Katsuni
Priestess Of Syrinx
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,238
- MBTI Type
- ENTP
- Enneagram
- 3w4?
Now I loves me a nice, tender, juicy baby as much as the next heathenous curr, but I need to point out a major flaw in this argument.
It's only looking at things from the assumption that the person WAS a believer before... and they changed their mind after to BECOME an atheist.
This doesn't happen to frequently in general, most atheists and agnostics, although they may've been 'raised' a certain religion, honestly most of them just never took it to heart. It's exceptionally rare that someone with strong faith gives up on it, most question it for awhile, but few ever truly give up totally on it.
That being said, it's once again a heavily biased view as well, with far too much self idolization. Seriously, anyone who doesn't agree with yeu is a baby eater? >.>; Yeah that's a great way to view the world. A more ACCURATE portraital would be that everyone who DOES agree with yeu... is a nazi.
Now then, I don't really have much relevance for posting these quotes, other than to directly oppose the "zomg we are perfect idealists of god and anyone who is not us is evil!". Once yeu get into that line of reasoning, things get messy, as we've seen in the crusades, in wars, in nazis, in nationalism, etc. When yeu view anyone who doesn't agree with yeu as evil, yeu *ARE* evil. Do a study on serial killers sometime, virtually all of them think they were trying to do something 'good'.
In any case, the baby eater argument is just silly.
However, the core of the issue is that if yeu do something *YEU* view as immoral, repeatedly, the first time, maybe the first few times, will be really hard to do, difficult, and painful. Yeu'll feel a great deal of guilt. After yeu've done it for awhile, yeu just don't really care anymore. It's one of the more common forms of desensitization. Yeu feel like crap that yeu did something yeu swore yeu'd never do at first, after a few more times yeu still feel guilty but at least yeu can justify yeur actions, after awhile it doesn't bother yeu that much but it irks yeu when yeu think of it, and eventually yeu wonder how yeu ever lived thinking of things in such a silly, quaint, naive way.
This argument isn't about eating babies, nor is it even about atheists at all, despite that they're trying to claim it is. It has *NOTHING* to do with atheism. It is solely focusing on the concept of having a moral view or opinion on something, and then going against yeur own original morals. If yeu had an atheist who converted to christianity, this EXACT SAME LINE OF REASONING would still apply. If yeu had someone who stole cookies from the fridge, someone who cheated on their spouse, someone who didn't stick to their diet, someone who was used to using violence to solve their problems and became a pacifist... they all feel the same thing.
It's just how people gradually accept change. This has nothing to do with an atheist, other than it was used as an example at one point. The saddest part is, I highly doubt the original writer even realizes whot it is they're arguing.
Hardly the case; the reverse is in fact more true. The 'laws' in the bible and other holy texts are fluid, and change. Yeu may notice that we don't STONE PEOPLE TO DEATH anymore. Yeu may notice that women are allowed to divorce these days. Yeu may even notice that slavery is not even legal anymore.
There is no 'final reason' or 'absolute authority' that the religious ever had to validate these things... their reasoning was NEVER anything more than a product of the culture within which such originated. If anything, the religious views of right and wrong have even less to do with absolutes than those of an atheist, because they're based on emotion and context, not objective data and logical reasoning.
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/philosophy-spirituality/21166-rule-singular.html
Here's the rule I live by. It's stronger than the 10 commandments, and based on common sense, objective data, and careful reasoning. It doesn't require falling back on any god, any law, or any culture to support it. It's the single, most pure, and true, definition of right and wrong, of absolute morality without subjective reasoning.
The rules of religions are made by humans, they may claim to be 'inspired by god', but if god is absolute and objective, and smarter than us, and not prone to pitiful human emotional outbursts... then these laws cannot possibly be the work of god.
The 'opinions of God' are not created BY God at all. They are created by yeu and me, when we say "god thinks", we don't truly mean GOD, we mean "I think" and yeu are using god's name to back it up, without knowing for certain.
May I point out, the rule "Do not use God's name in vain". This applies here as well, not just when cursing.
That being said, I honestly believe that if there is a God, he's going to be *AT LEAST* as smart as I am, be *AT LEAST* as capable of understanding logical reasoning, and *AT LEAST* as loving as I am (probably alot more on all counts, infinite and all that... that and I'm not really that loving XD ).
Therefore, by definition, if I can figure it out, God already has. If I can poke holes in religious argument, then God never held those views to begin with, if he did, he's even more flawed than I am, and therefore, why should I worship someone who is beneath me?
Obviously, the only options we really have, are that either God isn't worth worshipping, or he is. Assumming of course existance, but that's another argument entirely so I'm going to skip over that here. Primarily, the issue is that if I am to *EVER* have even the slightest interest in bowing before God, it's not going to be as to a master, nor to a ruler, a king, or anything else. It will be a bow of respect to a teacher and source of knowledge and wisdom. I would seek to learn from this 'higher intelligence', but I would never truly consider myself worthless, a sinner, or anything else in comparison. I would just consider myself not yet perfected, and devote more effort into attaining that status, one which has pre-supposedly already been met by God.
The bible, quaran, torah, etc, all depict this 'god' (note no capitals here; it's a term not the name in this case) as being emotionally insecure, cruel, arrogant, selfish, rude, bigoted, stupid, foolish, warlike, violent, sexually deviant, etc.
Why, then, would anyone actually want to be a deitist if this is all they have to look up to for their peers? If this were a human, they would be a flawed, weak, insensitive, sorry excuse for a man, who would never go anywheres in the world, except perhaps as a tin pot dictator, and not even a particularly good one at that. Why do people desire to cling to this human expression of God? Obviously they're just anthropomorphizing him, trying to apply human attributes to something which's supposedly far beyond human, and the only reason they do this is for cultural reasons, to support their own positions and desires. To excuse their wars, their hate, their flaws.
If God is, by definition, flawless, then the laws of god would be incomprehensible to humans, and they most assuredly would not match up even remotely with our own cultural beliefs and cultural morals. One can only assume that all religions are false, to gross extent.
This is a large reason of why I consider myself a 'practicing agnostic', despite that it's an oxymoron. I am religious, but I refuse to accept this pathetic excuse of a man as being "perfect and pure", and abuse the name of God in such a manner.
I figure there's a high probability that there's either some mechanical order to things, or a designing intelligence of sorts, it's hard to prove fully, but the evidence does lean towards suggesting such. That being said, however, I can't accept man's flawed belief of the nature of god(s).
I can't be part of an organized religion, where morality is dictated not by absolute values of truth, but by committee.
As such, no, the original post is flat out wrong. They will not have a final reason or authority to which they can appeal, for they don't even understand the definition of reason, and do not even know the most basic facts about the authority which governs them.
Stop dealing in hatred, stop relying on blind faith, stop the pretensious holier-than-thou attitude that yeu KNOW whot god thinks, and FFS use yeur brain. Yeu were given one for a reason, I suggest yeu pull yeurself up from acting like an animal, mindlessly dragging yeurself along with the rest of the herd, each one thinking the other is the leader, when in reality, noone is in charge at all.
Break from the crowd, and be willing to learn, and moreso than that, to UNDERSTAND whot it is yeu believe. When yeu can do that, then yeu'll be a step closer to the true God, whotever the face of such may be.
It's only looking at things from the assumption that the person WAS a believer before... and they changed their mind after to BECOME an atheist.
This doesn't happen to frequently in general, most atheists and agnostics, although they may've been 'raised' a certain religion, honestly most of them just never took it to heart. It's exceptionally rare that someone with strong faith gives up on it, most question it for awhile, but few ever truly give up totally on it.
That being said, it's once again a heavily biased view as well, with far too much self idolization. Seriously, anyone who doesn't agree with yeu is a baby eater? >.>; Yeah that's a great way to view the world. A more ACCURATE portraital would be that everyone who DOES agree with yeu... is a nazi.
Adolf Hitler said:
Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf said:
Now then, I don't really have much relevance for posting these quotes, other than to directly oppose the "zomg we are perfect idealists of god and anyone who is not us is evil!". Once yeu get into that line of reasoning, things get messy, as we've seen in the crusades, in wars, in nazis, in nationalism, etc. When yeu view anyone who doesn't agree with yeu as evil, yeu *ARE* evil. Do a study on serial killers sometime, virtually all of them think they were trying to do something 'good'.
In any case, the baby eater argument is just silly.
However, the core of the issue is that if yeu do something *YEU* view as immoral, repeatedly, the first time, maybe the first few times, will be really hard to do, difficult, and painful. Yeu'll feel a great deal of guilt. After yeu've done it for awhile, yeu just don't really care anymore. It's one of the more common forms of desensitization. Yeu feel like crap that yeu did something yeu swore yeu'd never do at first, after a few more times yeu still feel guilty but at least yeu can justify yeur actions, after awhile it doesn't bother yeu that much but it irks yeu when yeu think of it, and eventually yeu wonder how yeu ever lived thinking of things in such a silly, quaint, naive way.
This argument isn't about eating babies, nor is it even about atheists at all, despite that they're trying to claim it is. It has *NOTHING* to do with atheism. It is solely focusing on the concept of having a moral view or opinion on something, and then going against yeur own original morals. If yeu had an atheist who converted to christianity, this EXACT SAME LINE OF REASONING would still apply. If yeu had someone who stole cookies from the fridge, someone who cheated on their spouse, someone who didn't stick to their diet, someone who was used to using violence to solve their problems and became a pacifist... they all feel the same thing.
It's just how people gradually accept change. This has nothing to do with an atheist, other than it was used as an example at one point. The saddest part is, I highly doubt the original writer even realizes whot it is they're arguing.
Hardly the case; the reverse is in fact more true. The 'laws' in the bible and other holy texts are fluid, and change. Yeu may notice that we don't STONE PEOPLE TO DEATH anymore. Yeu may notice that women are allowed to divorce these days. Yeu may even notice that slavery is not even legal anymore.
There is no 'final reason' or 'absolute authority' that the religious ever had to validate these things... their reasoning was NEVER anything more than a product of the culture within which such originated. If anything, the religious views of right and wrong have even less to do with absolutes than those of an atheist, because they're based on emotion and context, not objective data and logical reasoning.
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/philosophy-spirituality/21166-rule-singular.html
Here's the rule I live by. It's stronger than the 10 commandments, and based on common sense, objective data, and careful reasoning. It doesn't require falling back on any god, any law, or any culture to support it. It's the single, most pure, and true, definition of right and wrong, of absolute morality without subjective reasoning.
The rules of religions are made by humans, they may claim to be 'inspired by god', but if god is absolute and objective, and smarter than us, and not prone to pitiful human emotional outbursts... then these laws cannot possibly be the work of god.
Voltaire said:
The 'opinions of God' are not created BY God at all. They are created by yeu and me, when we say "god thinks", we don't truly mean GOD, we mean "I think" and yeu are using god's name to back it up, without knowing for certain.
May I point out, the rule "Do not use God's name in vain". This applies here as well, not just when cursing.
That being said, I honestly believe that if there is a God, he's going to be *AT LEAST* as smart as I am, be *AT LEAST* as capable of understanding logical reasoning, and *AT LEAST* as loving as I am (probably alot more on all counts, infinite and all that... that and I'm not really that loving XD ).
Therefore, by definition, if I can figure it out, God already has. If I can poke holes in religious argument, then God never held those views to begin with, if he did, he's even more flawed than I am, and therefore, why should I worship someone who is beneath me?
Obviously, the only options we really have, are that either God isn't worth worshipping, or he is. Assumming of course existance, but that's another argument entirely so I'm going to skip over that here. Primarily, the issue is that if I am to *EVER* have even the slightest interest in bowing before God, it's not going to be as to a master, nor to a ruler, a king, or anything else. It will be a bow of respect to a teacher and source of knowledge and wisdom. I would seek to learn from this 'higher intelligence', but I would never truly consider myself worthless, a sinner, or anything else in comparison. I would just consider myself not yet perfected, and devote more effort into attaining that status, one which has pre-supposedly already been met by God.
The bible, quaran, torah, etc, all depict this 'god' (note no capitals here; it's a term not the name in this case) as being emotionally insecure, cruel, arrogant, selfish, rude, bigoted, stupid, foolish, warlike, violent, sexually deviant, etc.
Why, then, would anyone actually want to be a deitist if this is all they have to look up to for their peers? If this were a human, they would be a flawed, weak, insensitive, sorry excuse for a man, who would never go anywheres in the world, except perhaps as a tin pot dictator, and not even a particularly good one at that. Why do people desire to cling to this human expression of God? Obviously they're just anthropomorphizing him, trying to apply human attributes to something which's supposedly far beyond human, and the only reason they do this is for cultural reasons, to support their own positions and desires. To excuse their wars, their hate, their flaws.
If God is, by definition, flawless, then the laws of god would be incomprehensible to humans, and they most assuredly would not match up even remotely with our own cultural beliefs and cultural morals. One can only assume that all religions are false, to gross extent.
This is a large reason of why I consider myself a 'practicing agnostic', despite that it's an oxymoron. I am religious, but I refuse to accept this pathetic excuse of a man as being "perfect and pure", and abuse the name of God in such a manner.
I figure there's a high probability that there's either some mechanical order to things, or a designing intelligence of sorts, it's hard to prove fully, but the evidence does lean towards suggesting such. That being said, however, I can't accept man's flawed belief of the nature of god(s).
I can't be part of an organized religion, where morality is dictated not by absolute values of truth, but by committee.
As such, no, the original post is flat out wrong. They will not have a final reason or authority to which they can appeal, for they don't even understand the definition of reason, and do not even know the most basic facts about the authority which governs them.
Stop dealing in hatred, stop relying on blind faith, stop the pretensious holier-than-thou attitude that yeu KNOW whot god thinks, and FFS use yeur brain. Yeu were given one for a reason, I suggest yeu pull yeurself up from acting like an animal, mindlessly dragging yeurself along with the rest of the herd, each one thinking the other is the leader, when in reality, noone is in charge at all.
Break from the crowd, and be willing to learn, and moreso than that, to UNDERSTAND whot it is yeu believe. When yeu can do that, then yeu'll be a step closer to the true God, whotever the face of such may be.
