). Hardly 12 percent are old enough to commit a crime, and half of these are women. That leaves an adult Catholic population of 6 percent supplying 50 percent of the prison population.

 

 

Author Chaz Bufe responds:

 

This [last paragraph] is wrong. If he's going to subtract the women from the Catholic population, he necessarily has to do it for all other religious groups too. That would leave the Catholic percentage at 12 percent, not six percent.

[Achilles]

^^^^

I'm sorry, which quote are you referring to? I don't recall having seen that article before.

 

So I don't take up a post.... The percentage of atheists in prisons. I wanted to know where you found that stat. --Jae

 

Whoops, sorry. Just now seeing this. The data was provided by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Not sure if it's available online, although I'd be surprised if it's not.

[REDJOHNNYMIKE]

I know this isn't a complete study, but maybe you all will find this interesting and maybe see some connection to this discussion and gain something useable from it...

It is incomplete, so if you can finish it then please do so in whatever manner you choose, so that I may understand how you tick.

 

I am disappointed in this discussion in general, quote-tag, with a lack of commitment (maybe that's just the way it looks to me, but whatever), maybe we can remedy this.

 

I apologize for the format, it is research done in a chatroom after all.

 

Sabretooth does seem to be a nice guy and won't kill me...

 

I forgot to copy the interview I had with devon (4am go figure), but basically we had boiled his motivations down to pursuit of personal happiness.

 

With a little more research we can break these notions of ethics, morality, religion, society, etc. and explore what lies beneath.

 

I really wish I'd remembered to record the conversation with devon, if a swk mod could dig that out somehow I would be appreciative, as it's a useful piece of information regarding this subject.

 

Thanks for reading

 

The death of an insignificant PT 1.

 

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:44:15 | UTC-4)

I'll have to read thw hole thing first. But it seems like you guys, achilles and everyone else there are rather closed minded and have a lot of misconceptions

[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 01:44:26 | UTC-5)

There's a difference between being proud of your work and being prideful and haughty about it.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:44:37 | UTC-4)

I'll have to find some time for it though

[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 01:44:40 | UTC-5)

Thanks RJM.

[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:44:54 | UTC-7)

As long as the pride does not exceed the accomplishment it is completely justified.

[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 01:45:01 | UTC-5)

I'm deluded, paranoid, _and_ close-minded. :gring:

[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 01:45:06 | UTC-5)

[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 01:45:14 | UTC-5)

Jae failz smilies

[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:45:25 | UTC-7)

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:45:44 | UTC-4)

Seriously though, both Jae and Achilles seem to miss quite a bit and ED was just sad

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:45:46 | UTC5:30)

der sabretoothe ist heeren.

[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 01:45:55 | UTC-5)

Hi!

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:45:59 | UTC-4)

Hey there toothy boy

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:46:01 | UTC5:30)

what up?

[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:46:07 | UTC-7)

Caught us at a bad time.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:46:08 | UTC-4)

May I ask you a question sabre?

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:46:29 | UTC5:30)

go on

[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 01:46:33 | UTC-5)

@RJM--there's no way to say everything in that thread.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:46:57 | UTC-4)

Sabre, if I was standing in front of you right now, would you kill me?

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:47:23 | UTC5:30)

most likely not

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:47:28 | UTC-4)

[of topic] yeah, kind did at a bad time eh? [/offtopic]

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:47:33 | UTC-4)

why?

[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:47:45 | UTC-7)

The middle of mah complaining.

[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:47:48 | UTC-7)

Accursed filter

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:47:51 | UTC5:30)

i don't know you, and have no reason to kill you

[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:47:59 | UTC-7)

complaining = b!tching

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:48:00 | UTC-4)

why not?

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:48:24 | UTC5:30)

i'll be apprehended.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:48:48 | UTC-4)

if you couldn't be apprehended, if there were no repurcusions whatsoever

[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:48:59 | UTC-7)

It would be unethical

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:49:09 | UTC5:30)

precisely

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:49:17 | UTC-4)

shhhh, stay out of it for now.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:49:24 | UTC-4)

I was asking you

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:49:43 | UTC5:30)

<is there any way to fix this chat? I can't post a message without the HERE button below>

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:50:07 | UTC-4)

it's goofy like that... anyway, I was asking you why not?

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:50:33 | UTC5:30)

i don't see why i would want to kill you, seeing as you could still be of use to me

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:51:01 | UTC-4)

if I was of no use to you, no advantage in me living, would you do it?

[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:51:04 | UTC-7)

Exploit him and dipose of him when his use has run out

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:51:29 | UTC5:30)

perhaps. you could only be a burden on humanity.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:51:33 | UTC-4)

comments like devon's are the reason that whole discussion is bogus

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:51:46 | UTC5:30)

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:51:56 | UTC-4)

Neither a burden or help, just there. Would you do it?

[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:51:56 | UTC-7)

Hey!

[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 01:52:13 | UTC-5)

Ugh. no respect for life, eh?

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:52:19 | UTC5:30)

*sigh*

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:52:36 | UTC-4)

Ignore them sabre

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:52:45 | UTC5:30)

[thinking]why do people want to turn me into a killer?[/thinking]

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:52:46 | UTC-4)

Just decide wether or not to kill me

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:53:07 | UTC-4)

I'm not turning you into a killer, you are or you arent

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:53:18 | UTC5:30)

i will still not kill you, because I value life.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:53:37 | UTC-4)

Kill me or don't, no repurcussions

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:53:38 | UTC-4)

why would you value life?

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:53:40 | UTC5:30)

mine and everyone else's.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:53:52 | UTC-4)

laggy here too

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:54:01 | UTC5:30)

because it is unique. you cannot live the same again.

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:54:25 | UTC5:30)

a life is the most valuable object in human society.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:54:32 | UTC-4)

unique things are destroyed all the time and I will be destroyed eventually

[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:54:54 | UTC-7)

You'd be destroying it sooner

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:55:01 | UTC-4)

it makes no difference if I die now

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:55:03 | UTC5:30)

so? you are still valuable till you are estroyed.

[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 01:55:15 | UTC-5)

Yeah, but you can make contributions to the greater community that add more value when you are working complemetarily.

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:55:22 | UTC5:30)

even if you think you're not.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:55:37 | UTC-4)

*does he really need the cliches sitting on each shoulder?

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:55:50 | UTC5:30)

lol

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:55:50 | UTC-4)

what would make it worht anything

[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:55:59 | UTC-7)

You likely derive pleasure from living. There is no reason to violate your wishes

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:56:11 | UTC-4)

dangit ed

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:56:11 | UTC5:30)

look...

[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:56:22 | UTC-7)

And you're not harming anyone

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:56:29 | UTC5:30)

you never chose to live. you have been given it.

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:56:47 | UTC5:30)

it is your duty to make the most of it, and that is why life is valuable.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:57:04 | UTC-4)

maybe, maybe not, I'm just standing here in front of you where no one can see you

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:57:11 | UTC5:30)

you didn't buy it, you got it and you can'

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:57:25 | UTC5:30)

't sell it.

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:57:42 | UTC5:30)

you can't throw it away

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:58:05 | UTC-4)

what if I don't think I need it, and will stay here waiting for you to kill me until I die, would you do it?

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:58:21 | UTC5:30)

i won't.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:58:36 | UTC-4)

why not? I don't value it.

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:58:41 | UTC5:30)

what you think never matters, you are still a sentient human.

[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 01:58:44 | UTC-5)

ED and Jae tag-teaming ftw!

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:58:52 | UTC-4)

what if I'm not sentient

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:59:05 | UTC5:30)

yes you are

[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:59:09 | UTC-7)

Yay tag-teaming!

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:59:17 | UTC-4)

what if I'm just a comatose shell that will die tomorrow anyway

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:59:35 | UTC5:30)

then i'll let you die a natural death.

[1218] _system_ *whispered* (04/05 01:59:39)

Private message sent to ID#5

trying to accomplish something

[1218] _system_ *whispered* (04/05 01:59:48)

Private message sent to ID#666

trying to accomplish something

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:00:12 | UTC-4)

i'm going to die anyway why won't you kill me? what is your sole reason for doing so?

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:00:47 | UTC5:30)

i have no reason to kill you, and most importantly, I HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:00:47 | UTC-4)

it doesn't matter if my life is ended

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:01:15 | UTC-4)

what if we are stuck in the same room until after my unavoidable death

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:01:28 | UTC-4)

you have no better things to do

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:01:36 | UTC-4)

while I am alive

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:02:11 | UTC-4)

would you kill me?

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:02:26 | UTC5:30)

*sigh*

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:02:39 | UTC-4)

no sigh, just a simple choice, and analysis

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:03:04 | UTC-4)

I'm just trying to get to the root of the thing

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:03:05 | UTC5:30)

you are either deperately suicidal or a very very persistent bugger.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:03:36 | UTC-4)

I'm a very vey persistant bugger who is currently fascinated by this conversation

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:03:40 | UTC5:30)

look

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:03:45 | UTC-4)

would you do it?

[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 02:04:04 | UTC-7)

Recuing someone's lifespan, no matter by how much in this instance, is still immoral

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:04:07 | UTC5:30)

how old are you, woman?

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:04:42 | UTC-4)

ED, morals are not being taken into account here

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:04:50 | UTC-4)

@ST, old enough

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:05:02 | UTC5:30)

<blasted chat lag>

[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 02:05:06 | UTC-7)

WTF? You can't live life without morals

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:05:07 | UTC-4)

I'm just trying to understand why you would or wouldn't kill me

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:05:45 | UTC-4)

@ED, wether or not you can, it is not being taken into account here, please don't be sarcastic either

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:05:45 | UTC5:30)

?

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:05:46 | UTC5:30)

alright, then

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:05:57 | UTC-4)

Sabre needs no distractions

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:06:06 | UTC-4)

alright then what?

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:06:27 | UTC5:30)

yeah

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:06:34 | UTC-4)

yeah what?

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:06:45 | UTC5:30)

so, if I killed you, what purpose would that serve?

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:06:55 | UTC-4)

none

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:07:00 | UTC5:30)

wait a sec, you annoying bugger, there's a lag!

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:07:19 | UTC5:30)

none, so what is the point in me killing you?

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:07:31 | UTC-4)

okay I'll wait for you to catch up..

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:07:48 | UTC5:30)

none. that means I could do better stuff, like ponder the meaning of life.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:07:49 | UTC-4)

there is no point, you may simply decide wether or not to do it

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:08:10 | UTC5:30)

which IS a better thing to do than kill somebody as useless as you.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:08:35 | UTC-4)

We are locked in a room, inescapable until such a time as I die (you will live either way)

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:08:56 | UTC5:30)

i'd rather live without blood on my hands.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:09:07 | UTC-4)

why?

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:09:20 | UTC5:30)

well

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:09:22 | UTC-4)

it's just meaningless

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:09:41 | UTC5:30)

well, that works either ways

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:09:57 | UTC5:30)

if it's meaningless, it serves no point to kill you or not

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:10:03 | UTC-4)

you could kill me without any repurcussions and I would forgive you before I die so that you would be clean, would you do it?

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:10:16 | UTC5:30)

that means that I have a perfect 50:50 chance of killing you or not.

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:10:29 | UTC5:30)

I pick the other 50, that simple.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:10:40 | UTC-4)

no, the chance is 100% that you will do whatever you do

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:10:48 | UTC-4)

which 50 and why?

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:11:00 | UTC-4)

the why is what we are after here

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:11:02 | UTC5:30)

the 50 that is NOT killing you.

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:11:26 | UTC5:30)

it matters just as much as killing you, so not killing you will not make a difference.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:11:49 | UTC-4)

so, if there is no difference, why choose the one over the other

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:12:06 | UTC5:30)

because you can't choose both.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:12:20 | UTC-4)

have you killed anything before?

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:12:21 | UTC5:30)

you can't not kill and kill at the same time.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:12:29 | UTC-4)

anything?

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:12:47 | UTC5:30)

insects, because they were annoying me.

[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 02:12:52 | UTC-5)

Well folks, I need to sign off and try to get some sleep.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:12:58 | UTC-4)

why is this any different

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:12:58 | UTC5:30)

cya

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:13:03 | UTC-4)

bye jae?

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:13:09 | UTC-4)

[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 02:13:09 | UTC-5)

Night all!

[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 02:13:14 | UTC-7)

C'mon, we hardly discussed anything!

[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 02:13:22 | UTC-5)

to everyone!

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:13:23 | UTC5:30)

well, you didn't mention you'd be annoying me

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:13:26 | UTC-4)

no differenc between me and an insect

[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 02:13:31 | UTC-7)

Jae

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:13:49 | UTC-4)

I'm annoying you know, but not when you are in a state of having this choice

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:13:57 | UTC5:30)

i don't kill insects randomly, especially insects in a comatose shell about to die tomorrow

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:14:18 | UTC-4)

but you've killed, why would this be different?

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:14:37 | UTC5:30)

i would be killing a helpless being.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:14:44 | UTC-4)

so

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:14:50 | UTC5:30)

those insects could defend themselves.

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:15:00 | UTC5:30)

AND they were sucking my blood.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:15:13 | UTC-4)

no they couldn't, not the ones you stepped on without thinking

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:15:34 | UTC-4)

why does ths situation require any thought

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:15:35 | UTC5:30)

i don't recall killing them, then.

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:15:47 | UTC5:30)

technically, I haven't killed them

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:15:49 | UTC-4)

you won't recall killing me

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:16:03 | UTC5:30)

then I wouldn't know if were killing you.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:16:11 | UTC-4)

you ended their life, therefore you are their killer

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:16:17 | UTC5:30)

and then I don't have a choice.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:16:19 | UTC-4)

you would know at the time you decide

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:16:32 | UTC-4)

you simply have to choose

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:16:43 | UTC-4)

and tell me why before you kill me

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:16:50 | UTC5:30)

then I know I would have killed and that would negate me not remembering your death.

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:17:13 | UTC5:30)

*grammar typos

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:17:25 | UTC-4)

you would not remember after the fact, only I would, and would have no ill will towards you

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:18:00 | UTC-4)

would you do it

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:18:08 | UTC5:30)

well, we've been through atleast a dozen clauses till now...

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:18:19 | UTC-4)

eh?

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:18:37 | UTC5:30)

yep, we started with a simple would you kill me...

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:18:48 | UTC-4)

of course

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:18:55 | UTC5:30)

and now we have no ill will, comatose shells, loss of memory...

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:19:11 | UTC-4)

all leading us towards the end

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:19:21 | UTC5:30)

the end?

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:19:31 | UTC-4)

your decision

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:19:33 | UTC5:30)

you mean your death, on my hands?

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:19:48 | UTC-4)

no, my death at your hands, nothing on them

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:20:09 | UTC5:30)

i'll still not kill you.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:20:26 | UTC-4)

why not

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:20:38 | UTC5:30)

my conscience would kill me.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:20:48 | UTC-4)

I need to know reasons and motive

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:21:00 | UTC-4)

your conscience couldn't remind you

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:21:03 | UTC5:30)

eh?

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:21:14 | UTC-4)

if it did it wouldn't matter as I forgive you

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:21:31 | UTC5:30)

right, so i kill you.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:21:34 | UTC-4)

no memory of the event, and forgiveness

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:21:42 | UTC-4)

why would you kill me?

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:21:53 | UTC5:30)

*ogod*

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:22:01 | UTC-4)

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:22:11 | UTC-4)

why would you kill me?

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:22:11 | UTC5:30)

i love death and slaughter

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:22:23 | UTC-4)

you said "right, so I kill you"

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:22:26 | UTC5:30)

i revel i it, it is my life. Your Death is my life.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:22:29 | UTC-4)

really?

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:22:38 | UTC5:30)

yep

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:22:57 | UTC-4)

My death isn't your life, only your pleasure in it if you so desire

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:23:11 | UTC-4)

are you being sarcastic or honest

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:23:17 | UTC-4)

because I need honesty

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:23:40 | UTC5:30)

sooy, i'm back

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:23:56 | UTC5:30)

i'll die in this chatroom, if i be honest

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:24:07 | UTC-4)

no you wont

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:24:20 | UTC-4)

maybe I will though or maybe I won't

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:24:25 | UTC5:30)

who are you?

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:24:35 | UTC-4)

were you being sarcstic or honest?

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:24:43 | UTC-4)

who I am doesn't matter, only the choice

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:24:49 | UTC5:30)

who ARE you?

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:25:19 | UTC-4)

like I said, it doesn't matter, if you knew me it oculd influence your decision

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:25:43 | UTC-4)

I need you decision uninfluenced by anything external to yourself

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:25:56 | UTC5:30)

to be honest, i don't care about people

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:25:57 | UTC5:30)

they're just there, and I'm here.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:25:58 | UTC-4)

so you honestly kill me?

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:26:08 | UTC5:30)

no, i will not.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:26:10 | UTC-4)

out of pleasure?

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:26:20 | UTC-4)

you were being sarcastic then?

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:26:21 | UTC5:30)

no

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:26:29 | UTC5:30)

yep

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:26:49 | UTC-4)

so you still maintain that you will not kill me?

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:27:10 | UTC5:30)

yes

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:27:45 | UTC-4)

with all we've discussed considered, what is left to keep you from doing so?

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:28:10 | UTC-4)

you can't use any reason we've already disqualified

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:28:23 | UTC5:30)

lemme think

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:28:29 | UTC-4)

please do

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:29:36 | UTC5:30)

you will die naturally. I have no reason to exert force.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:30:03 | UTC-4)

exersion of force makes no difference

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:30:15 | UTC-4)

you have all the time and energy in the world

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:30:20 | UTC-4)

until I die

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:30:56 | UTC5:30)

then i'd exploit this unlimited energy till you die naturally.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:31:13 | UTC-4)

you are well fed and exercising, you wouldn't even notice it

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:31:41 | UTC5:30)

notice your death?

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:31:54 | UTC-4)

the effort

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:32:21 | UTC5:30)

how long is this going to go on?

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:32:34 | UTC-4)

the energy can't benefit you in any way other than to make my death unnoticeable

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:32:49 | UTC-4)

until we find out why really will or wont kill me

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:32:57 | UTC5:30)

we aren't going anywhere, this isjust you denying all my efforts to reason.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:33:21 | UTC-4)

yes, and you diggind deeper into your reason so we can both understand it?

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:33:22 | UTC5:30)

it's not even a real conversation.

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:33:50 | UTC5:30)

and tyhis final reason, you'll disqualify it too.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:34:06 | UTC-4)

maybe, let's hear it

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:34:23 | UTC5:30)

er, no, i haven't made it.

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:34:33 | UTC5:30)

but when i do, you'll disqualify it.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:34:48 | UTC-4)

maybe I will maybe I will not be able to

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:35:18 | UTC5:30)

gee, how is that?

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:35:42 | UTC-4)

there must still be some reasons left, because you haven't really killed me or not killed me yet

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:35:54 | UTC-4)

you've still had doubts

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:36:37 | UTC-4)

otherwise you'd have chosen one, verified your reason for doing so and never second guessed it

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:36:38 | UTC5:30)

look i gotta go take a bath now

[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:36:58 | UTC5:30)

see you later

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:37:02 | UTC-4)

oh, okay, anyone else there who would like to continue this cnversation

[Achilles]

I invoke Godwin's Law. I win.

Actually, you're the one that brought up Hitler, therefore you lose. The moving goalpost kills its maker

[Nancy Allen``]

So why isn't this topic dead yet?

 

A friend of mine made a very good comment, 'If you're Atheist, you're Atheist but don't be an asshole about it'. What he says is very true, not just of Atheism but of religion as well. If, say, a Christian says they're a Christian, fine, but if they say something like 'I'm a Christian and you're a ****wit for not believing it' then that causes problems. The same for Atheism. Now people will say that they have a right to make such comments and that religion shouldn't be allowed to be given a pass. Before making that comment however people need to think how they would feel by being told what they think is deluded.

[Jae Onasi]

Avoid using 'deluded' or any other terms describing someone's mental status, please, unless we're talking about mental illness, of course. It's an emotionally charged word and there are far better choices.

 

@Achilles--I'm still working on the questions from the other thread, and got some answers but still have some other work to do on the others. It's Lent/Easter season so the pastors are busy with all the activities going on. I can't monopolize their time for several hours to discuss all those things, and I need some downtime for me, too. I'm working on it, it's just slow.

In any case, when I asked about the Deuteronomy laws, the answer I got was that those laws addressed the problems that were present historically and rampant in the Middle East at the time--chiefly slavery in this particular case. God was saying "Fine, you have chosen to have slaves, here's some rules for dealing with until you can grow up enough to stop having slaves." Regarding rape--is it fair-sounding to us? No. We live in a much different age that respects women a lot more. The problem was what to do with a woman who had been defiled in that culture at that time. She could not get a job, and without family or a husband, she had absolutely no way to survive. Any child she had resulting from the rape would have been illegitimate, and likewise would have had great difficulty surviving, particularly if the child was a girl. Was it fair to the woman to marry her rapist? No. But given the only other option, which was dying because of a lack of food and shelter, and the child being illegitimate (a terrible stigma at that time) and also dying if the mother had no resources, it was the only option available in that culture at that time. There is nothing in those rules that say the woman had to live with the guy, btw. All it did was legitimize the sex act so that the woman and any children borne of that union had a chance of survival. When the only option is to marry the guy or both the woman and child die, it's pretty clear what needs to be done, whether we as 21st century people like it or not. God's in essence saying "OK, I can't stop you from making these stupid choices, so I'm going to give you some rules to deal with these specific problems in this specific culture at this time. When you're done being stupid, you won't have to utilize these laws." We have old laws on our books that are now no longer necessary because our culture has matured, and yet those laws still exist. Just because they are on the books historically doesn't mean they are still applicable in a culture that has matured past the problems that generated those laws in the first place. There's nothing wrong with having a book in the Bible that shows the history of the Jewish culture and a history of Jewish law from that time period as a basis for showing just how important Christ's love and sacrifice truly was. I can read the Code of Hammurabi to understand the Mesopotamian mindset without being bound by those rules. Leviticus and Deuteronomy (among others) had rules in order for people to recognize their own sin and take steps to make it right with God and the people around them. Christ's message of love obviously moved a good chunk of the world in a new direction, but it's still important to understand Christ's cultural background as a basis for His actions.

 

And moving on from that....

You cannot dismiss Mao and Stalin out of hand as having fascist ideologies as their reasoning for mass killings--that's dodging the fundamental reason for their breath-taking lack of respect for human life. They embraced (and abused) Communism and could slaughter that many people because as Atheists they decided _they_ were the standard of morality rather than God--they decided what was right and wrong, they decided that murdering millions was acceptable in order to achieve their ends. That is the inherent danger in moral relativism and any system that does not have a definitive standard of ultimate good with which to decide what is evil.

 

Why are my Atheist friends moral? They were raised in the US, which has Judeo-Christian underpinnings for its culture/legal system. They were taught that stealing and killing is bad because our culture says so, but our culture has a religious foundation. I also have a thoroughly immoral Atheist friend who is tremendous fun to be around, and who I love, but he thinks anything goes in the sex department because absolutely nothing is off-limits to him. His moral code is derived from 'whatever feels good is right' and let me just say I learned from talking with him a lot of things I probably never really needed to know and which are _way_ outside my God-based moral code. Well, needless to say, I would never leave my children with him, and I declined a couple...interesting offers. Some of the things he does most of us would say "Oh, ick, that is so wrong", but only because we have a defining standard outside of ourselves telling us what's right and wrong. If there is no defining standard, then there's nothing wrong with his definition of 'if it feels good, it's right'. However, since we know there is definitive good and evil, then we must have a benchmark for it.

 

@Emperor Devon--mental illness is entirely unconnected to using religion as an excuse for evil behavior. If the woman had been an atheist in an atheist culture, she undoubtedly would have substituted some highly regarded political figure as the person telling her to kill her children "Kim Jong Il made me do it because he was afraid they wouldn't be good Communists". The use of religion is cases like Andrea Yates is incidental to their real problem, which is schizophrenia. You can't use religion as an excuse in those cases since they are entirely incapable because of the mental illness of making any kind of appropriate judgments, moral or otherwise.

 

And that's enough musings for the time being.

[SilentScope001]

So why isn't this topic dead yet?

 

To my knoweldge: Godwin's Law states that if someone, anyone bring up Nazis, the debate has offically degenerated to a flame war. Therefore, the topic is as good as dead, it only takes time for people to understand it and leave.

 

You know, now I understand why HerbieZ hates these sort of serious topics. I'm going to start up a topic that won't start up such firestorm.

[Achilles]

So why isn't this topic dead yet?

Maybe Godwin's Law really isn't a law (see: Murphy's Law, etc).

 

A friend of mine made a very good comment, 'If you're Atheist, you're Atheist but don't be an asshole about it'. What he says is very true, not just of Atheism but of religion as well. If, say, a Christian says they're a Christian, fine, but if they say something like 'I'm a Christian and you're a ****wit for not believing it' then that causes problems.

This sentiment has been expressed several times within this thread. To the best of my knowledge, no name-calling has taken place here, so bringing it up again seems to be something of a red herring.

 

The same for Atheism. Now people will say that they have a right to make such comments and that religion shouldn't be allowed to be given a pass. Before making that comment however people need to think how they would feel by being told what they think is deluded.

In endeavors that are based on reasons rather than faith, such challenges are not only permitted but encouraged. If you would prefer not to have your beliefs challenged, then perhaps the best way to avoid bad feelings would be not to voice them.

 

@Achilles--I'm still working on the questions from the other thread, and got some answers but still have some other work to do on the others. It's Lent/Easter season so the pastors are busy with all the activities going on. I can't monopolize their time for several hours to discuss all those things, and I need some downtime for me, too. I'm working on it, it's just slow.

Perhaps you should encourage them to create LF accounts. We could cut out the middleman and I could debate with them directly

 

In any case, when I asked about the Deuteronomy laws, the answer I got was that those laws addressed the problems that were present historically and rampant in the Middle East at the time--chiefly slavery in this particular case. God was saying "Fine, you have chosen to have slaves, here's some rules for dealing with until you can grow up enough to stop having slaves."

I certainly appreciate your pastor's response to this. Unfortunately, I really hoping to hear your response. If I wanted to know what some pastor thought, I would have asked one.

 

I suppose I could sit here and spout off Dawkins and Harris all day (in fact, there's little doubt that they have influenced my thinking). However at the end of the day, I have to think for myself and form my own opinions about things.

 

Please ask your pastor why God would have felt the need to acquiesce on slavery if he omnipotent, omniscient, and the true source of morality. Also, ask him why slavery is still alive and well today and why we didn't get an updated version of the bible when he decided that slavery wasn't ok anymore. In fact, ask him how it is that we know slavery isn't ok anymore. Please let me know what he says.

 

P.S. If you think he would be interested in corresponding with me directly, please let me know and I'll give you my email address to give to him next time you see him.

 

Regarding rape--is it fair-sounding to us? No. We live in a much different age that respects women a lot more. The problem was what to do with a woman who had been defiled in that culture at that time. She could not get a job, and without family or a husband, she had absolutely no way to survive. Any child she had resulting from the rape would have been illegitimate, and likewise would have had great difficulty surviving, particularly if the child was a girl. Was it fair to the woman to marry her rapist? No. But given the only other option, which was dying because of a lack of food and shelter, and the child being illegitimate (a terrible stigma at that time) and also dying if the mother had no resources, it was the only option available in that culture at that time. There is nothing in those rules that say the woman had to live with the guy, btw. All it did was legitimize the sex act so that the woman and any children borne of that union had a chance of survival. When the only option is to marry the guy or both the woman and child die, it's pretty clear what needs to be done, whether we as 21st century people like it or not. God's in essence saying "OK, I can't stop you from making these stupid choices, so I'm going to give you some rules to deal with these specific problems in this specific culture at this time. When you're done being stupid, you won't have to utilize these laws."

I'm suppose to want to worship someone like this why?

 

I've responded to this before, so I'll only summarize here: No one waits until their children are teenagers to start teaching them moral behavior.

 

Kudos to your pastor. The mental gymnastics here are very impressive.

 

We have old laws on our books that are now no longer necessary because our culture has matured, and yet those laws still exist. Just because they are on the books historically doesn't mean they are still applicable in a culture that has matured past the problems that generated those laws in the first place.

How can you say that? Someone is sexually assaulted every two minutes in this country (I'd hate to see what the world-wide stats look like). One out of every four women have been sexually abused in their lifetime. Frequently by someone that they know. These are not "old issues" that don't apply to our modern culture. This is happening right now.

 

There's nothing wrong with having a book in the Bible that shows the history of the Jewish culture and a history of Jewish law from that time period as a basis for showing just how important Christ's love and sacrifice truly was.

First, Christ is a character in story (unless you have some historical evidence that shows otherwise). Second, what about God's love?

 

As for your argument (or your pastor's?):

 

Mt 5:14 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

 

Jesus did not argue anything from the OT. He didn't outlaw slavery. He didn't end the subjugation of women.

 

Mt 10:34-37 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

 

Jesus doesn't sound like a harbinger of peace to me.

 

At this point, you'll probably want to accuse me of cherry-picking and then go cherry-pick some of the "good" verses to show me that I'm wrong (Luke 2:14, John 14:37, John 16:33, Acts 10:36...). Unfortunately, all this will accomplish will be to further show that the Bible contradicts itself.

 

I can read the Code of Hammurabi to understand the Mesopotamian mindset without being bound by those rules. Leviticus and Deuteronomy (among others) had rules in order for people to recognize their own sin and take steps to make it right with God and the people around them.

The Code of Hammurabi does not claim to be the doctrine of God.

 

Christ's message of love obviously moved a good chunk of the world in a new direction, but it's still important to understand Christ's cultural background as a basis for His actions.

And here I thought Constantine did that.

 

You cannot dismiss Mao and Stalin out of hand as having fascist ideologies as their reasoning for mass killings--that's dodging the fundamental reason for their breath-taking lack of respect for human life. They embraced (and abused) Communism and could slaughter that many people because as Atheists they decided _they_ were the standard of morality rather than God--they decided what was right and wrong, they decided that murdering millions was acceptable in order to achieve their ends.

Actaully Jae, fascism is precisely what that is.

 

Main Entry: fas·cism

Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-

Function: noun

Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>

 

There are fascist regimes that are not atheistic. There are atheistic societies that aren't fascist. Your argument does not hold up to scrutiny. One does not need to be an atheist to convince oneself that their moral ideologies are superior. In fact, I should probably caution against throwing stones in glass houses right about now.

 

If anything an atheist is more likely to examine their morals than a theistic person. Why would you need to question right and wrong if God (or your pastor) is right there to tell you what right and wrong are? What if what God (or your pastor) told you was moral wasn't really moral? In other words, what if your position had no foundation in the study of ethics (i.e. same-sex marriage, abortion, ESCR)? Can you form an opposing argument for any of those examples that doesn't (eventually) invoke God or religion?

 

That is the inherent danger in moral relativism and any system that does not have a definitive standard of ultimate good with which to decide what is evil.

I agree 1000% with your sentiment but not your wording. Let me rephrase:

 

"That is the inherent danger in moral relativism and any system that does not have a definitive standard of 'right' with which to decide what is 'wrong'"

 

Yes, Jae. I couldn't agree more. So let's get rid of the dogmatic institution of religion which claims to have absolute authority on right and wrong (and thereby eliminate the basis for opposing claims of 'absolute truth') and instead adopt a reasoned system of morals based on rational thought. I think that's a splendid idea.

 

Why are my Atheist friends moral? They were raised in the US, which has Judeo-Christian underpinnings for its culture/legal system. They were taught that stealing and killing is bad because our culture says so, but our culture has a religious foundation.

That's an interesting theory. So what about non-religious people that aren't raised in the U.S. or in Judeo-Christian societies? What's the basis for their moral behavior? Buddhists? Jains? This is a very important question. I would appreciate it a great deal if you made the time to answer it.

 

I also have a thoroughly immoral Atheist friend who is tremendous fun to be around, and who I love, but he thinks anything goes in the sex department because absolutely nothing is off-limits to him. His moral code is derived from 'whatever feels good is right' and let me just say I learned from talking with him a lot of things I probably never really needed to know and which are _way_ outside my God-based moral code.

Why shouldn't consenting adults be allowed to do whatever they want behind closed doors?

 

Well, needless to say, I would never leave my children with him, and I declined a couple...interesting offers. Some of the things he does most of us would say "Oh, ick, that is so wrong", but only because we have a defining standard outside of ourselves telling us what's right and wrong. If there is no defining standard, then there's nothing wrong with his definition of 'if it feels good, it's right'. However, since we know there is definitive good and evil, then we must have a benchmark for it.

Actually, we know no such thing. "good" and "evil" are concepts that we are indoctrinated to accept. "Right" and "wrong" have some basis in empiricism and would be a much better set of benchmarks to adopt.