drugs and prostitution

[ERICOPOLY]

Psychopaths don't feel guilt or remorse at all, as they are unable to form emotional attachments or feel empathy with others. And while sociopaths are capable of empathy with individuals in certain limited circumstances, they have no attachment to any social groups or their rules.

 

I agree with it.  It comes down to attachment.

 

I believe that social groups inviting them to belong from an early age will have a chance at helping them learn to develop attachment.  A "lunch club" at school for example that they look forward to each day, rather than the alternative of sitting eating lunch alone and other kids calling them "loser". 

 

The former (inclusion) seems a more productive approach than the latter (letting them sit alone at lunch every day and being regularly called "loser").

 

 

There is a subcategory of people who have attachment disorders -- if you have trouble attaching to a group, you will not really properly internalize it's morals.  Thus you would feel less guilt if you violate it's rules.  You might try and try and try to belong to the group, and thereby appear to be social, perhaps even hyper-social, but if you can't really get close to the group emotionally, then perhaps the guilt will affect you to a far lesser degree.

 

Unfortunately, religion wouldn't help those people form attachments.

 

Not if they are too far along in the condition.  However, I think it is a progressive thing.  Like you can be bad at attachment, and get worse over time after continued isolation.

[Liberty]

Just to further complicate things:

 

Unlike in hollywood movies, most people that we consider very evil don't see themselves as the bad guys. They don't "just want to see the world burn", they don't do what they do because they don't care about society and about others.

 

In their minds, they are righting wrongs, they are building a better world, they are punishing those who deserve it, they are re-establishing order, they are fulfilling a destiny for a certain favored group, etc. If people oppose them and it leads to war, it's the fault of people on the other side for not getting it...

 

I don't think Hitler set out to kill as many people are he could just because he liked death and destruction. I think he really believed that this was about stopping the humiliation and ruin brought on by external forces through the Versailles treaty, it was about rooting out what he thought were corrupting influences from his great civilization (jews, gays, impures of all kinds, people who thought the wrong way, whatever) and building a long-lasting utopia that would be a better place to live for the chosen race, etc. I'm sure Stalin thought he had to take over and forcefully rearrange everything in society because it was the only way to bring about his own vision of a utopia (following in the footsteps of previous revolutionaries like Lenin), and if some people stood in the way and couldn't get on with the program, well, they were a sad reality that had to be dealt with for the greater good, collateral damage, a price worth paying, etc. Ossama Bin Laden probably saw himself as defending his side in this clash of civilization (god said that infidels could be converted or killed, so it wasn't really a sin to him, right?) and I'm sure he justified his abominable actions by pointing to "wrongs" that had to be "righted", an eye for an eye, etc.

 

So while I think that sociopaths can be a problem, non-sociopaths can be just as dangerous if their heads are filled with nonsense that makes them do terrible things while thinking they're doing good - attachment problems or not - and if enough people think along similar lines and are ready to help them achieve their goals (nobody rules alone, even if they get most of the glory/blame in the end), some for personal gains, some out of ideological fervor. As I said, there's probably a lot of people who are more extreme in their beliefs and intentions than Hitler ever was, but they aren't getting anywhere because they don't have a receptive context. Sometimes you get the wrong person at the wrong time in the wrong place...

[stahleyp]

Liberty, seriously? You don't think that a lot of atheists aren't militant?

 

 

http://ladydifadden.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/transcript-of-richard-dawkins-speech-from-reason-rally-2012/

 

"So when I meet somebody who claims to be religious, my first impulse is: “I don’t believe you. I don’t believe you until you tell me do you really believe — for example, if they say they are Catholic — do you really believe that when a priest blesses a wafer it turns into the body of Christ? Are you seriously telling me you believe that? Are you seriously saying that wine turns into blood?” Mock them! Ridicule them! In public!"

 

Besides this, have you not checked out youtube at all?

 

I'm not an end of the world right now kinda guy but, but hey, this stuff was written about 2000 years ago!

 

"Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires." 2 Peter 3:3

 

Here is Dawkins, in all his lack of ughh...bias:

 

 

That's about Joe Atwill. Even atheists, like Richard Carrier dismiss Atwill.

 

[Liberty]

Liberty, seriously? You don't think that a lot of atheists aren't militant?

 

That's not what I said. I'm sure "a lot" of them are.

[stahleyp]

Liberty, seriously? You don't think that a lot of atheists aren't militant?

 

That's not what I said. I'm sure "a lot" of them are.

 

You said that the militant atheist argument is ridiculous. It seems pretty valid to me. :P

[ERICOPOLY]

On militants...

 

Wow!  Greece's constitution and law forbid proselytizing:

 

http://theweeklynumber.com/1/post/2013/02/one-in-three-countries-worldwide-limits-proselytizing-as-libya-arrests-4-christian-missionaries.html

 

More than one-in-five (22%) European governments or government representatives imposed restrictions on proselytizing, including Greece, where the constitution and law forbid proselytizing. However, as of mid-2010, there were fewer reported cases where Greek police detained people for proselytizing.

 

 

I suppose that puts a new spin on Bible peddling -- "Ya'll best get back on that bicycle and peddle away before I call the cops!"

 

[stahleyp]

On militants...

 

Wow!  Greeze constitution and law forbid proselytizing:

 

http://theweeklynumber.com/1/post/2013/02/one-in-three-countries-worldwide-limits-proselytizing-as-libya-arrests-4-christian-missionaries.html

 

Eric, I fail to see how that relates to miltants. You have some people, risk their lives to (what they see it as anyway) helping others vs some guy trying to demean and belittle other people.

 

For what it's worth, I do think the atheists will eventually "win".

 

And as far as the social pack behavior you were referring to a bit ago. I don't deny that you might very well be right. However, as I stated before, you don't live your life as you believe what you say. Like, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you'd agree that a life on a machine that fills are brains with the chemicals would be a better life. However, you wouldn't actually do it. That's saying you believe one thing, but not having the conviction of following through - based on some silly evolutionary instinct!

 

I look at the world like this. For all of us (if atheism is the correct world view), the only things that are of value are what affects us. For instance, if someone dies and I don't know the person and my life path doesn't really change, their life has no value. How could it? Sure, other people might value it but if the person can pop in and out of existence without my slightest knowledge, how can we really say that person has value )to anyone other than the one he or she influences)? Even if my life path does change and I don't know about the change, in many ways their life is still of no value. I don't know the difference. Would my life be more valuable with or without a smartphone if I never knew they existed? No, I'd still say my experience was just as good. There is no intrinsic value to a human life. They just happened to get a different set of DNA than a bug. Isn't that reality for you guys (if you're removing that pesky empathy chemical reaction anyway)?

[stahleyp]

The fact that there is an argument in the year 2014 over an omnipotent being that you can communicate through telepathy and this same being can implant thoughts and feelings of guilt in one's brain is rather disconcerting.

 

Unlike Liberty, Eric, and rk, you aren't really bringing anything to this conversation. Now, if you could do something besides sling insults, I'll be happy to respond.

[Liberty]

You said that the militant atheist argument is ridiculous. It seems pretty valid to me. :P

 

There's more than one way for things to be ridiculous, y'know. If you read the rest of what I wrote, you'll see that I think it's ridiculous not because these people don't exist (though they are a small group), but because of the wider context. Focusing on this and claiming that it is a problem when it so clearly doesn't even rank within the margin of error of other kinds of militantism through the ages and at the present time is a way to divert attention from the more important issues.

 

Wake me up when non-believers are frequently beheading people on video and starting wars in the name of forcing others to stop believing.

[Liberty]

The fact that there is an argument in the year 2014 over an omnipotent being that you can communicate through telepathy and this same being can implant thoughts and feelings of guilt in one's brain is rather disconcerting.

 

Unlike Liberty, Eric, and rk, you aren't really bringing anything to this conversation. Now, if you could do something besides sling insults, I'll be happy to respond.

 

I don't see an insult in what was said. It's an accurate description of what is claimed by many people along with an opinion, very politely stated.

[ERICOPOLY]

Eric, I fail to see how that relates to miltants. You have some people, risk their lives to (what they see it as anyway) helping others vs some guy trying to demean and belittle other people.

 

For example, when I was a child one of my best friends had a radical Christian mother.  She would have me over for playdates with her son, and show us Bible stories.  She told my mother that she thought I could still be "saved".  She knew my mother was atheist.

 

Alright, have you ever had such an experience with your children from atheist parents?

 

Or do organizations of atheists target you in your home with uniformed young men on bicycles?

 

 

For what it's worth, I do think the atheists will eventually "win".

 

Winning for me will simply be when people stop coming to my door trying to push their beliefs on me.  Believe what you want to, I don't care.  I don't come to your door trying to talk you out of your beliefs.  By "you" I don't mean you literally, Paul, I mean "you the people" who come to my door.

 

However, as I stated before, you don't live your life as you believe what you say. Like, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you'd agree that a life on a machine that fills are brains with the chemicals would be a better life. However, you wouldn't actually do it. That's saying you believe one thing, but not having the conviction of following through - based on some silly evolutionary instinct!

 

I don't need a pleasure machine to prove my point.  This place is crawling with organic pleasure machines.  For example, I'm 41, good looking, trim, rich and retired... in Montecito.  My wife is 48.  I drop kids off at playdates and their 25 year old nannies are making conversation with me.  I had a nanny at last year's back to school picnic make one of those obvious unmistakable winks at me.  This place is crawling with 40 something men hooking up with 20 something women.  So the pleasure is there, ready for my taking.

 

Yet I don't do that.  I am still married after two years of this, anticipating the regret and guilt I would feel if I left my wife for one of the incredibly physically alluring girls.  I am socially attached to my family and don't want their rejection.  It has nothing to do with religion or higher powers.  It's just the amount of guilt and regret I know I would go through, the loss of their company and respect... etc...  So I choose the present family over the instant gratification.  And they make me happy. 

 

Similarly, I have explained that because I have this attachment to my family my instincts prevent me from running off with the pleasure machine that you described.  Like I said, "you can't get there from here".  I would need to take on a lot of guilt in choosing the machine -- the guilt prevents even the conscious selection.  But I did concede that if I was already hooked up to the machine I would probably not choose to be unplugged.  It's like how I can rationally turn down crack cocaine because I know about the drawbacks, but once using the drug I could probably not turn down the next hit.

 

 

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

I don't know if you saw the movie about the guy trapped under the boulder.  He cuts his arm off to free himself and saves his own life.

 

It was the rational thing to do, but I doubt I could do this rational thing due to the anticipation of pain.

[ERICOPOLY]

Suppose we change the printed paper currency of the US to read...

 

"In God We Don't Trust"

 

Just put it right there, printed on every dollar bill.  Further, we pass a law that it's the only legal tender.

 

Is that militancy?

 

Or how about we require every child to go to school, and in the public school we have them recite the following line:

 

"One nation, not under God..."

 

Is that militancy?

 

So... if that would seem extreme... then aren't we already in the realm of militant extremism, only the mirror opposite?

 

Similarly, I believe I've many times seen "Jesus Saves!" signs within clear public street view on Church property, yet I haven't ever seen a "No He Doesn't!" sign within view of any public street.  Atheists just don't do that!  We don't actively try to push our views on others through organized campaigns.  And no, the guys on "missions" who come to my door riding bicycles and wearing uniforms are not trying to save my life!  Nor are they at my door "risking their lives, helping others".  Well, maybe at some doorsteps they are risking their lives, but I personally wouldn't go that far.

 

Are the "Jesus Saves!" signs erected out of respect for those with dissenting opinions?  Is this how people keep their views to themselves, quietly going about their devout lives?  Can't you instead put the signs on the inside of your churches, so that your own members can get the message without the rest of us seeing it?

 

[writser]

Good points. What about all people who are forced to say 'so help me God' by law? And while I am it: how about we start working on Christmas and Good Friday and take a day off on Darwin's birthday instead?

 

Lots of posting since I last took a peek at this topic.

 

Well, I see your conclusions about tangible results a little disappointing - considering you've done almost no research on the topic. It's almost like a professor saying "look at the randomness of the market. I don't believe anyone can beat the market without luck." However, if you look at how often a relationship with God actually changes a person's life, you may reconsider the very viewpoint you so easily dismissed.

In case of the market analogy, the nice thing is that sure, I could say that, but then you could present me the track record of Warren Buffett or you could point out certain inefficiencies in the market and I'd be forced to reconsider my opinion, due to the evidence you present. I'm still waiting for that. You give it a try but you make several errors while doing so. First of all, children all over the world have a relationship with Santa Claus that changed their lives. Your line of reasoning would imply Santa Claus exists as well. Logical mistake: Lots of people believe in A -> A is true. Second, you make no distinction between 'believing that Nessie exists' vs. 'Nessie exists'. Beliefs can have an effect on people, regardless of whether they are true or not. Your mistake: religion A influences people -> A's god exist. So again, I'm not really impressed by your arguments.

 

So let's say God does exist, why would he let it be known - in absolute terms - that He exists? Wouldn't that then violate free will? In a similar vein, if a guy always knew his wife had a camera on him, he would never cheat on her. Now, that doesn't mean he's staying loyal with his heart though either. 

Yeah, that's a classic. If we can't find God it is obviously because he doesn't want us to know that he exists. This is a sickening analogy because it implies that God let Hitler kill millions of jews just to find out whether Adolf was 'loyal with his heart'. Sure, he could simply have told Adolf not to do it but that wasn't a good enough test of faith .. **** free will, just save some lives if you are so powerful.

 

I didn't say it one "absolutely" had to lead to another. I'm just saying that it can make sense. If everything is entangled, it may explain why we have some of the experiences that we do.

With regards to your Quantum Mechanics theories: when you first brought it up you said QM 'suggests' all kinds of human interconnectedness. When pressed upon the issue, you weaken your statement and just say 'it may explain' stuff. That's something completely different. The first statement 'suggests' you have some mythical evidence. The second statement just says 'well, you can't rule it out'. Exactly! Quantum mechanics doesn't rule out the existence of supernatural beings and it doesn't prove they exist either. That's why you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. I hope we can finally agree on that.

[stahleyp]

You said that the militant atheist argument is ridiculous. It seems pretty valid to me. :P

 

 

Wake me up when non-believers are frequently beheading people on video and starting wars in the name of forcing others to stop believing.

 

I'm don't think they are beheading people, but religion was frequently stopped (I believe by force) in the not too distant past like China and Russia.

 

Or, have you not read about the early persecutions in the Christian church? A lot of those guys were more than beheaded.  So, no need to wake ya up. A lot of that stuff already happened.

 

As for Dorsia's posts, did you read any of his other posts? Do you really think this adds to the conversation? Why is it "disconcerting?" He also talked about related this topic as a "poison." Again, perhaps I'm looking for a bit more substance, but I can't think of much substance posts like this have. It's like saying "wow, you believe this stuff. You're stupid!"

[stahleyp]

Eric, I fail to see how that relates to miltants. You have some people, risk their lives to (what they see it as anyway) helping others vs some guy trying to demean and belittle other people.

 

For example, when I was a child one of my best friends had a radical Christian mother.  She would have me over for playdates with her son, and show us Bible stories.  She told my mother that she thought I could still be "saved".  She knew my mother was atheist.

 

Alright, have you ever had such an experience with your children from atheist parents?

 

Or do organizations of atheists target you in your home with uniformed young men on bicycles?

 

 

 

For what it's worth, I do think the atheists will eventually "win".

 

Winning for me will simply be when people stop coming to my door trying to push their beliefs on me.  Believe what you want to, I don't care.  I don't come to your door trying to talk you out of your beliefs.  By "you" I don't mean you literally, Paul, I mean "you the people" who come to my door.

 

However, as I stated before, you don't live your life as you believe what you say. Like, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you'd agree that a life on a machine that fills are brains with the chemicals would be a better life. However, you wouldn't actually do it. That's saying you believe one thing, but not having the conviction of following through - based on some silly evolutionary instinct!

 

I don't need a pleasure machine to prove my point.  This place is crawling with organic pleasure machines.  For example, I'm 41, good looking, trim, rich and retired... in Montecito.  My wife is 48.  I drop kids off at playdates and their 25 year old nannies are making conversation with me.  I had a nanny at last year's back to school picnic make one of those obvious unmistakable winks at me.  This place is crawling with 40 something men hooking up with 20 something women.  So the pleasure is there, ready for my taking.

 

Yet I don't do that.  I am still married after two years of this, anticipating the regret and guilt I would feel if I left my wife for one of the incredibly physically alluring girls.  I am socially attached to my family and don't want their rejection.  It has nothing to do with religion or higher powers.  It's just the amount of guilt and regret I know I would go through, the loss of their company and respect... etc...  So I choose the present family over the instant gratification.  And they make me happy. 

 

Similarly, I have explained that because I have this attachment to my family my instincts prevent me from running off with the pleasure machine that you described.  Like I said, "you can't get there from here".  I would need to take on a lot of guilt in choosing the machine -- the guilt prevents even the conscious selection.  But I did concede that if I was already hooked up to the machine I would probably not choose to be unplugged.  It's like how I can rationally turn down crack cocaine because I know about the drawbacks, but once using the drug I could probably not turn down the next hit.

 

As far as your friend's mom go, I think we can both agree that she was trying to help you (regardless of whether she is right or wrong). I find a person's heart like that much more admirable than someone like Dawkins. I used to work with a guy (I was agnostic at the time so he left me alone) but he would go off on people if they talked about religion. It was a entertaining (and a bit disturbing). haha

 

I can respect your loyalty to your wife, Eric. You're a little bit like my dad (though probably not as good looking...well, if you ask him!) and I'm sure richer and I know younger. My mom is 9 years older than my dad. All I'm saying is that if one is so inclined, you can rationalize the guilt instinct pretty easily. People do it all the time.

 

As far as the signs go, yeah, atheists put them up, too:

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/12/04/another-atheist-billboard-launches-in-times-square-who-needs-christ-during-christmas-nobody/

 

On another note, people don't risk their lives?

 

http://news.yahoo.com/us-doctor-ebola-released-hospital-soon-174919099.html

 

Perhaps there are some irrational atheists over there, too, but I haven't any stories about them. 

 

 

[stahleyp]

Good points. What about all people who are forced to say 'so help me God' by law? And while I am it: how about we start working on Christmas and Good Friday and take a day off on Darwin's birthday instead?

 

Lots of posting since I last took a peek at this topic.

 

Well, I see your conclusions about tangible results a little disappointing - considering you've done almost no research on the topic. It's almost like a professor saying "look at the randomness of the market. I don't believe anyone can beat the market without luck." However, if you look at how often a relationship with God actually changes a person's life, you may reconsider the very viewpoint you so easily dismissed.

In case of the market analogy, the nice thing is that sure, I could say that, but then you could present me the track record of Warren Buffett or you could point out certain inefficiencies in the market and I'd be forced to reconsider my opinion, due to the evidence you present. I'm still waiting for that. You give it a try but you make several errors while doing so. First of all, children all over the world have a relationship with Santa Claus that changed their lives. Your line of reasoning would imply Santa Claus exists as well. Logical mistake: Lots of people believe in A -> A is true. Second, you make no distinction between 'believing that Nessie exists' vs. 'Nessie exists'. Beliefs can have an effect on people, regardless of whether they are true or not. Your mistake: religion A influences people -> A's god exist. So again, I'm not really impressed by your arguments.

 

So let's say God does exist, why would he let it be known - in absolute terms - that He exists? Wouldn't that then violate free will? In a similar vein, if a guy always knew his wife had a camera on him, he would never cheat on her. Now, that doesn't mean he's staying loyal with his heart though either. 

Yeah, that's a classic. If we can't find God it is obviously because he doesn't want us to know that he exists. This is a sickening analogy because it implies that God let Hitler kill millions of jews just to find out whether Adolf was 'loyal with his heart'. Sure, he could simply have told Adolf not to do it but that wasn't a good enough test of faith .. **** free will, just save some lives if you are so powerful.

 

I didn't say it one "absolutely" had to lead to another. I'm just saying that it can make sense. If everything is entangled, it may explain why we have some of the experiences that we do.

With regards to your Quantum Mechanics theories: when you first brought it up you said QM 'suggests' all kinds of human interconnectedness. When pressed upon the issue, you weaken your statement and just say 'it may explain' stuff. That's something completely different. The first statement 'suggests' you have some mythical evidence. The second statement just says 'well, you can't rule it out'. Exactly! Quantum mechanics doesn't rule out the existence of supernatural beings and it doesn't prove they exist either. That's why you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. I hope we can finally agree on that.

 

writser, I would have no problem people taking off Darwin's birthday. I like the guy and I think he's done a lot to further our advancement.

 

I don't really buy the Santa Claus analogy. Many, many people change for their entire lives. Come on now man!

 

As far as hardcore evidence goes, I can't say I have it. I've heard plenty of stories of people who are hardcore into religion that would be fairly undeniable if they are true. I wasn't there so I can't vouch for their validity. The people seem really sincere but could always be mistaken.

 

Plenty of academics have researched Buffett and have come to the conclusion that he is lucky - Obviously I don't buy it.

 

Again, if God doesn't exist, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with one animal killing another. In my eyes it was a terrible event, but if you remove the emotions, I don't see how an atheist could say that. And, who knows, perhaps God did intervene in WWII. We aren't all speaking German.

[writser]

As far as your friend's mom go, I think we can both agree that she was trying to help you (regardless of whether she is right or wrong). I find a person's heart like that much more admirable than someone like Dawkins.

I think Richard Dawkins believes he is helping the world as well. He probably sincerely thinks that rooting out religion will help the world forward, preventing wars, promoting equal rights, etc. What's the difference? I think you're quite quickly judging the 'admirability' of the hearts of two people you've never met.

 

I don't really buy the Santa Claus analogy. Many, many people change for their entire lives. Come on now man!

Lol, is this really your line of defense? As I pointed out before: religion having an impact does not imply that gods exists. Though I appreciate how you skillfully ignore all my arguments and keep repeating what you said before, followed by the powerful "Come on now man!". What's next? You'll threaten to beheaden me if I still don't believe you?

 

Plenty of academics have researched Buffett and have come to the conclusion that he is lucky - Obviously I don't buy it.

I think you'd have a very hard time coming up with a group of respected economists who all agree Buffett is just a lucky fluke. Even the 'inventor' of EMH, Eugene Fama, has been updating his models. That's the differenec between science and religion: you don't have to stick with your beliefs if evidence suggests otherwise.

 

Again, if God doesn't exist, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with one animal killing another. In my eyes it was a terrible event, but if you remove the emotions, I don't see how an atheist could say that. And, who knows, perhaps God did intervene in WWII. We aren't all speaking German.

Well, if an allmighty being intervened in WWII he did, as I pointed out before, a ****ing terrible job. It's a pity that you fall back to your old line of defense: "well, you're an atheist so you have no right to judge anything". First of all, you said it was a terrible event in YOUR eyes. You don't know what God thinks about it. So that makes your opinion equally valid as mine. Second, as somebody in this thread pointed out (you said you'd come back on it but you have ignored it so far) even if God thinks something is immoral: why should we believe that? On what principles did he base his moral system and why should it be better than others? If you think my moral system is arbitrary, then why should God's one be any different?

 

It's a pity that after ~20 pages we're back at page one, you just keep repeating the same arguments ad nauseam.

[stahleyp]

As far as your friend's mom go, I think we can both agree that she was trying to help you (regardless of whether she is right or wrong). I find a person's heart like that much more admirable than someone like Dawkins.

I think Richard Dawkins believes he is helping the world as well. He probably sincerely thinks that rooting out religion will help the world forward, preventing wars, promoting equal rights, etc. What's the difference? I think you're quite quickly judging the 'admirability' of the hearts of two people you've never met.

 

Wouldn't one help the world more by being understanding than insulting? Also, like I pointed out, I doubt his motives and his sincerity in his approach. Just look at him promoting Joe Atwill.

[writser]

I like how you manage to turn this thread into a discussion about the motives and sincerity of Richard Dawkins. Is that relevant for the discussion? I'd say it is a case of "shoot the messenger". I don't think God would approve of these ad hominem attacks. "Turn the other cheek", remember? May I also point out that you are the one 'casting the first stone' with regards to personal attacks? A new low has been reached. One that you quickly dismiss with a wink, I see below.

 

If there is one reason I respect Dawkins it's that he continues to battle religion in public despite all the death-threats, personal attacks and mud-slinging by people like you who never met the guy. He sure has a holy conviction.

[stahleyp]

I like how you manage to turn this thread into a discussion about the motives and sincerity of Richard Dawkins. Is that relevant for the discussion? I'd say it is a case of "shoot the messenger". I don't think God would approve of these ad hominem attacks. "Turn the other cheek", remember?

 

Nah, the point isn't necessarily about Dawkins, more about a person's motives. "People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart." ;)

[writser]

I like how you manage to turn this thread into a discussion about the motives and sincerity of Richard Dawkins. Is that relevant for the discussion? I'd say it is a case of "shoot the messenger". I don't think God would approve of these ad hominem attacks. "Turn the other cheek", remember?

 

Nah, the point isn't necessarily about Dawkins, more about a person's motives. "People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart." ;)

 

Yet YOU don't know what is happening in somebodies heart but you are first in line to judge that Richard Dawkins' heart is less admirable than that of a mother you've never met. If the point is not about Dawkins you shouldn't bring him up in the discussion .. You're just throwing mud at people you don't agree with.

 

Unfortunately we're drifting even more off-topic (as far as that's possible :) ). I'm interested to know what you think of the 'turtle' problem as brought up by Richard Gibbons. Why are God's morals less arbitrary than ours? What's the difference between your morals and those of the guys in Iraq killing children?

[Liberty]

I'm don't think they are beheading people, but religion was frequently stopped (I believe by force) in the not too distant past like China and Russia.

 

Or, have you not read about the early persecutions in the Christian church? A lot of those guys were more than beheaded.  So, no need to wake ya up. A lot of that stuff already happened.

 

As I already said, this isn't what we're talking about. This is a power struggle between certain groups; most often between different religions, but in the case of China and the Soviet Union between ideologies. China tries to control religion in the same way they try to control the internet, because they don't want to share power, not because they "don't believe in the internet".

 

Early christian church was persecuted because they were a small powerless sect, like thousands of others at the time (which you can clearly see by how many things the christians borrowed from others and just renamed or claimed their own -- divine revelation yeah sure), and the romans had their own powerful religion(s), they weren't exactly doing it in the name of rational free-thinking...

[Liberty]

stahley, I have a question for you.

 

Let's pick a few random names here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities

 

Let's say:

 

Zeus, Odin, and Hachiman.

 

I'm guessing you don't believe in these gods.

 

Can you tell us why please?

[ERICOPOLY]

All I'm saying is that if one is so inclined, you can rationalize the guilt instinct pretty easily. People do it all the time.

 

Perhaps one can if one is less attached to one's family.  One can feel varying degrees of guilt based on level of attachment.  Me, for example, I don't go in to work and so I'm less likely to have a romance at the office.  Thus, it would have to be a more conscious decision for me -- I wouldn't already be in love with the other woman.  I think many times the person falls in love with the younger woman from the office, then leaves.  That makes it easier from the guilt perspective as a new attachment has formed already -- they already have that new social bond. 

 

As far as the signs go, yeah, atheists put them up, too:

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/12/04/another-atheist-billboard-launches-in-times-square-who-needs-christ-during-christmas-nobody/

 

I've never seen that.  It's far less prevalent, let's put it that way.  Like for example, it's not written on every single dollar bill in circulation.  And it's not recited by children in public schools.  I mean, that's plain unnecessary and ridiculous. 

 

On another note, people don't risk their lives?

 

Of course they do.  I was commenting that the "missionaries" coming to my house to recruit me are not risking their lives... however I joked that perhaps on some doorsteps they are (the angry guy with the "get the hell off my land" complex).