| Author |
Topic:
Atheism Discussion 2.0 - Roundtable Discussion in Progress
|
_Darth_Brooks_
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
5/9 10:56am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
King_Alvarez,
You made an assertion, I questioned it...how is that derailing a discussion?
Quite simply, it's not.
It appears you simply don't want to be bothered with supporting your assertions in areas where you probably have a strong idea that you cannot...that way, you dismiss me while retaining the prop.
-----signature-----
"I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave up . . . they have no holidays. "
I AM AN ACT OF GOD. If you doubt it ask my insurance agent.
Whom the Mod's would destroy they first drive mad.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
nancyallen
Registered:
Nov '07
|
Date Posted:
5/9 4:29pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
king_alvarez posted:
Many Christians also seem to think that the morals we have today are because of religion. I say that the morals we have today are in spite of religion.
I'll ask as well, can you provide evidence to back up your claims?
-----signature-----
Even as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for God is with me.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
LostOnHoth
Registered:
Feb '00
|
Date Posted:
5/10 12:58am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
There is one aspect of 'religious' morality that I personally detest and that is the Catholic prohibition on contraception. What you end up with is poverty and child abuse, the result of poor families trying to feed, clothe and house 12 children because they are taught it is a sin to wear a condom.
I also detest that aspect of religious 'morality' which promotes intolerance and exclusion of homosexual men & women.
If you believe on Jesus and God, who cares if you happen find your fellow men/women attractive and engage in a sexual relationship?
Ironically, during World Youth Day they are putting condoms in the packs because of the rate of youth pregnancies at the last event.
-----signature-----
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world.
The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
redxavier
Registered:
Jan '03
|
Date Posted:
5/10 2:13am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
- Date Edited:
5/10 2:26am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
redxavier
|
_Darth_Brooks_ posted:
You can "say" anything you like, but that doesn't mean that it possesses any historical veracity.
And the crow calls the raven black.
You go on to say just a few seconds later, without a hint of irony on your part:
_Darth_Brooks_ posted:
The specific emphasis placed upon ideals of compassion, equality, and so forth, are undeniably arisen from principles of Judeo-Christian rationale in western civ. That's simply historical.
An argument for which you don't ever provide any supporting evidence.
How you could possibly claim that there's been any emphasis on compassion and equality in Western civilisation arisen from the Judeo-Christian rationale given the actual historical record baffles the mind. It is somewhat ironic that you pick these principles in particular since they are certainly emphasised in scripture, but not in the way you think. Quite the opposite actually.
Going back to your earlier baseless assertion that humanism was simply a repackaged form of Judeo-Christian thought, you should bear in mind that Western humanism did not begin until the Renaissance, when Western civilisation was reunited with the knowledge and philosophy of the Ancients, which had been continued since those times not by any Judeo-Christian group but by the Islamic world.
So it's with some nerve that you feel you are in a position to say things such as this:
_Darth_Brooks_ posted:
How about failure to display an accurate depiction of the history and development of philosophical thought in western civilization in your otherwise unfounded assertions?
EDITED TO ADD:
nancyallen posted:
king_alvarez posted:
Many Christians also seem to think that the morals we have today are because of religion. I say that the morals we have today are in spite of religion.
I'll ask as well, can you provide evidence to back up your claims?
If Alvarez doesn't mind - there's the clear disparity between our present day morals and those of biblical times (attitudes towards gays and heretics for example), demonstrating the development of attitudes in direct contradiction to those of the religion.
-----signature-----
"You've just made me vomit in my own mouth."
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
SuperWatto
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
5/10 2:37am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
- Date Edited:
5/10 3:35am (2 edits total)
Edited By:
SuperWatto
|
Sorry to be harping on about it - and being so on-topic - but humanism is a prime example of reason's triumph over the restrictions of religion.
In the aforementioned Utopia, the divine right of Princes is torn apart, as well as the death penalty for thieves and heretics. Euthanasia is legal in Utopia... This is 1516.
Erasmus, eight years later, attacked the Lutheran view on free will. The power to change things, according to humanism, is in people's hands - hence the term. As opposed to in God's hands. Humanism is a step forward from the animistic 'God wills it'.
-----signature-----
Trandoshan flatcakes!
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
nancyallen
Registered:
Nov '07
|
Date Posted:
5/10 4:33am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
|
With homosexuals the bible states, and most theists follow, that it's not homosexuality that's a sin. Rather, homosexual activity. Some madmen for want of a better term take this particular issue too far, and I'm not entirely convinced it less of a religious thing and more a homophobic one. As for heretics, is it really any different to the way atheists treat theists?
-----signature-----
Even as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for God is with me.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
VadersLaMent
Registered:
Apr '02
|
Date Posted:
5/10 7:40am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
Define the differance between a homosexual and homosexual activity. You can be gay but you can't put certain body parts inside of others?
Seriously, the religious obsession with sex is really creepy.
-----signature-----
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic--Arthur C. Clarke
Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God--Michael Shermer
I am officially Awesome.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
_Darth_Brooks_
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
5/10 10:46am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
- Date Edited:
5/10 10:49am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
_Darth_Brooks_
|
VadersLament,,
VadersLaMent posted:
Define the differance between a homosexual and homosexual activity. You can be gay but you can't put certain body parts inside of others?
Seriously, the religious obsession with sex is really creepy.
Please present me with any form of society or government which doesn't have morals, mores, ethics, and laws addressing and pertaining to sexuality and considerations of sexual conduct?
Interestingly, we can examine some atheistic/ non-religious regimes, such as the U.S.S.R. under Stalin, in which homosexuals were to be euthanized or institutionalized.
As far as Chrisitianity goes, the attitude is to be 'love the individual hate the sin,' whereby, for instance you love your brother, who may be a thief, but you are not to find theft an activity to condone.
The 'creepy obsession' with sex appears to be universal, both in the fascination of individuals with it and the reality that a healthy society has to address sexual conduct to remain healthy, especially in consideration of reality. For a quick example, sexually transmitted diseases, the integrity and protection of the family units structure, considerations of economic stability, and so forth. Just to touch on a few considerations; the psychological effects of infidelity upon the individual, the rate of std's, single mothers on welfare, teen pregnancy, and so forth. There are certainly some very real practical considerations, especially in regard to the ancient world where life was certainly more difficult. These factors effect the overall condition of a society.
I present this merely in passing.
-----signature-----
"I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave up . . . they have no holidays. "
I AM AN ACT OF GOD. If you doubt it ask my insurance agent.
Whom the Mod's would destroy they first drive mad.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
_Darth_Brooks_
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
5/10 11:15am
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
- Date Edited:
5/10 11:49am (3 edits total)
Edited By:
_Darth_Brooks_
|
LostOnHoth
"There is one aspect of 'religious' morality that I personally detest and that is the Catholic prohibition on contraception. What you end up with is poverty and child abuse, the result of poor families trying to feed, clothe and house 12 children because they are taught it is a sin to wear a condom."
In some cases, yes. Certainly not in all. I know some very large families, some of which are Catholic, which are not impoverished or abusing children. Most families were larger a short time ago than the size of today's average American household, and the majority were not living in poverty. One can go into 'underpriviliged' areas and find small families living in poverty, and the single most prevalent common factor is the missing father( s ). The Catholic admonition comes out of deep respect for life, and aptly points out that sex is not a toy, or merely for pleasure, but that there are some serious potential issues which the individual should consider before engaging in sex. One is that condoms bust ( being that you mentioned condoms ). Generally where you are seeing poverty...it is not as a result of 'big families', but that these individuals are having large families in soceities/countries/ areas which are already poverty stricken.
"I also detest that aspect of religious 'morality' which promotes intolerance and exclusion of homosexual men & women."
Well, it isn't found only in religous societies.
"If you believe on Jesus and God, who cares if you happen find your fellow men/women attractive and engage in a sexual relationship?"
Well, if I believe in Christ and God, I care.
"Ironically, during World Youth Day they are putting condoms in the packs because of the rate of youth pregnancies at the last event."
Why is that "ironic" and not just being practical and acknowledging the facts?
Really, I'm certainly only addressing this within the barest confines of materialistic thought, without even addressing ideas of the perpetuation of the 'selfish gene' and what evolutionary implications might seem to be,...and not even beginning to address this from a spiritual perspective, which is almost a disservice in regard to religion, and most particularly from Christian faith.
-----signature-----
"I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave up . . . they have no holidays. "
I AM AN ACT OF GOD. If you doubt it ask my insurance agent.
Whom the Mod's would destroy they first drive mad.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
_Darth_Brooks_
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
5/10 12:11pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
- Date Edited:
5/10 12:16pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
_Darth_Brooks_
|
RED_XAVIER,
"And the crow calls the raven black."
Firstly, my comments are generally in response to others assertions, so, technically the onus would be on them, granted that we're not in a formal debate setting, however, certain facts are so common as to be recognized by most individuals as needing no 'support'.
Secondly, let's see if 'ironically' you bother to present any 'factual data' to support your criticisms of my posts...or, if, as you say, you are simply inacting "...the crow calls the raven black."
Red_X wrote:
"You go on to say just a few seconds later, without a hint of irony on your part:
Red X Quoting Darth Brooks:
"The specific emphasis placed upon ideals of compassion, equality, and so forth, are undeniably arisen from principles of Judeo-Christian rationale in western civ. That's simply historical."
Red_X Continues:
"An argument for which you don't ever provide any supporting evidence."
Again, because it's common knowledge. And, again, I was responding to someone else's assertion.
Now, if you're taking issue with the content of my statement, where is your data?
Another reasonable question; why are you focusing on me? And why are you trying to hold me to a standard you don't hold yourself or others?
Lets put this in perspective using an analogy:
Person #1: "Henry Ford is irrelevant to the history of automobile manufacturing."
Person #2: "I think it is evident that Ford definitely played a factor in automobile manufacturing development. If you don't think so, can you present some specific fact supporting your assertion?"
Professor X: "Person #2, you are the pot calling the kettle black, how "ironic" that you didn't present any factual data to support your position!"
We will note that Professor X did not question Person #1, or even present any data to support the idea of Person #1, or to any data to support his own premise that Person #2 did not make a factual assertion. Person X decided only to try to nit-pick.
Does anymore really need to be written?
It would seem to be that you feel I should embark on conducting a class on the history of western civilization,...I think that's not going to happen, nor is it even realistic to suggest.
I did a quick Google search for you, and chose Wikipedia, known for it's liberal slant;
[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture ]Wiki Western Civ[/link]
Wiki posted:
The origins of Western culture are: Feudalism (particularly manorialism) and Christianity (juxtaposition of Catholicism and Protestantism). Broadly, these are referred to as Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian roots. Germanic, Slavic, Celtic, Jewish and Islamic cultures also took part in the formation of the culture of medieval Europe. The influence of secular humanism has been profound since the European Renaissance, as well as Enlightenment's thought, Rationalism, romantic ideals and later tendencies such as Modernism, pop culture and various subcultural and countercultural movements.
We will note that 2 days ( I think )ago one of my comments stated that the the influences on western civ are attibutable to "Greece" and "Jerusalem, so to speak." This was prior to the google search.
Moving along...
"How you could possibly claim that there's been any emphasis on compassion and equality in Western civilisation arisen from the Judeo-Christian rationale given the actual historical record baffles the mind. It is somewhat ironic that you pick these principles in particular since they are certainly emphasised in scripture, but not in the way you think. Quite the opposite actually."
Please elucidate how "...the actual historical record baffles the mind."
Please provide for me, specifically, which "...principles in particular..." from scriptures are "emphasized" and how they are "emphasized"..."not in the way you [ Darth Brooks }think." And, how they are "Quite the opposite actually" from the way I think.
P.S. : Was I provided with any specific data by which to examine these assertions? Or, was this the "ironic" principal of..."And the crow calls the raven black"?
-----signature-----
"I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave up . . . they have no holidays. "
I AM AN ACT OF GOD. If you doubt it ask my insurance agent.
Whom the Mod's would destroy they first drive mad.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
SuperWatto
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
5/10 12:26pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
*flaps in and scans the page*
Nnnnothing on-topic?
Okay...
*flaps off again*
-----signature-----
Trandoshan flatcakes!
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
VadersLaMent
Registered:
Apr '02
|
Date Posted:
5/10 2:05pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
Please present me with any form of society or government which doesn't have morals, mores, ethics, and laws addressing and pertaining to sexuality and considerations of sexual conduct?
I did not say anything about society or government. Nice try. No wait, that was not a nice try, that was really quite stupid.
Interestingly, we can examine some atheistic/ non-religious regimes, such as the U.S.S.R. under Stalin, in which homosexuals were to be euthanized or institutionalized.
It's funny when you keep trying to compare atheism to evil dictators. Stalin had such views on homosexuals, atheism is just a lack of belief in gods.
As far as Chrisitianity goes, the attitude is to be 'love the individual hate the sin,' whereby, for instance you love your brother, who may be a thief, but you are not to find theft an activity to condone.
What a nice why of apologizing for intolerance against homosexuals.
It is just so funny that some god of the universe is concerned that some dude might put his wang in some other dude, or where a girl might put her tongue on another girl.
-----signature-----
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic--Arthur C. Clarke
Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God--Michael Shermer
I am officially Awesome.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
LostOnHoth
Registered:
Feb '00
|
Date Posted:
5/10 3:04pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
Generally where you are seeing poverty...it is not as a result of 'big families', but that these individuals are having large families in soceities/countries/ areas which are already poverty stricken.
Exactly. What is worse than having large families when you are in poverty? It's cruel. The Catholic Church would do more good than harm in removing contraception as a sin worhty of everlasting damnation in hell.
I thought World Youth Day was a Catholic event? It's being held in Sydney this year and the Pope is visiting - kind of hypocritical that they are putting condoms in the packs when contraception is considered a sin.
Brooks - do you believe in transubstantiation?
-----signature-----
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world.
The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
nancyallen
Registered:
Nov '07
|
Date Posted:
5/10 3:22pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
|
VadersLaMent posted:
Define the differance between a homosexual and homosexual activity. You can be gay but you can't put certain body parts inside of others?
Pretty much. The simple act of being attracted to the same sex isn't a sin, why would God make them this way? Things like **** sucking, butt ******* and the like on the other hand, that's sinful in much the same way non homosexuals would fall to temptation.
-----signature-----
Even as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for God is with me.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
LostOnHoth
Registered:
Feb '00
|
Date Posted:
5/10 3:44pm
Subject:
RE: Atheism Discussion 2.0 - (Humanism, just don't tell Adler..)
- Date Edited:
5/10 3:47pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
LostOnHoth
|
So it is God's will that a person is born homosexual but it is not God's will that a person engage in homosexual sexual activity, even if that sexual activity occurs in a loving relationship?
That's harsh.
-----signature-----
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world.
The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
