108 replies to this topic

[Rlyeh]

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

me-wonders, on 29 December 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

Bad person?   What is a bad person?   Might there be good in a bad person?   If you do something wrong, does that make you a bad person?

It is not a good idea to raise a child by telling the child s/he is bad.  The intention is to teach the child the difference between right and wrong, but what the child hears is what is true of who s/he is. We want children to understand the difference between right and wrong, without identifying oneself as a bad person.

I struggle to understand this response. Was Hitler not bad? is Charles Manson not bad, was not Andrei Chikatilo bad beyond belief?. My post was nothing about telling children they are bad, I appose this idea. Idea of telling children they are essentially bad, and with ridiculous concept of "original sin" is exactly the sort of thing I am against.

[libstaK]

me-wonders, on 30 December 2012 - 08:01 AM, said:

Let me be sure I understand you correctly, if someone decides to be a suicide bomber, this person should not be criticized for this decision?  If Billy Graham and Bush Jr. work together to convince us that it is God's will we engage in war with a country that did not attack us, and people are going along with this for religious reasons, we should not criticize them?   If for religious reasons, Palestinians loose their homes and orchards and people they love, we should not criticize this?   How about contributing to the destruction of the planet, because one chooses to ignore science?  How about the 2012 Texas Republican Agenda of preventing public schools from teaching the higher thinking skills necessary for independent judgment?  Like is there a line where we can say no, this is not right, or should we allow religious (and non religious) people to do whatever, on the grounds this is their religious (or intellectual) freedom?

Hey Me Wonders

I was actually very clear about the parameters and context of what I was saying, please refer the below from my original quote especially the highlighted bit.

It seems that if God himself gave us free will - then where do we get off subjugating the free will of our fellow man?  I know that my life is my own and put bluntly "none of anyone elses business" how I go about living it and what I choose to believe, as long as I am not hurting anyone else.

People in positions of power who make decisions that affect others and potentially harm others - on behalf of us, their constituents in various countries are, of course, subject to criticism - they are speaking for us, if they are not we should be vocal in saying they are not - government is chosen by people to act on behalf of the wishes of the people, it's an entirely different context and paradigm to distrusting someone simply for their religious views or lack thereof.

The context of the OP is "In Atheists We Distrust".  That is where my commentary belongs, we are perfectly entitled and required where possible to recognise if the rule of law is being breached and act against it and we perfectly reasonable in taking whatever steps we need to prevent harm to others.  This is not the same as Religious Freedom and the attitude of the religious who distrust those who believe differently to them for no other reason than that they believe differently and treat the "different" as pariahs of society or lesser beings.

[Mr Walker]

libstaK, on 30 December 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

Hey Me Wonders

I was actually very clear about the parameters and context of what I was saying, please refer the below from my original quote especially the highlighted bit.

It seems that if God himself gave us free will - then where do we get off subjugating the free will of our fellow man?  I know that my life is my own and put bluntly "none of anyone elses business" how I go about living it and what I choose to believe, as long as I am not hurting anyone else.

People in positions of power who make decisions that affect others and potentially harm others - on behalf of us, their constituents in various countries are, of course, subject to criticism - they are speaking for us, if they are not we should be vocal in saying they are not - government is chosen by people to act on behalf of the wishes of the people, it's an entirely different context and paradigm to distrusting someone simply for their religious views or lack thereof.

The context of the OP is "In Atheists We Distrust".  That is where my commentary belongs, we are perfectly entitled and required where possible to recognise if the rule of law is being breached and act against it and we perfectly reasonable in taking whatever steps we need to prevent harm to others.  This is not the same as Religious Freedom and the attitude of the religious who distrust those who believe differently to them for no other reason than that they believe differently and treat the "different" as pariahs of society or lesser beings.

Just to go off on a slight tangent,

Who decides when you begin hurting someone else? was it burke who said "my freedoms end when they begin to impinge on anothers" or similar>

In an urban  densel ypopulated and modern society your freedoms may well 'hurt" another,  and so modern societies increasing regulate everones' freedoms.

  This has nothing to do with religious impositions except that they all work on a similar principle. Individuals within a society especially a democratic society, have to surrender some indivdual liberties to live within that society and gain the benefits it gives to all.

  At the moment it is getting ridiculous in my state They have stopped pubs offering happy hours to women and have banned separate men's and women's lawn bowling competitons, both in the name of equal opportunities There are a myriad of other laws which restrict everyones freedom for many reasons from public safety to environental protection.

Anyone working in the evening of a public hoiday must now be payed  2.5 times their usual hourly pay rates. As a consequence most restaurants in Adelaide wil not be open on New years eve because the owners cant afford to pay staff and still make a profit on the evening.

[libstaK]

Mr Walker, on 30 December 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

Just to go off on a slight tangent,

Who decides when you begin hurting someone else? was it burke who said "my freedoms end when they begin to impinge on anothers" or similar>

In an urban  densel ypopulated and modern society your freedoms may well 'hurt" another,  and so modern societies increasing regulate everones' freedoms.

  This has nothing to do with religious impositions except that they all work on a similar principle. Individuals within a society especially a democratic society, have to surrender some indivdual liberties to live within that society and gain the benefits it gives to all.

  At the moment it is getting ridiculous in my state They have stopped pubs offering happy hours to women and have banned separate men's and women's lawn bowling competitons, both in the name of equal opportunities There are a myriad of other laws which restrict everyones freedom for many reasons from public safety to environental protection.

Anyone working in the evening of a public hoiday must now be payed  2.5 times their usual hourly pay rates. As a consequence most restaurants in Adelaide wil not be open on New years eve because the owners cant afford to pay staff and still make a profit on the evening.

I think this is closer to what Me Wonders would like to discuss, perhaps you would like to raise a new topic on this issue?  As interesting as these concepts are (and they are) it will really only continue to take the thread out of context with the OP to continue here.

[markdohle]

Today, theist do what atheist do, they paint the opposing group with broad strokes.  Atheist are just as intorlant, well some of them, as some theist are, no difference.  While I might vote for an atheist in high office, it would take a lot for me to do so.  After all, why would I want someone to represent me who very probably has only contempt for me and my beliefs.

Most atheist I know are decent human beings, yet sterotypes live forever, and one militant atheist can do a lot of damage for their cause.  Just as a few militant christians can make it diffiuclt for the rest of us.  Why some people have the compulsion to constantly build themseves, by putting others down is strange to me.

Peace
mark

Edited by markdohle, 30 December 2012 - 02:43 PM.

[Beany]

I've never believed that morality and ethics are dependent on a set of religious beliefs. If we look at our families, friends, community,  we see far more ethical, compassionate behavior than the media would lead us to believe. It's possible that one of the outcomes of ethics & morality is survival. When people behave well it has a beneficial impact on the community by creating a cohesive community, which allows the genetic pool to continue and thrive. Certainly people misbehave, but there are laws and social/peer pressure that discourage that kind of behavior. It's odd and a little sad that when we start applying labels to people there is almost always some implied negative judgment and/or criticism.

[Mr Right Wing]

Mr Walker, on 29 December 2012 - 12:30 AM, said:

The title for this thread comes from a short article by Ara Norenzayan, associate professor of psychology at the university of Vancover in British Columbia in the New Scientist 17 march 2012 I will write out the article here

One of the most persistent but hidden prejudices tied to religion is intolerance of atheists.Surveys consistently find that  in societies with religious majorities, atheists have one of the lowest approval ratings of any social group, including other religions.(American Sociological review, vol. 71, p 211)

This intolerance has a long history., Back in 1689 Enlightenmant philosopher John Locke wrote in "A Letter Concerning Toleration."

"Those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of God. Promises, Covenants and Oaths, which are the Bonds Of Humane Society, can have no hold upon an atheist"

Why do believers reject atheists, who are not a visible, powerful or even coherent social group? The answer seems to be the same force that helped religions expand while maintaing social cohesion: supernatural surveillance.

My colleagues Will Gervaise, Azim shariff and I have found that Locke's intuition-that atheists cannot be trusted to cooperate- is the root of the intolerance.(Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol.101,p.1189)

Outward displays of belief in a watchful God are viewed as a proxy for trustworthiness. Intolerance of atheists is driven by the intuition that people behave better if they feel that a God is watching them.

While atheists think of their disbelief as a private matter of conscience, believers treat their absence of belief in a supernatural surveillance as a threat to cooperation and honesty.

Any spelling errors etc. are my own.

I am interested in comments, opinions and observations, on this POV.

I'm against atheists -
1. I join an atheism debate.
2. I listen to why people believe in atheism.
3. I find a lot of them have personal issues putting them off God (life not gone the way they had hoped etc).
4. I find a lot of them think they live in a Newtonian universe, are philosophically ignorant and have no understanding of modern physics.
5. I find their flawed Newtonian assumptions have reduced them in their own eyes to nothing more than robots with a computer program for a mind.

The one thing that annoys me about them the most is that you can point out that modern physics doesnt support their worldview, you can give them the links that show it and you can even explain it in simple language but they just will not accept anything at odds with their Newtonian worldview. They are biased and delude away anything pointed out to them which would change their worldview because, and this is the true motivation behind atheism, they dont want God to be real.

[Rlyeh]

Mr Right Wing, on 30 December 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

The one thing that annoys me about them the most is that you can point out that modern physics doesnt support their worldview, you can give them the links that show it and you can even explain it in simple language but they just will not accept anything at odds with their Newtonian worldview.

You fail at even doing that. You've admitted yourself you reject science that doesn't support your ego-centric universe; studies in geological processes, genetics, cosmology, even the research done at CERN.

That makes you the most biased and ignorant person here. 90% of your claims are a bastardisation of pseudoscience and philosophical m********ion.

Edited by Rlyeh, 30 December 2012 - 05:51 PM.

[Mr Right Wing]

Rlyeh, on 30 December 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

You fail at even doing that. You've admitted yourself you reject science that doesn't support your ego-centric universe; studies in geological processes, genetics, cosmology, even the research done at CERN.

That makes you the most biased and ignorant person here. 90% of your claims are a bastardisation of pseudoscience and philosophical m********ion.

In psychology people who have a trauma buried in their unconscious react strongly to comments which would make them revisit it. I suspect I hit the nail on the head with my last comment which is why you're giving me such a reply. Would you like to share whatever is bubbling around in your unconscious with us Mr Rlyeh?

I always accept currently valid science but have noticed that you dont. For instance you always try to avoid or distort away colour being sensory perception, Why arent you able to deal with reality being a collection of perceptions? Even with the Wiki, neuroscience and psychology links you try to distort away whats being said or manage to read something which isnt there.

It would be far more healthier for you to address whatever is in your unconscious in a way which doesnt require distortion or self-delusion. I know that atheism serves a purpose for you but it comes with a catch.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 30 December 2012 - 06:33 PM.

[Rlyeh]

Mr Right Wing, on 30 December 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

In psychology people who have a trauma buried in their unconscious react strongly to comments which would make them revisit it.

This why atheists annoy you?

Quote

I always accept currently valid science but have noticed that you dont.

"Scientifically I am unable to justify materialism, reductionism, the big bang, evolution, the list goes on." - http://www.unexplain...75#entry4598887

You further go on to list your misconceptions about the universe, even asserting mathematics is physically real (I'm positive these have been explained to you before).

* and no mathematics is abstract.


But anyway a bit of a contradiction? Nature science isn't valid science?

Quote

Why arent you able to deal with reality being a collection of perceptions?

Because by definition reality is not perception. What is so hard in accepting that you aren't the center of the universe?

Quote

Even with the Wiki, neuroscience and psychology links you try to distort away whats being said or manage to read something which isnt there.

You've given wiki links when beating on about colour perception but that is it. Don't pretend to have done something you haven't.

Edited by Rlyeh, 30 December 2012 - 07:02 PM.

[Mr Right Wing]

Rlyeh, on 30 December 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

This why atheists annoy you?

"Scientifically I am unable to justify materialism, reductionism, the big bang, evolution, the list goes on." - http://www.unexplain...75#entry4598887

You further go on to list your misconceptions about the universe, even asserting mathematics is physically real (I'm positive these have been explained to you before).

* and no mathematics is abstract.


But anyway a bit of a contradiction? Nature science isn't valid science?


Because by definition reality is not perception. What is so hard in accepting that you aren't the center of the universe?

You've given wiki links when beating on about colour perception but that is it. Don't pretend to have done something you haven't.

Its not my definition that reality is a collection of perceptions its what science and biology say. You know that as its been pointed out to you with many links before (Wiki and Non-Wiki). Your mind plays dot to dot with the electrical signals it receives from your senses. The end reality you experience isnt out there its something your mind has put together from its dot to dot operations. Its called sensory perception.

What are the flaws associated with material reductionism? I know how you like to believe its a watertight philosophy but unfortunately you are wrong (as has been pointed out to you before). Whats the precise area of a circle? You cant tell me because you cant give a precise answer if it has infinite decimal places. Now how can something have infinite decimal places in a universe where everything is reducable to fundamental building blocks? It doesnt take a genius to see the contradiction.

Shall we do Quantum Mechanics again? Shall I explain yet again that a wavefunction is just a bit of maths and when no measuring is going on atoms cease to exist? Every philosophy is flawed except non-dualism. That isnt a belief its comes from people being able to pull apart the other philosophies with simple logical arguments such as the infinite decimal places above.

I have never claimed to be at the centre of the universe I said my mind is the universe. From my perspective thats true because the reality I experience is a collection of perceptions created by guess what - my mind. From your perspective you would be the universe too. If you struggle to understand how that could be true for everyone go watch the Matrix which is based on our present understanding of Quantum Mechanics.

[Imaginarynumber1]

If someone who is distrustful of another simply because they are an atheist, then it says a hell of a lot more about them then it does an atheist.

[Beckys_Mom]

Imaginarynumber1, on 30 December 2012 - 09:11 PM, said:

If someone who is distrustful of another simply because they are an atheist, then it says a hell of a lot more about them then it does an atheist.

My word, that was short and sweet.. Well said.. It's true though, if you do that, then you are showing a more darker side to yourself.. Willing to judge without knowing and condemn not to mention brand them unfairly.. In short you would be nothing more than a sour grape with a lot of issues   And you would be pushing out your own form of discrimination You would blend in with bigots because you are on that path.. Hate takes over  .People that do this usually are not very intelligent, the bigots I have met ( on line and in real life ) never are... In a way I feel sorry for them

Dishonesty can be anyone's game.. It doesn't matter if you are Atheist, Christian, Jewish, Deist and so on.. If you are willing to lie and mislead others, then your chosen religious and non religious path has sweet fanny all to do with it..... Remove your religious and non religious label and you will STILL see a dishonest person ..  I have met dishonest people from various pathways ..

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 30 December 2012 - 09:36 PM.

[lightly]

i agree with what libstak said in post #4   "Distrust is born of fear and ignorance" . Yup, fear of the unknown. People fear  each other for all sorts of  reasons ,  some rational, some not.

  It does puzzle me sometimes how morality can exist without a belief in spirituality . No God watching?  No eternal soul to worry about ?  You are a completely separate and  isolated  being ?.. so,   What is the REASON that person should be good to others? Logic?

I hear people say.. i don't believe in "god"   but i consider myself "spiritual" . that confuses me.  either ALL  is spirit  or NOTHING is?



*

Edited by lightly, 30 December 2012 - 10:04 PM.