Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I realize you expect me to care that someone else felt free to comment (and that you need not accept any responsibility for the comments of someone else) that I don't respond ACCEPTABLY.
I'm not expecting anything from you at this point but what you're doing. I'm just sharing my outlook with you, and explaining why I'm doing what I'm doing in responses, where an explanation of that is appropriate (imo of course).
Quote:
I understand what you are saying about "bulletin board" folks who like to type, it is alot like tandem posts, isn't it?...they aren't really interested in useful and productive conversation that will further intellectual discovery, they only want to oppose, object, complain, and argue, not explain WHY their point of view offers more "UNDERSTANDING".
I explained why I participate in these kinds of discussions in post number 200 of this thread. It's there for you to read again if you're interested. It's neither quite "intellectual discovery" nor "presenting my point of view as offering more understanding". It has rather to do with an emphasis on difference.
I don't have the habit of responding to POSTS, I have the habit of responding to PEOPLE (major difference).
What you actually do is respond to whatever portion of a post--it might just be a word, it might be a phrase or two--got your goat (in a manner more or less resembling taking offense to it), and go off into a mini-rant based on that, while ignoring everything else the person said. I guess that's "intellectual discovery".
Well, I don't believe in any absolutes. I just don't think there's anything absolute about us or this world we live in. It's not that simple as everything is in a constant state of flux. To illustrate, let's go over the 10 commandments-- probably the most respected set of absolute moral guidelines.
> I am the Lord your God
> You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol
> You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
The 1st three essentially establish a belief in the Semitic God. In a society that's not completely built around a Semitic religion (like most relatively developed ones), they have little value. What's more, they do little to promote compassion and ethics-- on the contrary, these 3 statements are potentially exlusive and divisive. I see them as a way to bond a group of people under attack but not as a set of reasonable guideles for all times.
> Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
Clearly an artifact of one particular culture. A fine example of how any human creation eventually becomes obsolete.
> Honor your father and mother
No matter what? There are plenty of examples when parents have their selfish interests or prejudices in mind when dealing with their children. Romeo and Juliette, anyone?
> You shall not murder
Can't argue with this one most of the time, but what about self-defense? What if my life is so miserable that I want to kill myself?
> You shall not commit adultery
If by "adultery" we mean a spouse having sexual relations with someone other than their spouse without their knowledge, it is hard to argue with this one. However, "adultery" is often interpreted as any kind of sex outside of marriage, including pre-marital and even self-stimulation. In that case, this commandment appears to be quite dated.
> You shall not steal
This is the only one of two where I can't think of any smart a$$ comment
> You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
...And this is the other one.
> You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.
Why just wife and not husband? This reveals that the commandments weren't even addressed to women because women were not considered fully human. Obviously, that attitude is now not only dated but very harmful...However, I agree with the "do not covet" part, even though that's basic psychology-- drooling over something all the time isn't healthy.
My point is that morality or immorality of particular actions very obviously depend on the context. The answer isn't in a book or teaching-- it is in one's heart. This is a difficult thing to accept but, I believe, is our only choice if we are to be fully human.
Brilliant post, sergeyn, especially when you consider that the ten commandments are just about the only passage in the old testament that are worth a second glance, given one or two other rare examples of wisdom.
Even here, though, the list is either ambiguous or defective in ethical terms, and either way, one of the key injunctions "Thou shalt not kill" - has, and continues to be, routinely ignored by the religious in all kinds of circumstances. Not only that, of course, but even if these commandments were the direct word of a tribal god, the hypocrisy is alarming.
I think the figure someone worked out totalling all the deaths caused by god (even before the flood) was 227,0000 - hardly a shining example for mankind to follow!
The aetheist's philosophical question/doubts about the significance of "morality" is actually a very Godly one.
Objection! Opinion! Strike that remark from the record!
In my experience, aetheists have a peaceful and just Godly spirit/demeanor (and only need to accept the creator's son as savior).
And just what end is served by my "acceptance" of Jesus? To validate your proselytizing or assumptions? I don't need anything from Christianity. Why? Because in my opinion there is no guiding God figure. I recoil at the idea of having to fit into someone else's ethical guidelines, complete with wrist slaps from their philosophical ruler.
I am a nice guy because I examined other not-so-nice guys and their behavior, and then I matured into my own moralities and behavioral code of ethics. amazingly, without anyone's help. There are no resulting gaping holes in my life-ethic. Unless they are put there by the shots you're firing across my bow.
Discrimination/condescension/resentment is in direct proportion to our self-esteem.
Explain please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by more excellent way
The author of a "tandem" post pursues their own agenda of endless and unproductive controversy by continuously OPPOSING (not 'replying', but OPPOSING) other people's posts. Sometimes this is done intentionally, more often it is done unintentionally/subconsciously. Objective truth cannot be DEBATED (it can be DISCUSSED, objective truth is non-negotiable).
I disagree with you, as your"objective truth" is VERY different than mine. Which one is absolute in your eyes? Yours alone? Don't quote the bible on me here. BTW, your posts are truly the type of "Tandem Posts" that you decried, in that you constantly have to support your lack of a comeback by presenting a biblical stand-in.
Tandem posts prevent productive/meaningful disussion and proper and effective communication, but also prevent true understanding by the author.
Bull, respectfully. Tandem posts are just a tool for making sure the other debator doesn't forget or deny what they so stridently said a few posts ago. Perhaps you don't like such "reminders"? They also keep the argument focused and progressing within some bounds.
I find it odd that you dislike this standard methodology so much. I'll have to think it through more.
This is what the REAL word of God is all about. The SWORD of a Godly spirit is the proper use of this knowledge (the knowledge of GOOD/EVIL). The SWORD separates all morality into 2 categories...GOOD and EVIL. There is no "in between" ("no variation or shadow", James 1:17). The "change" from what is acceptable (good) to what is unacceptable (evil) is clear and abrupt.
James 1:17
"...with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change".
Ephesians 6:17
"...and the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God".
Jesus did not come to earth for the purpose of bringing "peace" of mind to everyone who simply wants to continue doing whatever they want, He came to produce a division in our minds between good and evil.
Luke 12:51
"Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division".
Just so you know, when I see these sorts of biblical-quote responses, I personally find it hard not to say to myself , "blah blah blah". Not out of disrespect but because I'd rather hear YOU defend your ideas. That's why we all agree to be here. Not to be preached to, but to be reasoned with. Remember, we atheists represent a target-rich environment for religious folks. Take it easy on us; we're fragile, eh, Troop/sanspeur?
"Right" is not an unspiritual concept (Jesus speaks of "righteousness"), but a Godly spirit will understand MORE than simple morality.
My morality is anything but simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by more excellent way
LogicIsYourFriend,
Philosophical thought is good to an extent. We should never let it limit our mind.
and yet then you state, quite absolutely and mind-limiting far as I can tell...
God is generic and a cosmic reality.
and also...
...we have to settle on one premise as a reference point for objective truth (my reference point is the creator).
This would seem to be too bad for you!
I have no such single-premise limitations, being constant in my readiness and availability to consider another's chosen "objective reality". In fact, I can embrace a multi-focused objectivity, depending on the situation. Your reality and proof of its absolute nature seems to be somewhat circular, as in: you use biblical quotes to prove the existance of biblical ideas, which were originally presented as biblical quotes. Interesting.
And by the way, you DO have a pretty harsh combative tone to your posts. I feel kinda sorry for JackyF. You hurt his feelings!
So BTW, did you have a previous bad experience with him? Is he like the school bully suddenly showing up at recess? What gives?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BetweenYouMeAndTheLampost
I didn't know aethists had a book. Is that like a bible of sorts?
Just be good people. Try to be a little less selfish.
Right on, lampost!
Last edited by rifleman; 11-03-2008 at 01:23 PM..
Reason: typos
I don't have the habit of responding to POSTS, I have the habit of responding to PEOPLE (major difference).
I have to take issue with you there, excellent, as you very obviously do reply to POSTS, just like the rest of us. This is pointless word-play on your part, and as we all know, it's all too easy to obfuscate any issue by using such wordplay. But you seem to be very partial to this sort of thing, judging by all your posts, and I personally think it can dilute an argument, or even cause it to grind to a complete halt with an over-use of such tactics. (hope that doesn't sound unduly harsh)...
In the rather typical instance I quote above, you manage to sound profound, but only superficially so, I'm afraid. The distinction you make between people and their posts is a hollow distinction as far as I can see, because the posts are only an expression of the mental processes of the writer, and should be respected as such, despite the slight limitations of technology.
If an individual is motivated enough to contribute to the debate in the first place, it is somewhat patronising of you to imply that what they have to say is some sort of empty rhetoric, divorced in some mysterious way from the mind that produced them. I see no such dichotomy here, so long as you bear in mind that this is the best way we can communicate our ideas in the absence of face-to-face opportunities.
In the second place, I feel compelled to point out to you that you, ironically, are rather more prone than anyone else to hiding your identity as a person behind the highly-structured religious system from which you derive your main views.
You may not see it in this light, but to me, the contrast between your arguably derivative philosophy of life and that of most of the other posters is clear enough. I mean in terms of immediacy, for lack of a better word. Whereas the general thrust seems to be from a direct reaction to life, as experienced first-hand by the poster, I think that you, with all respect, tend to 'process' your thinking through the medium of the established religious ethos that you identify with so closely... ( often losing impact in the process).
Please correct me here, but this habit of yours can sound a bit 'second hand' at times, particularly on an atheist forum, and worse, seems to muddle and confuse what, I take it, you are really trying to communicate - the real you...
Fair enough, if that's tour chosen mode, but when you start to intimate that you are the only one who can look through the surface and see people as people on some deeper, unique level, you come across as being tinged with arrogance, unfortunately.
Depression, as I know to my cost, can give you some insights into human nature, as you insist, although I, personally, would have gladly done without my years of struggling with this particular demon - even if I was a shallower person as a result - the cost to one's happiness is just too great a price.
I hope you take this in good part, not least because I know where you're coming from.
Brian.
Last edited by brianrees; 11-03-2008 at 03:33 PM..
I think we are reaching a consensus that more excellent way doesn't intend on explaining his assertions, nor does he plan on reading our responses to them, let alone respond back. He hides behind an arbitrary contempt for "tandem posts," but it seems to me he just has no sense of discussion or debate. That or he can't think of anything good to say so he ignores it.
I truly can't find enough inspiration to continuously waste MY time replying to those who insist on addressing me with preconceived notions.
==========
Rifleman,
Your whole "RESPECTFUL" post about "Stream of Consciousness" is really not "RESPECTFUL"
All I ever hoped for (including from family) was the respect that would be given a stranger (at least you made the attempt,...THANK YOU SINCERELY, I mean that, it means alot to me).
However...
No doubt, you expect other people to be tolerant of things that you say, but you won't give me the same consideration (please understand).
You objected to a sentence where I mentioned that I believe that atheists (along with everybody on earth) should openly accept/acknowledge who Jesus is. Very often, you will hear people mention what they believe to be true (Muslims, Jews, etc. also). That is not proselityzing. If I was proselityzing, you would see much more scripture reference (verses) and many more mentions of both of the words "GOD" (instead of "creator/origin") and the word "Jesus". I really can't apologize for still believing that Jesus is the Messiah sent by the creator, I regard it to be "fact".
I'm sorry you had a bad experience, I did too.
I still believe that the bible contains the true scriptures about the creator, but mankind's understanding of it and the creator is highly flawed because it is based on the "strong delusion" that has lasted all throughout history.
I am not interested in your "AND BY THE WAY" mention of your "harmless" evaluation (mind your own business) of my conversation to SOMEBODY ELSE. No matter how much you feel that you need to instigate a conflict (pathetic) to gain support against me, you do not have the right to use JackyF or anyone else here to do it (and certainly not by encouraging him to feel pathetic. JackyF's reaction was very mature,...maybe you could learn from him!!).
You are not anybody's hero, lawyer, or savior...LIVE WITH IT.
Last edited by more excellent way; 11-04-2008 at 01:18 AM..
Reason: sentence
You noticed that I "DO" reply to posts. No doubt you consider this a great accomplishment.
However, I said that I am not in the "HABIT" of replying to posts.
You are very wordy and use many vague "integrity words", assumptions, and marginally useful concepts in order to express trivialities as being very significant (in other words, you type a lot but say extremely little that should actually be considered useful information for a debate). You are a "master of the mundane".
You patronize while trivializing the other person's message and the person also (passive aggressive while disowning any harmful intent, no courage to accept responsibility). Do you work for a public relations company?
No doubt you mentioned "shallower person as a result" for a reason. You didn't accuse me of being one, you just HAPPENED to mention this idea (for no real reason, of course, you simply HAPPENED to mention it). I didn't "INSIST" that depression can offer insights, I simply SAID it can (using "integrity words" to hide/legitimize your aggression as "friendly" (passive aggressive,...the inner coward).
Yet, I should take this "in good part" (how polite and kind of you, dignified person).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
MoExWay's a tough SOC* to follow!
