Atheism Is Not A Belief System

Please feel free to discuss Dan's shows.

Moderators: Loki, exposno1, Parrot, Quasigriz, NickDupree, nmoore63, robroydude, Spinny Spamkiller

Re: Atheism is not a belief system

Postby DrYouth » Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:53 am

Consider for a moment that it is a living parable... not a historical event that in itself has to be all that remarkable.

A man brings a message to humanity that in effect changes the world.

His message is one of peace, forgiveness and compassion.

He wants people to stop simply following arbitrary rules and trying to "act pious". He wants people to treat each other well including those who have less power such as children, prostitutes and non-tribe members (Samaritans). He could have done more for slaves... but even Jesus wasn't perfect (human at least in part, right? Bit of a temper and what not... Nevermind)

He denies that Caesar is divine.

He states that we can all know God. (The benign aspect of the Universe that of course is all of our father (and mother) - to put it awkwardly... including Jesus')

As a result he is killed.

Noone considered that God could be this merciful before (well, that's probably not entirely true - but Jesus has a big brand name in this merciful God department.) So he kind of died to tell us that God would forgive us our misdeeds... so "for our sins"

If you look at it that way - he was kinda cool.
Then he became a big box franchise bought up by corporate interests and you know how the story goes....
"Trek requires no sunshine to be happy. He feeds off the despair of others like a dementor." e_room_matt

"Thank you so much for your assessment of my wickedness and the depth of my depravity and immersion in sin." drtrech

"You pansy-ass hippy utopian naive fool" coyo7e
User avatar
DrYouth
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:42 am
Location: Canadastan

Re: Atheism is not a belief system

Postby drtrech » Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:55 am

But so much is made of the sacrifice!
User avatar
drtrech
Archon
 
Posts: 27716
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: Mississippi

Re: Atheism is not a belief system

Postby DrYouth » Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:51 pm

Well we all gotta make sacrifices no...
What better than a poster boy to point to. (When we want others to make sacrifices.)

Yes... a bit tongue in cheek

... but more seriously... Misery loves company - and when we are making sacrifices it may help to have someone in mind who shares the suffering. This may be the appeal of the icon. There is little question that he suffered willingly for his message. It does inspire.
"Trek requires no sunshine to be happy. He feeds off the despair of others like a dementor." e_room_matt

"Thank you so much for your assessment of my wickedness and the depth of my depravity and immersion in sin." drtrech

"You pansy-ass hippy utopian naive fool" coyo7e
User avatar
DrYouth
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:42 am
Location: Canadastan

Re: Atheism is not a belief system

Postby ryanm » Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:53 pm

If only more christians would act like Jesus instead of trying to forcibly save my soul. :roll:

ryanm
"Americans debate, the way Canadians play Hockey. Americans play Hockey, the way Canadians debate." ~Smitty-48

"He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice." ~Albert Einstein
ryanm
Senior Member
 
Posts: 709
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:34 pm

Re: Atheism is not a belief system

Postby Rhoetus » Fri Feb 24, 2012 5:53 pm

First, FGM was recorded in Egypt in the 400s BC, not as part of any of the Abrahamic traditions. Much like having a Christmas tree is not part of being a Christian, but added to it, FGM is not a part of Islam, but has been added to it...but not exclusive to Islam, and frowned upon by the establishment.

Secondly, yes, Christ's divine nature made it certain that he would rise again, but his divine nature also meant that he knew exactly what he was giving up. Having existed as part of God from the beginning, being seperated from God, which is Hell, would be even more disconcerting than it would be for a normal person who might have a conception, but not an actual realization of what it would entail.

As to the golden and silver rules, what do they have to do with anything?
We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.
C. S. Lewis
User avatar
Rhoetus
Satrap
 
Posts: 2566
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:12 am
Location: Homer, NY

Re: Atheism is not a belief system

Postby RAnthony » Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:12 pm

Knew I'd regret it. :roll:
"I unsettle all things. No facts are to me sacred; none are profane; I simply experiment, an endless seeker with no past at my back." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

"So who the fuck are you RAnthony? Are you anything like the people you don't respond to say you are?"
User avatar
RAnthony
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5456
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:27 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Atheism is not a belief system

Postby DrYouth » Mon Feb 27, 2012 4:40 pm

Rhoetus wrote:First, FGM was recorded in Egypt in the 400s BC, not as part of any of the Abrahamic traditions. Much like having a Christmas tree is not part of being a Christian, but added to it, FGM is not a part of Islam, but has been added to it...but not exclusive to Islam, and frowned upon by the establishment.

Sorry, but what's FGM?

Rhoetus wrote:Secondly, yes, Christ's divine nature made it certain that he would rise again, but his divine nature also meant that he knew exactly what he was giving up. Having existed as part of God from the beginning, being seperated from God, which is Hell, would be even more disconcerting than it would be for a normal person who might have a conception, but not an actual realization of what it would entail.

You mean he suffered more than we do, because of his aquired taste for divinity... This was really slumming it for him. Ya... that's kinda weak.

Rhoetus wrote:As to the golden and silver rules, what do they have to do with anything?

There's are silver rules? :?:
"Trek requires no sunshine to be happy. He feeds off the despair of others like a dementor." e_room_matt

"Thank you so much for your assessment of my wickedness and the depth of my depravity and immersion in sin." drtrech

"You pansy-ass hippy utopian naive fool" coyo7e
User avatar
DrYouth
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:42 am
Location: Canadastan

Re: Atheism is not a belief system

Postby antisexualist.2 » Mon Feb 27, 2012 4:43 pm

The silver rule is the negative form of the golden rule.
They are both nonsense by the way.
I am antisexualist/amethystos
Image
User avatar
antisexualist.2
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:33 pm

Re: Atheism is not a belief system

Postby drtrech » Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:36 pm

The platinum rule is where you really hit the mark.

Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.

When you achieve this, you're being truly unselfish, placing the needs of others ahead of your own wishes for them.
User avatar
drtrech
Archon
 
Posts: 27716
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: Mississippi

Re: Atheism is not a belief system

Postby Waleis » Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:04 am

What about the Uranium Rule?
"No man grows rich by kindness."-Jorah Mormont

"True heroism is you, alone, in a designated workspace. True heroism is minutes, hours, days, year upon year of the quiet, precise, judicious exercise of probity and care, with no one there to see or cheer." The Pale King, by D. F. Wallace.
User avatar
Waleis
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 9766
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:32 am
Location: Dragonstone, Iowa

Re: Atheism is not a belief system

Postby DrYouth » Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:06 am

drtrech wrote:The platinum rule is where you really hit the mark.

Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.

When you achieve this, you're being truly unselfish, placing the needs of others ahead of your own wishes for them.

What about Masochists? - they would have you treat them like shit...
Are we meant to indulge them according to this rule?
"Trek requires no sunshine to be happy. He feeds off the despair of others like a dementor." e_room_matt

"Thank you so much for your assessment of my wickedness and the depth of my depravity and immersion in sin." drtrech

"You pansy-ass hippy utopian naive fool" coyo7e
User avatar
DrYouth
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:42 am
Location: Canadastan

Re: Atheism is not a belief system

Postby drtrech » Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:16 pm

DrYouth wrote:
drtrech wrote:The platinum rule is where you really hit the mark.

Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.

When you achieve this, you're being truly unselfish, placing the needs of others ahead of your own wishes for them.

What about Masochists? - they would have you treat them like shit...
Are we meant to indulge them according to this rule?

I don't know. When you undertake to treat someone according to either the golden or the platinum rule, are you in any way obligated to provide whatever treatment they request? Doing unto others doesn't mean that you have to feed them their meals, empty their trash, or clean their toilets. So I don't see why it would require providing mistreatment.

Wait . . . you're just jacking me around, aren't you. :suspicious:
User avatar
drtrech
Archon
 
Posts: 27716
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: Mississippi

Re: Atheism is not a belief system

Postby DrYouth » Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:20 pm

antisexualist.2 wrote:The silver rule is the negative form of the golden rule.
They are both nonsense by the way.

Do onto others as you would have them do onto you.
so:
Don't do onto others as you would not like them to do onto you?
Kinda makes sense, I guess...
Seems sort of superfluous as an entire other element of rule, but whatever...

How exactly is that nonsense? oh wait this is antisexualist (antisexualist.2 no less) - he doesn't believe in relationships that are anything but the pinnacle of rational... Still, these rules are pretty rational aren't they?

And yes... drtrech... I was kinda jacking you around... but feel free to do the same onto me!
"Trek requires no sunshine to be happy. He feeds off the despair of others like a dementor." e_room_matt

"Thank you so much for your assessment of my wickedness and the depth of my depravity and immersion in sin." drtrech

"You pansy-ass hippy utopian naive fool" coyo7e
User avatar
DrYouth
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:42 am
Location: Canadastan

Re: Atheism is not a belief system

Postby wise_owl » Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:41 pm

Rhoetus wrote:@wise_owl
I do not think that treating women as second class citizens is correct, nor is it Biblical. I have pointed out that the Bible itself tells us to treat them as if they were our own body, as part of our own body, and as someone to sacrifice for.


No, it tells you to treat your 'wives' in that way, after admonishing said wives to obey you. It also proscribes physical corrective violence as morally correct, a notion that a woman who is widowed and young is undeserving of the financial support she would recieve if she were older, that women should not teach or lead men, etc. What's more those beliefs are foundational in plenty of denominations of Christianity. I hardly just pulled them out of thin air, it's quite easy to find denominations discussing them. I mean the Catholic church bars women from positions of leadership, go have a talk with them about what's 'biblical'.

Here's where the problem starts and really ends; your suggesting the bible as a source of morality, yet you and others can't agree on what that morality is. I've read the thing and for a host of reasons rejected it as a moral foundadtion. It's just a collection of texts written at various points centuries ago. It has no intrinsical moral idea's and plenty of morally abhorent ones.

I also think women are equal to men...as pointed out in the Bible...also that their worth comes from God's love for them rather than their ability to bear children, just as a man's worth does, being physically attracted to a woman isn't a sin, but lusting after a woman is...because it dehumanizes or devalues the woman, as stated in the Bible.


The bible doesn't point this out. It in fact repeatedly points out they are not equal. Unless you believe of course that the 'Church' is equal to Jesus? No, of course not. That of course goes without considering the Old Testament, which is even more patently misogynistic and sexist. Your last sentence is not structured in a very understandable way. I'm not sure what 'being attracted to a woman' and 'lusting' are in different terms. That last argument is also intrinsically sexist; do you think lusting after a man dehumanises or devalues men? How? Back this up with Biblical quotes. I see plenty in the bible on a woman's proper place, less on their 'value' as humans.

As for lack of talking about rape... if you don't look at a women with lust, if you treat each person as valuable in and of themselves rather than as a means to an end, if you only engage in sex within marriage, that would tend to make rape pretty rare. As for slavery, the NT talks about slavery from the viewpoint of the slave in the same way it does any affront: put up with the slight for the glory of God. From the POV of the slave holder in this way: treat everybody as your equal, as valuable in their own right, as a brother...in other words, as if they weren't a slave.


It tells slaves to obey their Masters and Masters to try their slaves kindly. Says nothing about manumission or slavery being wrong. Says plenty that makes chattel slavery just a normal part of existence instead of an abhorrent practice. The bible is an artifact of a time when this was true, when most places in the Roman world had slavery. It's why it's morally silent on the issue and it's a serious problem from the perspective of the bible either as a moral centre or as description of literal truth. How much suffering could, torture and mass-rape coudl have been avoided by Jesus saying "Yeah, you are not to hold others in human bondage" and yet he doesn't.

No, being self-righteous is believing that ones' self is more righteous than others. If I believed that you were more righteous, that wouldn't be self-righteous. I can't believe you are still struggling through this one, talk about intellectually dishonest. you believe that everybody's moral judgement is just the same...based on YOUR moral judgement. That is self-righteous. I make no claim that my moral judgement is superior to yours...it could very well be inferior. I do believe that God's moral judgement is superior to both of ours...not based off of my own judgement, which it goes against on more than one occasion.


Yes, you have determined you have knowledge of an absolute moral source which can lend you moral judgement of an absolute nature. So do Objectivists. Both can very readily lead to Self-righteousness, because you believe you have a basis for judging morality that is absolute and unquestionable. In both cases it is also arbitrary. You are suggesting that if I said 'Mao was absolutely and in all ways Morally correct" that I would not be self-righteous when I than tell you how your morally wrong because that disagree's with Mao? Self-Righteousness is a lack of humility, a lack in the belief of one's own fallibility. You have in essence attempted a 'dodge', "I'm fallible, but my invisible friend who tells me what to do isn't..."


As for direct physical evidence... ever hear of the Kalam Cosmological* argument? Physical reality is direct physical proof of the existence of a Deity. Even these weak attempts at marketting quantum mechanics as a disproof of the KCA* ignore the fact that quantum vacuu is something rather than a lack of anything.


Yes, and it's an idiotic argument. It's fourth postulate doesn't flow from it's original presmies. Even if we accepted the 'first cause' argument, nothing in the argument posits that the 'God' of theism has to be that first cause. That the first cause can't be a naturalistic occurance, or anything else. It really has nothing to say about that. The Cosmological argument isn't one.

That and of course Virtual particles disprove it's first premise, as does the uncertainty principal. Whether or not Quantum Vacuum is 'something' is irrelevant in regards the KCA. All that matters it that things come into existence without prior causes, indicated that the first postulate is false.


Just what kind of philosophical impossiblility is it you speak of? I'd be interested in hearing that. ( are you refering to the problem of evil again? )


It's one. If we're referrring to the common 'theist' god(i.e. an Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent entity) that I'd assert the three common traits I just outlined to define such a being are meaningless and can't be described in any definite terms. That they are abstract concepts that each collapse in on themselves under consideration. Here... let me give you a 'angles on pinhead' argument against the existance of god.

1.If God is all powerful, he can will a Universe in which he doesn't, nor has he ever existed.
2.God has no reason not to do 1.
3.Ergo there is no God.

This is the same sort of flimsy self-examination done in defence of the theistic god. Similar one can point to the God of Eld; that there is nothing that prevents us from taking every potential argument for the theistic god and using it to prove the existance of a Maltheistic deity.

If there were no God, then I wouldn't believe that there were anything immoral about murder. Give me a good reason why one sentient being should hold other sentient beings at an equal value, rather than as another natural resource to be exploited as one would see fit.


Wouldn't that, in fact than, suggest that you are immoral? That you only act the way you do on the basis of fear of reprocussion. If someobodies only reason for not stealing is the existance of the justice system, we wouldn't say they are 'ethical' in regards to stealing.

To answer your question, there are dozens of different viewpoints on ethics that don't require a theistic god. Others have already pointed out the 'golden rule' and it's variants. There are buddhist sects which have no theistic belief but an elaborate system of ethics. There is Kant's Categorical Imperative, Virtue Ethics, Utilitarianism...

Am I to conclude you are in fact a sociopath who thankfully has a secondary delusion which keeps you from being a mass murderer?
User avatar
wise_owl
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:30 pm

Re: Atheism is not a belief system

Postby Sitri » Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:50 pm

As for direct physical evidence... ever hear of the Kalam Cosmological* argument? Physical reality is direct physical proof of the existence of a Deity. Even these weak attempts at marketting quantum mechanics as a disproof of the KCA* ignore the fact that quantum vacuu is something rather than a lack of anything.

Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
The universe has a beginning of its existence;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause of its existence.
Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent)

Since the conclusion is that an omnipotent being called god exists, why not test the conclusion with the test that constructed it?
God has a beginning of his existence so he has a cause to his existence.
God has a beginning of his existence;
Therefore:
God has a cause of his existence.
Since no biblical explanation (in terms of verses in Genesis) can provide a causal account of the origin of God, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent)

And so.... by that logic...

That's right sucka's I just proved the existence of SUPER GOD!!! :altwink: :snicker:
Sitri
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 8:40 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Discuss the Common Sense Show

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests