Turns out Phil Robertson is a nutball after all

[djAdvocate]

Mar 26, 2015 10:27:22 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

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.

um...yes it is.  i have been presented with that argument many times.

i didn't say ALL religious people argue that way.  i said "a" = at least one (or, in my experience, many).  if you want proof of it, Google it.  you will find over 2000 links using this precise phrase:

"there is no morality without religion"

[Green Eyed Lady]

If you feel the need to start your posts with "um"...implying that I'm stupid or incapable of understanding, we are done here.   You should have said "some" instead of "a" if that what you meant.

ETA:  I also don't intend to get into some stupid "dick measuring" contest over semantics that goes on for 20 pages so I'll just wish you a good day.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 26, 2015 10:40:30 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

If you feel the need to start your posts with "um"...implying that I'm stupid or incapable of understanding, we are done here.   You should have said "some" instead of "a" if that what you meant.

you took me wrong both in my original post and my reply, GEL.  the "um" is me being perplexed.

did that feel condescending do you?  if so, i assure you that it was not intentional.

[Opti]

Mar 26, 2015 10:34:30 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

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.

Very true Gel. We all read with our own biases and beliefs so I expect different interpretations.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Agreed, Opti.   Those remarks can be taken a lot of way....most of them confusing!  I'm not sure what his point was, but since I can't see the total statement, I'm just guessing.  I'm not sure that I'll even try to see the whole video.  I have a feeling my confusing would just deepen.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 26, 2015 10:40:30 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

ETA:  I also don't intend to get into some stupid "dick measuring" contest over semantics that goes on for 20 pages so I'll just wish you a good day.

what did i do to earn that, GEL?  have i EVER been anything less than respectful to you?  EVER?

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 26, 2015 10:32:20 GMT -5 Opti said:

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.

Indeed I'm aware that many categories of atheist believe in the supernatural. Consider that an implicit caveat in all of my posts.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 26, 2015 10:37:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Mar 26, 2015 10:27:22 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

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.

um...yes it is.  i have been presented with that argument many times.

i didn't say ALL religious people argue that way.  i said "a" = at least one (or, in my experience, many).  if you want proof of it, Google it.  you will find over 2000 links using this precise phrase:

"there is no morality without religion"

It's contingent on the nuances of "morality".

The argument enters in via the fact that humanist postulates are unprovable. One simply has to assert that ideals such as love, kindness, happiness, doing good to one's fellow man, etc. are desirable and good, but there's no fundamental natural law proving this. If one rejects these ideals, one inherently rejects any ethical constructs (such as Kant's imperative) built on them.

For example, if an individual's view is biocentric rather than humanist, destroying all human life on Earth to preserve the rest of the biosphere is an ethically sound proposition. Moreover, the rationalist cannot prove that a humanist view is "right" and an a biocentric view is not, since no natural laws exist to make this determination. Ergo, in this limited sense, one can reasonably argue that no "right" and "wrong" exist absent overriding spiritual laws (as opposed to natural laws) that theism supposes.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Mar 26, 2015 10:53:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Mar 26, 2015 10:40:30 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

ETA:  I also don't intend to get into some stupid "dick measuring" contest over semantics that goes on for 20 pages so I'll just wish you a good day.

what did i do to earn that, GEL?  have i EVER been anything less than respectful to you?  EVER?

That comment was not aimed specifically at you, but rather a commentary on the way these threads devolve into dumb arguments over semantics - so much so that the intent of the thread is lost. I do not intend to contribute to that trend.  If you took it as a disrespectful remark towards you, I do apologize for that.  It was not meant to be so.  I can see how it would be interpreted in that way since it was included in a post to you specifically.  Again that was not my intent but I apologize and acknowledge it appeared to be.

[NancysSummerSip]

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 wouldn't escape worldly punishment, at least not if I caught you. And that's regardless of your views on anything, buster. You did any unspeakable crime to any of me and mine, your worldly punishment would be unspeakable. But I'd make sure I never got caught.

And FWIW, the whole Robertson clan is a few straws shy of a whisk broom in their views. Not that they're not entitled. Even the batshit, certified, over-zealous crazy are allowed to be wrong.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 26, 2015 11:11:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 26, 2015 10:37:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

um...yes it is.  i have been presented with that argument many times.

i didn't say ALL religious people argue that way.  i said "a" = at least one (or, in my experience, many).  if you want proof of it, Google it.  you will find over 2000 links using this precise phrase:

"there is no morality without religion"

It's contingent on the nuances of "morality".

The argument enters in via the fact that humanist postulates are unprovable. One simply has to assert that ideals such as love, kindness, happiness, doing good to one's fellow man, etc. are desirable and good, but there's no fundamental natural law proving this. If one rejects these ideals, one inherently rejects any ethical constructs (such as Kant's imperative) built on them.

For example, if an individual's view is biocentric rather than humanist, destroying all human life on Earth to preserve the rest of the biosphere is an ethically sound proposition. Moreover, the rationalist cannot prove that a humanist view is "right" and an a biocentric view is not, since no natural laws exist to make this determination. Ergo, in this limited sense, one can reasonably argue that no "right" and "wrong" exist absent overriding spiritual laws (as opposed to natural laws) that theism supposes.

i am not going to have a deontological discussion with you, because you are actually not that interested in deontology.  you start with a prima face position that morality is ordained by God and that this is provable, when in fact it is not.  so from the perspective of provability, BOTH positions are "not provable".

the cool thing about moral thinkers since the enlightenment is that they have formulated a way of subjecting moral heuristics to a very simple, widely agreed upon rule: what you referred to above as "Kant's imperative".  the rule basically says that if the precept cannot be evangelized in such a way that every rational member of society could follow it, that it is not ethically valid.  it is a very simple rule, and creates a coherent system that doesn't require any outside proof (much like religious belief).

for the record, however, i would point out that ethical constructs built on PERSONAL "love" or "happiness" or whatever pretty much fail every moral test.  the standard really should be whether i can expect others to behave in the same way in like circumstances.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 26, 2015 11:25:26 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Mar 26, 2015 10:53:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

what did i do to earn that, GEL?  have i EVER been anything less than respectful to you?  EVER?

That comment was not aimed specifically at you, but rather a commentary on the way these threads devolve into dumb arguments over semantics - so much so that the intent of the thread is lost. I do not intend to contribute to that trend.  If you took it as a disrespectful remark towards you, I do apologize for that.  It was not meant to be so.  I can see how it would be interpreted in that way since it was included in a post to you specifically.  Again that was not my intent but I apologize and acknowledge it appeared to be.

ok, thanks. 

to the point: i try to assess every poster's tolerance for such things before posting.  some have no stomach for it. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 26, 2015 11:27:06 GMT -5 NancysSummerSip 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 wouldn't escape worldly punishment, at least not if I caught you. And that's regardless of your views on anything, buster. You did any unspeakable crime to any of me and mine, your worldly punishment would be unspeakable. But I'd make sure I never got caught.

And FWIW, the whole Robertson clan is a few straws shy of a whisk broom in their views. Not that they're not entitled. Even the batshit, certified, over-zealous crazy are allowed to be wrong.

You'd best hope that no crime ever goes unpunished, then.

[Tennesseer]

As to what atheists must do in Texas if they would like to run for office in Texas, take a look at the state's constitution and especially Article I, Section 4:


Sec.4. RELIGIOUS TESTS.
No religious test shall ever be
required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this
State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account
of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.


Texas Constitution and Statutes

[Deleted]

Mar 26, 2015 12:54:21 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

As to what atheists must do in Texas if they would like to run for office in Texas, take a look at the state's constitution and especially Article I, Section 4:


Sec.4. RELIGIOUS TESTS.
No religious test shall ever be
required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this
State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account
of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.


Texas Constitution and Statutes

Does thinking that they are a Supreme Being count?

[Tennesseer]

Mar 26, 2015 12:55:53 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Mar 26, 2015 12:54:21 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

As to what atheists must do in Texas if they would like to run for office in Texas, take a look at the state's constitution and especially Article I, Section 4:


Sec.4. RELIGIOUS TESTS.
No religious test shall ever be
required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this
State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account
of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.


Texas Constitution and Statutes

Does thinking that they are a Supreme Being count?

I suppose it could but that would be risking great hubris. They still would have to publicly acknowledge it though.

[weltschmerz]

How about the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a Supreme Being?

[happyhoix]

Mar 26, 2015 13:09:05 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

How about the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a Supreme Being?

Don't see why not. He has a church and everything.

[djAdvocate]

how about Chuck Norris?

[Deleted]

Mar 26, 2015 13:46:41 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

how about Chuck Norris?

Is that an option?? I pick that one!!!

[Deleted]

Mar 26, 2015 13:01:19 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Mar 26, 2015 12:55:53 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Does thinking that they are a Supreme Being count?

I suppose it could but that would be risking great hubris. They still would have to publicly acknowledge it though.

I'm not an expert on this topic..but I don't think atheists are worried about hubris...I'm not sure they believe it exists.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Well........at the risk of over-simplying things and without going into detail that's not allowed on this board...there is a little more to it.  Like actually being sorry.

[mmhmm]

This thread is on the ragged edge of being moved to Religious Discussion. Frankly, I'm not even sure it belongs there! Let's stop taking pot-shots at one another's beliefs, please. Even if the person has no recognizable belief system, that's their choice, not anyone else's. I don't want to see anymore ragging on religious beliefs, or lack of same. If you want to talk about something that's just plain WRONG, that's a good choice for the discussion!

mmhmm, Administrator

[mmhmm]

Mar 26, 2015 14:18:03 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Well........at the risk of over-simplying things and without going into detail that's not allowed on this board...there is a little more to it.  Like actually being sorry.

I think that's true whether one believes or doesn't believe. While non-believers may not believe in heaven/hell, we're still resident here on earth. If you possess empathy to any degree, you're going to regret anything you do that hurts another person. No decent person actually wants to do that whether they believe in an afterlife, or not.

[Green Eyed Lady]

I agree completely, mmhmm. 

[Deleted]

Mar 26, 2015 11:11:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 26, 2015 10:37:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

um...yes it is.  i have been presented with that argument many times.

i didn't say ALL religious people argue that way.  i said "a" = at least one (or, in my experience, many).  if you want proof of it, Google it.  you will find over 2000 links using this precise phrase:

"there is no morality without religion"

It's contingent on the nuances of "morality".

The argument enters in via the fact that humanist postulates are unprovable. One simply has to assert that ideals such as love, kindness, happiness, doing good to one's fellow man, etc. are desirable and good, but there's no fundamental natural law proving this. If one rejects these ideals, one inherently rejects any ethical constructs (such as Kant's imperative) built on them.

For example, if an individual's view is biocentric rather than humanist, destroying all human life on Earth to preserve the rest of the biosphere is an ethically sound proposition. Moreover, the rationalist cannot prove that a humanist view is "right" and an a biocentric view is not, since no natural laws exist to make this determination. Ergo, in this limited sense, one can reasonably argue that no "right" and "wrong" exist absent overriding spiritual laws (as opposed to natural laws) that theism supposes.

Would that mean in theism there is no reasoning behind the idea of "right" and "wrong"?   If there is a reason then "right" and "wrong" could possibly exist without theism.  If there is no reasoning behind the ideas, then it is just  a rule for the sake of having a rule.

[Deleted]

Mar 26, 2015 14:12:08 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Ergo, in this limited sense, one can reasonably argue that no "right" and "wrong" exist absent overriding spiritual laws (as opposed to natural laws) that theism supposes.

One could.  One could also argue that since Christian churches have, in the past, had provisions where you could quite literally buy your way into heaven with gold, silver, and precious gems, that Christianity is fundamentally a scam to fleece the gullible out of their money on some vague promise of a reward beyond death.  The Pope, who supposedly talks to god, says that you can't buy your way into heaven.  But a previous Pope, who also supposedly talked to god, said you could.  At least one of them had to be lying, or an infallible being changed his mind.  Either way, the whole thing is clearly a crock of shit, designed to enrich the leaders of said religion.

As to the original argument that atheists are somehow extra victimized because people who commit atrocities against them don't even face eternal damnation in a lake of fire, you need to go read your bible again dude.  All you have to do is confess the crime to a priest, maybe dunk yourself in some water for all of 2 seconds, and presto, all is forgiven.  I can break into your house, rape your wife and daughter in front of you and make you watch, slit their throats, cut off your manhood and shove it in your mouth while you bleed out.  Then I ask an imaginary sky wizard for forgiveness, maybe say some hail mary's and take a bath in church, and I get to go to heaven with you and your family.  There's your religious justice.  Hopefully, you've been to confession recently, or you might end up in hell for having impure thoughts about the neighbor who does her yard work in cutoff shorts, while I go to heaven after slaughtering your family like animals.  Religion can be tricky and fucked up that way.

No, it can't.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 26, 2015 16:34:24 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

No, it can't.

Depends on your brand of Christianity.  Some of the more orthodox churches still preach that you can't get into heaven if you aren't baptized.  Living a virtuous life apparently has nothing to do with it, according to them.

evangelicals think you are going to hell if you don't convert to Christianity.  no sins required.

[Tennesseer]

Mar 26, 2015 16:37:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Mar 26, 2015 16:34:24 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Depends on your brand of Christianity.  Some of the more orthodox churches still preach that you can't get into heaven if you aren't baptized.  Living a virtuous life apparently has nothing to do with it, according to them.

evangelicals think you are going to hell if you don't convert to Christianity.  no sins required.

And don't forget, some Christian sects in the South believe Roman Catholics are not Christian.

[Deleted]

Mar 26, 2015 16:48:51 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Mar 26, 2015 16:37:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

evangelicals think you are going to hell if you don't convert to Christianity.  no sins required.

And don't forget, some Christian sects in the South believe Roman Catholics are not Christian.

That's usually o.k. though... because the Roman Catholics believe the non Roman Catholics aren't either, right back at them!

LOL

(I'm not saying either "side" is right... I just think it's interesting, and amusing, that both "sides" think the other is wrong)