Showing posts with label morals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label morals. Show all posts

Friday, September 17, 2010

Ongoing Debate With Rhology, the Christian Apologist: Special Pleading and Hypocrisy?

EDIT: Here is his response to this post.  I will be responding to it in time. It's headache inducing, so I may have to do it bit by bit ;)

This is a response to THIS POST, which itself was a response to MY RESPONSE to THIS POST by the user Rhology. That post of his is a response to my Initial Post which was a response to an older post of his (linked to in my original response post).

This might be starting to get confusing. Just follow the links, it's not nearly as confusing as it may sound. Basically, this is the thrid or fourth round in an ongoing debate of sorts with the Christian Apologist Rhology from the RHOBLOGY BLOG.

This response is definitely the most heated of what has thus far been a very civil, but strident, debate. I think I may have just opened the gates to some anger and perhaps even insults, although this was certainly not my intention. Sometimes, to be honest, you have to ruffle some feathers. Regular readers of mine may be scratching their heads at this point, wondering if perhaps I have sustained a head injury or something, as I am known for my fiestiness and proclivity to 'let someone have it' if they, in my estimation, deserve it. I only make these disclaimers in this case because this is someone who, up until this particular comment of his that I am responding to, was open and honest, with a respectful demeanor. Well.....I am afaid the demeanor may have remained intact, but the intellectual honesty seems to have taken the night off.....Let's get into it, shall we?

Response to the Response to my Response by a Christian Apologist

This is a response to THIS POST by the user Rhology (who I accidentally refer to as Rhoblogy in this...sorry man). That post of his is a response to my Initial Post which was a response to an older post of his (linked to in my original response post).

Here goes.

Friday, September 10, 2010

Response to a Christian on the topic of Atheist Morality

I have been engaged in a discussion with a christian apologist, who seems to have been at it for a long time. After some back and forth (during which he was refreshingly honest about his opinions, specifically those relating to the issue of morality in the Old Testament) this was the message directed at me, regarding atheist morality, atheistic inconsistency, and the accuracy of atheistic claims in the comment section of this person's blog (THIS is the post in question).

Monday, August 30, 2010

God is Moral? Oh, Really? Simple Challenge for Christians! (Video to Follow)

This is a straightforward challenge for christians, consisting of three simple questions that pertain to a specific bible passage. If you are a Christian, and you believe Yahweh (your god, for those of you who are unaware of that particular name) to be moral, I challenge you to read the short bible passage provided, and then answer the threee simple follow up queries.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

What Does Our Proclivity to Root for the Bad Guy Mean in Terms of Our Morality?

What Does Our Proclivity to Root for the Bad Guy Mean in Terms of Our Morality?

How many movies have you seen where the protagonist is what we, in real life, would consider a 'bad' person, yet you found yourself gleefully cheering them on?

Monday, May 17, 2010

Thought Experiment. Viewer Participation Required!

I'm looking for some people to 'play along' here.

Here's the video description:

This video requires viewer participation!!

This is an older video that's been sitting on my HDD for 2-3 months. I could never upload it because I wouldn't have garnered enough of a response with it, and I am worried that this still might be premature, but, having now topped the 100 subscriber mark (thanks to you all), I thought that perhaps I'd have enough people seeing it to get a few solid responses.

I hope. If not, well, I'll take it down and reuplaod in a year when I have 300 subs ;)

Sorry for the mediocre vid quality.

Sunday, May 2, 2010

The Lost Commandment?

Note: Follow Up: 25 New Religious Commandments Is Available!! (read after this)

I started this blog with the intent of creating a new list of religious commandments, modeled after of course (but not specifically aimed at...per se) the Ten Commandments (capitals for emphasis!) but I hit upon something in the course of doing so, and decided to revamp the concept. I now offer but one commandment, and, the optimist in me (yes, there is one....somewhere) is hoping against all hope that this in fact is a real (but lost) commandment, that we will one day stumble upon. Before I reveal this commandment, let me explain how I hit upon it.

I was coming up with new religious commandments, such as:

Thou shalt not discriminate against anyone based upon their sexual orientation, race, age, etc.

Thou shalt not work towards limiting the happiness of those whose actions you disagree with, if those actions are not harmful to others.

Thou shalt not abuse, neglect, or otherwise treat poorly non human animals. Do not adopt a pet if you cannot and will not provide a loving, stable, fulfilling environment for them.

Thou shalt not have numerous amounts of children for whom thoust cannot provide, financially, emotionally, or otherwise.

Thou shalt not neglect to consider societal and environmental impacts when contemplating having children.

when I wrote a caveat about revisionism into the list. And that's when it hit me.
Perhaps the most important of all of the things left out of religious commandments. The idea that these lists should be revised when both the means, and the societal imperative to do so, arise. If the state of societal health and individual liberty necessitates a change,
Thou shall make that change!!!!
There is NO reason why ALL religions should not have built in safeguards for the changing moral zeitgeist. Well, apart from that supernaturally provided, absolute morality nonsense. That pesky little thing, that. Probably the single greatest barrier to true, healthy morality that religion has given us (gee, thanks, religion!).
If these religious texts, which issued moral commandments, all acknowledged that things change over time, and we must change our morality to crest the tide of these contemporary shifts, we'd be a lot better off, as I see it. 
Then again, we've seen changes despite (and often in spite of) these texts and religions, so perhpas, while a nice idea, this isn't imperative. Then again, it certainly could not hurt.  
NOTE: If anyone is interested, I will be blogging on the original idea behind this. So, those 5 'new' commandments posted here will see the light of day once again, accompanied by some friends. If you are interested in seeing what else I have in mind, check back. And, if you have any of your own to add, please feel free to add some in the comment section, either on this post or in that future one. Also, feel free to criticize my choices.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

New Research: Atheists 'just as ethical as churchgoers'

Few excerpts:

People who have no religion know right from wrong just as well as regular worshippers, according to the study.

People who did not have a religious background still appeared to have intuitive judgments of right and wrong in common with believers, according to the findings, published in the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

The team looked at several psychological studies which were designed to test an individual’s morality.

Dr Hauser added: "The research suggests that intuitive judgments of right and wrong seem to operate independently of explicit religious commitments

 You can read more at the link I posted above.
To this, I think the only thing I can say is, "duh!" To any reasonable person, this is quite obvious. However, unfortunately, there are many people out there who feel that someone such as myself, has no moral compass.
They could not be more incorrect. Hopefully now, at least a few of these people will be stripped of such notions. The notion that one needs religion to be a moral person is incredibly outdated and misguided, and it's time to put it to rest.

Saturday, February 6, 2010

Ritual killings of children in Uganda

This basically speaks for itself.....

Monday, February 1, 2010

Atheists Kill Children!! UPDATED!!

I had a particularly distasteful exchange with a youtube user by the name of MaIcoImZieI, who left the following message on another theists' channel.

First, he said this on mysticalforest's Channel:

"It's sad to see that so many people believe Charles Darwin, Evolution, 'Scienfitic Facts' and don't try themselves to find out what is truly behind this magical life."

LOL! Misguided and sad as it was, I at least derived a bit of a laugh from it.

But then, he said this:

"Yesterday an Atheist man killed his two children in my city. Shows you what people are capable of once they have turned their back to God. Stay strong!"

Well, I HAD to respond to that nonsense. So I sent him this:

" I really would like to know if you are actually positing the ''turning of one's back to god" as the cause for murder?

I'm not here to bash you or argue with you. I have no issue with you being theist, at all. But I do have an issue with this partciular statement, and honestly, you should as well. I mean, the flaws in this are incredibly self evident, so for you to say it means you either remain willfully ignorant of them, or honestly haven't thought this out.

Honestly, do you see the major flaws in such a statement? I will gladly inform you of them if you ask, but I truly want to know if you can figure it out for yourself.

And if I am coming across as condescending, that is not my intent. It's just that this is a fundamentally and obviously flawed statement.

And it's also not fair. You guys are demonizing an entire group of people, and that's not right."

And he comes back with this:

"You know very well that when people do not understand the value of life, they will do anything they want. Are you saying that if this man would have known God, if he would have known the value of life, if he would have had any understand of morality, he would still have killed his children? NEVER!"

So, I respond back, and demolish his line of thinking:

"You avoided my question. And you also made the same fundamental errors. I guess I have to fill you in on what they are:

1) Generalizations. This should be obvious. You cannot extrapolate from one incident and apply it to a whole group. That's like me saying that all Chrstians who follow the god of th ebible are against abortion, or gay marriage. You and I both know that is not correct, but if I were like you I could point to the Westboro Baptists and say ''Well, this is what happens when you believe in that god."

Hitler was a professed Christian. Do I assume that Chrstianity leads to genocide?

I hope you can see how that's faulty logic.

2) What exaclty is that claim based upon? Do you know for sure that was the reason he killed his children? What about mental illness? Or any number of other extraneous and concomittant factors? From where do you draw this conclusion?

3) You say god as though everyone believes in the same god as you. Presumably, you are a christian. What if this man believed in a god, just not the same one as you? Would you be saying that he did this because he did not believe in the right god, or is it only the total lack of a belief in any god that leads to child murder?

4) Why aren't all atheists murdering their children?

5) What about religious people of all faiths who have murdered their children? What do you have to say for that?

6) "Understanding of morality." Are you saying that one needs god belief to understand morality?

Use the brain you believe your god gave you. Just think about what a horribly nasty, vile thing it was you said, and see how your dogmatic and erroneous belief has stopped you from seeing the incredibly obvious flaws in such a disgusting assertion."

I haven't heard from him since, but he's been on the site.  I half expected him to trun tail and run when faced with coheren thoughts, and it looks like that's what he's going to typical.

The question is, do I bother with it? I'll update this with any and all new developments. For now, I'll leave it, but maybe in a day or two if I haven't heard back I'll say something....I dunno.

This is a really sad state of affirs here people. Science denial and misconstrual, and beliefs such as ''atheism leads to killing children" existing in 2010 saddens me to no end.

(And yes, I know the whole Hitler being a christian thing is contested. The fact is, he was. Whether or not he believed it or was utilizing it as a means to an end is up for debate, but it's not like I couldn't have pointed to any number of other murdering religious people to elucidate my point to him.)

UPDATE: He got back to me, check out this amazing response:

"People like you will never learn. But he... that makes sense... you believe we came out of a magical Big Bang explosion (before which there was nothing?) and POP! here we are! Of course you wouldn't understand. Do you really think I am going to argue with you if you believe that bullshit? Start thinking for yourself instead of reading books written by others."

What the fuck.

I sent him this:

"You can't be serious. You just can't. If you are serious, wow, you're absolutely stupid. And you're also a coward, because you completely failed to address the point. The last sentence really nails the conundrum. You're either screwing around, or monumentally stupid, and ignorant of the massive amount of irony contained in that one pathetic sentence.

Either way, you're a waste of time."

I was going to try and continue discussing this with him, but come on, it's impossible either way, so fuck it, I decided to be blunt. Enough is enough.