Turns out Phil Robertson is a nutball after all

[Virgil Showlion]

The only accurate thing that can be said about atheists is the lack of belief in God(s).

That's it, nothing else. Most people believe in right and wrong. It just might not be your version of it.

Consider my clarification to mmhmm above, Opti, and reread my argument.

I'm not claiming that right and wrong cannot exist outside of a religious framework.

[Deleted]

Mar 25, 2015 21:13:25 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

All you really need is Hammurabi's Golden Rule. If you wouldn't want it done to you, then it's wrong.

Pretty simple. You don't need the supernatural to guide you or mete out the appropriate punishments.

Well... There are some exceptions to the "do unto others as you would like done unto you" Golden Rule" though...

I'd like "generally average" persons of the opposite sex to grab me by the hand, take me to a motel room and have their way with me... doesn't mean me doing that to others will either make it happen or be a good idea though.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 25, 2015 22:13:06 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Mar 25, 2015 22:07:05 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Maybe I wasn't clear in my earlier post.

I'm positing that this individual is a sadist. Very specifically, he derives pleasure from the suffering of other human beings and is unconcerned with conventional morality or ethics. He may or may not lack the ability to empathize, but if he possesses it, it's insufficient to overcome the pleasure he derives from causing pain.

If you reread the post in that context, I think you'll get a better sense of what my argument was (is).

I don't need to get a better sense of what your argument is. You need to get a better sense of what your arguments often mean to others who don't think as you think, Virgil. A sadist does not, by definition, possess empathy. Let's not get into some dumb semantics game here. You may believe in God. That's great. I'm happy for you because that belief is right for you. That doesn't mean that belief is right for everyone and that's a concept you don't seem to be able to grasp. A sadist will be a sadist with, or without God in the picture. God has absolutely nothing to do with sadism. Therefore, in future it would be much appreciated by many of us if you keep your feelings about atheism to yourself. I don't know how I can make that any more clear. I won't play word games, and I won't read excuses and take them as definitive answers. You're insulting others. I'd appreciate it if you stop insulting others.

/rant

Your rant has nothing to do with my argument or my post. My original post isn't even a critique of atheism.

At any rate, the point is moot, since it appears my estimation of Mr. Robertson's argument is as poor as your estimation of mine.

[mmhmm]

Mar 25, 2015 22:20:31 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 25, 2015 22:13:06 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I don't need to get a better sense of what your argument is. You need to get a better sense of what your arguments often mean to others who don't think as you think, Virgil. A sadist does not, by definition, possess empathy. Let's not get into some dumb semantics game here. You may believe in God. That's great. I'm happy for you because that belief is right for you. That doesn't mean that belief is right for everyone and that's a concept you don't seem to be able to grasp. A sadist will be a sadist with, or without God in the picture. God has absolutely nothing to do with sadism. Therefore, in future it would be much appreciated by many of us if you keep your feelings about atheism to yourself. I don't know how I can make that any more clear. I won't play word games, and I won't read excuses and take them as definitive answers. You're insulting others. I'd appreciate it if you stop insulting others.

/rant

Your rant has nothing to do with my argument or my post. My original post isn't even a critique of atheism.

At any rate, the point is moot, since it appears my estimation of Mr. Robertson's argument is as poor as your estimation of mine.

You may find my estimation a poor one, Virgil. Unfortunately others don't. You might pay it a little more attention. Perhaps, some of the hurt and insult felt by others could be avoided. MOO

[weltschmerz]

Mar 25, 2015 22:19:56 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Mar 25, 2015 21:13:25 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

All you really need is Hammurabi's Golden Rule. If you wouldn't want it done to you, then it's wrong.

Pretty simple. You don't need the supernatural to guide you or mete out the appropriate punishments.

Well... There are some exceptions to the "do unto others as you would like done unto you" Golden Rule" though...

I'd like "generally average" persons of the opposite sex to grab me by the hand, take me to a motel room and have their way with me... doesn't mean me doing that to others will either make it happen or be a good idea though.

Nope, it still fits. If a hot woman has her way with you and you're A-OK with it, it isn't wrong, because you don't mind it being done to you. A nasty dude doing the same to me is wrong because I wouldn't like it. People usually get a pretty good sense of consent before going off to motel room with a stranger. Force isn't OK.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 25, 2015 22:22:10 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Mar 25, 2015 22:20:31 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Your rant has nothing to do with my argument or my post. My original post isn't even a critique of atheism.

At any rate, the point is moot, since it appears my estimation of Mr. Robertson's argument is as poor as your estimation of mine.

You may find my estimation a poor one, Virgil. Unfortunately others don't. You might pay it a little more attention. Perhaps, some of the hurt and insult felt by others could be avoided. MOO

I'm not to blame if posters (read "you") read things into my argument that plainly aren't there, don't bother asking for clarification, have no interest in clarification, and then tell me to shove it when I offer clarification.

If this subject matter is too rich for the board, shut the thread down, because it's exactly the issue raised by the OP.

You won't have to worry about me. I'll seek greener pastures. This thread can be a love-in of "Pat Robertson is an idiot" comments, and heaven knows we wouldn't want an actual debate instead of that.

Good night.

[weltschmerz]

Mar 25, 2015 22:30:56 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 25, 2015 22:22:10 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

You may find my estimation a poor one, Virgil. Unfortunately others don't. You might pay it a little more attention. Perhaps, some of the hurt and insult felt by others could be avoided. MOO

I'm not to blame if posters (read "you") read things into my argument that plainly aren't there, don't bother asking for clarification, have no interest in clarification, and then tell me to shove it when I offer clarification.

If this subject matter is too rich for the board, shut the thread down, because it's exactly the issue raised by the OP.

You won't have to worry about me. I'll seek greener pastures. This thread can be a love-in of "Pat Robertson is an idiot" comments, and heaven knows we wouldn't want an actual debate instead of that.

Good night.

Psst! The narc is gone. Everybody get nekkid!!

[NastyWoman]

Mar 25, 2015 22:36:11 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Mar 25, 2015 22:30:56 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I'm not to blame if posters (read "you") read things into my argument that plainly aren't there, don't bother asking for clarification, have no interest in clarification, and then tell me to shove it when I offer clarification.

If this subject matter is too rich for the board, shut the thread down, because it's exactly the issue raised by the OP.

You won't have to worry about me. I'll seek greener pastures. This thread can be a love-in of "Pat Robertson is an idiot" comments, and heaven knows we wouldn't want an actual debate instead of that.

Good night.

Psst! The narc is gone. Everybody get nekkid!!

I can't do that Weltz, I'm not a sadist...

[EVT1]

Mar 25, 2015 22:02:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 25, 2015 20:45:17 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Of course it isn't. If punishment was a deterrent there would be no crime.

A good opportunity to familiarize yourself with the Nirvana fallacy, of which this is a perfect example.

I know what it is and that was the point I made.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

I read the article. The video won't play on my machine due to plugin issues.

To answer your question: If Mr. Robertson's argument is that a Christian is somehow bound only by the morality of the people he's interacting with, he's "off the reservation" so to speak. There's no conceivable merit to the argument.

I was addressing the comments in the article's summary.

Have you ever watched Duck Dynasty? Phil Robertson is probably the one loose screw in that family and a bit of a radical when it comes to thumping his Bible or shooting off his mouth rather than his duck-call or hunting rifle.

("Uncle Si" is a strange duck (pun intended), but he's harmless - just a bit eccentric.)

The family clan as a whole are decent, hard-working, (very successful) people and focused on family and family values. They also practice a strong faith.

Phil (in my books) is right up there in the same category as many  radical charlatan  Televangelists. Best to be ignored.

I wouldn't give too much thought to what comes out of his mouth - and I also wouldn't care what he thinks or says. Doesn't affect me in any way. It's his views and his to own.




.

[Deleted]

Mar 25, 2015 22:07:05 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 25, 2015 20:56:38 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Many of us are motivated by a thing called empathy. To some others, it's a foreign concept. It is that empathy, however, that governs what we do, or do not do. I hope I'm not speaking out of turn in the presence of other atheists, but that's sure what motivates me!

Maybe I wasn't clear in my earlier post.

I'm positing that this individual is a sadist. Very specifically, he derives pleasure from the suffering of other human beings and is unconcerned with conventional morality or ethics. He may or may not lack the ability to empathize, but if he possesses it, it's insufficient to overcome the pleasure he derives from causing pain.

If you reread the post in that context, I think you'll get a better sense of what my argument was (is).

I don't think people care what your argument is any more then they care what Phil Robertson's argument was.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 25, 2015 19:42:42 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

He's technically correct on some aspects.

For example, I could commit all kinds of unspeakable crimes for the sadistic pleasure of it, and if I escaped worldly punishment, I need fear no judgment or reprisal in the atheist worldview.

More generally, if a sadist accepts the atheist worldview, there's no reason at all that (provided he thinks he can get away with it) he shouldn't derive as much satisfaction as he possibly can from the torment of other people.

you could not do so and remain morally consistent according to the principle of universalizability.

the same holds true if you happen to believe in everlasting damnation and salvation.

pedophile priests apparently believe in the latter, and it doesn't stop them.

so, it would seem that the ability to universalize has little or nothing to do with religion.

[Deleted]

Is Phil saying all murderers/torturers/whatever...are atheists?

[NoNamePerson]

Glad I read all the way thru the thread. I was going to have to google Phil Robertson. 

[djAdvocate]

Mar 26, 2015 9:31:40 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Is Phil saying all murderers/torturers/whatever...are atheists?

if so, he is not alone.  atheists have been a persecuted minority pretty much forever.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 26, 2015 9:26:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Mar 25, 2015 19:42:42 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

He's technically correct on some aspects.

For example, I could commit all kinds of unspeakable crimes for the sadistic pleasure of it, and if I escaped worldly punishment, I need fear no judgment or reprisal in the atheist worldview.

More generally, if a sadist accepts the atheist worldview, there's no reason at all that (provided he thinks he can get away with it) he shouldn't derive as much satisfaction as he possibly can from the torment of other people.

you could not do so and remain morally consistent according to the principle of universalizability.

the same holds true if you happen to believe in everlasting damnation and salvation.

pedophile priests apparently believe in the latter, and it doesn't stop them.

so, it would seem that the ability to universalize has little or nothing to do with religion.

I'm not sure what about "this man is a sadist" is confusing people. He doesn't care about universalizability. He doesn't care about other people.

My argument isn't even about his willingness to commit the act. I know perfectly well that religious individuals sin despite knowing the consequences.

This is about whether or not there's ultimately any justice for individuals who escape worldly justice. The atheist (or more specifically, the non-believer in the supernatural) believes that there is no ultimate justice. If I shoot you, take over your house, and party hardy with your credit cards until I keel off in a fit of cocaine-induced ecstasy three weeks from now, you, Weltz, mmhmm et al. would all say I have no consequences to fear, is that not correct?

That's all I'm saying in this thread. Empathy, punishment as a deterrent, universalizability, ethics, reciprocity, etc. are all interesting topics, but my argument doesn't touch on any of them. I won't take it there either. This is basically a religious discussion, and whoa! - would you look at that! - people flying off the handle.

Hopefully that clarifies things a bit more.

[Green Eyed Lady]

How so?  This is an honest question because, having never been an atheist, I don't know.  And honestly, I haven't paid that much attention since it really doesn't matter to me what a person believes.  My bad, I know.  I'd still like to know because if I've been a part of this persecution, I want to stop it.

[Deleted]

Mar 26, 2015 9:43:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Mar 26, 2015 9:31:40 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Is Phil saying all murderers/torturers/whatever...are atheists?

if so, he is not alone.  atheists have been a persecuted minority pretty much forever.

I'm not sure any religious belief (I'm using the broadest meaning of the term here) has a claim to exceptional persecution. Someone has a problem with every belief going and expresses it.

[Deleted]

The atheist (or more specifically, the non-believer in the supernatural) believes that there is no ultimate justice.

Okay....and? Why is that information relevant? What point is being made?

[Green Eyed Lady]

I think Mr. Robertson's comments were aimed more at the victim than the perpetrator.  I can't get the video to play here at work, so I can't listen to his remarks in their entirety.  The most I can figure out is that he is trying to put people in the role of the victim, asking them how they (if they were an atheist) would feel being certain that the criminal committing these atrocities would not suffer judgment or punishment.  I'm not sure.  That's just how I'm reading it.  I don't think it has much to do with the perpetrators.  Frankly, I'm more than a bit lost.

[Green Eyed Lady]

As to what point is being made or the relevancy of that point...I have no idea.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 26, 2015 9:58:53 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

The atheist (or more specifically, the non-believer in the supernatural) believes that there is no ultimate justice.

Okay....and? Why is that information relevant? What point is being made?

i think Virgil believes that without "ultimate justice" that people won't behave morally- as if we are all basically CHILDREN, that are incapable of behaving morally simply because it is not only the right thing to do by moral standards that have nothing to do with religion, but because it makes life easier than the conflict that is engendered by constantly hurting others.

it is pretty obviously not true.  many ostensibly religious people do terrible things, and have throughout history.  their religiosity was no impediment to their actions whatsoever.  and many atheists live highly moral lives.

EDIT: i am not Virgil's spokesperson.  i am NOT speaking on his behalf.  i am GUESSING what he thinks based on his posts.  he has already denied that he thinks this way, but that in no way informs me as to what he actually thinks.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 26, 2015 9:58:53 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

The atheist (or more specifically, the non-believer in the supernatural) believes that there is no ultimate justice.

Okay....and? Why is that information relevant? What point is being made?

It's what I thought Mr. Robertson's argument was based on the article summary.

In between mmhmm's convulsions, EVT had the sense to point out what Mr. Robertson's argument actually was, and I addressed that in Reply #23.

[Tennesseer]

Atheists, Muslims See Most Bias as Presidential Candidates

[Green Eyed Lady]

While it pains me to do so since I'm still pissed off at him, I don't think Virgil is saying what he's been accused of saying at all.  In fact, he stated very clearly in this thread:

I'm not claiming that right and wrong cannot exist outside of a religious framework.

I've not heard anybody say a person can't be a good person and be an atheist at the same time.  Of course, I haven't been paying that much attention.

[Deleted]

Mar 26, 2015 10:14:56 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 26, 2015 9:58:53 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Okay....and? Why is that information relevant? What point is being made?

It's what I thought Mr. Robertson's argument was based on the article summary.

I got that. I was wondering what the argument was.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 26, 2015 10:20:32 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

While it pains me to do so since I'm still pissed off at him, I don't think Virgil is saying what he's been accused of saying at all.  In fact, he stated very clearly in this thread:

I'm not claiming that right and wrong cannot exist outside of a religious framework.

I've not heard anybody say a person can't be a good person and be an atheist at the same time.  Of course, I haven't been paying that much attention.

a rational person will not argue that good and bad CANNOT exist outside of religion.  they DO.  mostly BAD, from their perspective.

what a religious person will argue is that a person will not reliably behave morally without religion.  i don't think that is true.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Nor is it true that's what a religious person will argue.  I know this since I would consider myself a religious person and I don't argue that.  Because you are right.  It's not true.

[Opti]

My argument isn't even about his willingness to commit the act. I know perfectly well that religious individuals sin despite knowing the consequences.

This is about whether or not there's ultimately any justice for individuals who escape worldly justice. The atheist (or more specifically, the non-believer in the supernatural) believes that there is no ultimate justice.

If you are saying atheists 100% believe there is no justice, heaven, hell, etc. after

death that's not necessarily true. Not sure if it is in my original link or elsewhere but

atheism, agnostics, believers generally are on a scale of belief. So yes it is possible to have

an atheist who might believe or figure heaven/hell might exist.

This is a totally different tack than Phil was taking. IMO he was bordering on saying atheists

don't believe in right or wrong so anything bad thing that happens to them is almost deserved

or OK.

[Green Eyed Lady]

It's interesting how there can be so many different takes on the same words.  I was going to say that I think people read into it what they want to read into it, but I'm not wanting confusion and that's what I'm getting.