"Christian" Dad Whips Kids Over Changed Channel

[YoUDeeMan]

The point is not whether or not a bunch of people were killed "because" of atheism during the Stalin and Mao years. The point is they were regimes that officially embraced atheism. And they killed an awful lot of people.

The point is that they illustrate the lie of the idea that theist religion is the cause of such things.

If you think that the absence of theist religion is the root of all evil and that everything would be sweetness and light with mankind if only theist religion wasn't present, you are kidding yourself. And if you can't see that things like the Stalin regime in the USSR and the Mao regime in China illustrate that, you are just choosing not to see.

Who said that everything would be sweetness and light with mankind if only theist religion wasn't present?

As to your post that Stalin and Mao embraced atheism, there have been, and are, plenty of leaders and whole countries that have embraced theism and have killed a lot of people. If you can't see that, you are just choosing not to see.

[YoUDeeMan]

And, again, atheism can offer no basis for why anything Stalin or Mao did was "wrong."

What are you talking about?

Of course murdering people for no reason is wrong...if only because if you say it isn't then you can expect the same to happen to you. Most people act mainly out of fear; they will do more to avoid pain than to achieve pleasure. That is no small idea...chaos is feared by almost everyone. People prefer order.

That is why most people want to have some leader...a universal leader...a God, if you will...even if he is a bad leader. Check the Old Testament and parts of the Bible - parts that most Christians conveniently ignore. Violence and death...makes Stalin look like a schoolboy. But even if you know your God is an angry, egotistical azzhole, if you follow the rules set forth by him, even the stupid rules, you should be OK...while other people suffer. But hey, they didn't follow the rules.

[kalm]

This was because atheism remains unable to address the great question posed to it: if there is no objective source for truth which compels an objective morality, what then compels an atheist to embrace a humanist morality? Couldn't he accept there is no God, and then use that belief to justify anything, like a Stalin?

Until some atheist comes up with a meaningful answer to that question (and it is doubtful one will), the field is dead, he said.

Ummmm, growing up in a loving caring environment that teaches love for your fellow man...and experience.

Or are you suggesting that empathy and cooperation do not exist outside the friendly confines of the church?

[JoltinJoe]

This was because atheism remains unable to address the great question posed to it: if there is no objective source for truth which compels an objective morality, what then compels an atheist to embrace a humanist morality? Couldn't he accept there is no God, and then use that belief to justify anything, like a Stalin?

Until some atheist comes up with a meaningful answer to that question (and it is doubtful one will), the field is dead, he said.

Ummmm, growing up in a loving caring environment that teaches love for your fellow man...and experience.

Or are you suggesting that empathy and cooperation do not exist outside the friendly confines of the church?

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm stating a fact. There is nothing about atheism which compels its adherents to adopt a humanistic moral code and which establishes a clear standard to assess right or wrong.

In a theistic outlook, there is such a standard for truth -- right or wrong -- by which actions can be objectively assessed.

The issue isn't whether some atheists are kind, and some theists are not or have not been historically. The issue is, with respect to theism, we have an objective standard to measure right or wrong, and this standard is compelled by the source of those truths. And this is entirely consistent with the natural law articulation for the basis of our government.

In atheism, at best, you have a hope that one follows humanism. But an atheist may reason that, since there are no objective consequences resulting from his actions, it is more rational to act out of blatant, naked self-interest than following "humanistic principles."

You should note that the Humanist Manifesto states an explicit desire to, in most cases, preserve Judeo-Christian morality. The problem is that nothing objectively commands it.

[JoltinJoe]

And, again, atheism can offer no basis for why anything Stalin or Mao did was "wrong."

What are you talking about?

Of course murdering people for no reason is wrong...if only because if you say it isn't then you can expect the same to happen to you. Most people act mainly out of fear

So this is the basis of morality? Fear?

That is perhaps the worst indictment you can make of mankind; and perhaps the best justification for a totalitarian state.

I'll hand in my human card before I accept that.

[D1B]

What are you talking about?

Of course murdering people for no reason is wrong...if only because if you say it isn't then you can expect the same to happen to you. Most people act mainly out of fear

So this is the basis of morality? Fear?

That is perhaps the worst indictment you can make of mankind; and perhaps the best justification for a totalitarian state.

I'll hand in my human card before I accept that.

Classic Joltin Joe, scumbag lawyer shit I've been dealing with for years - gross self serving oversimplification of someone's argument.

Fear, pain, pleasure, peace, health, empathy concern for one's family and much more are all factors that create our moral and ethical beliefs.

Joe, you're card was handed in a long time ago.

[JoltinJoe]

Did I hear something? I thought some guy "was done with me."

Butt out. Cluck, kalm and I are having a conversation in which ideas are being exchanged in a polite, civil manner, without personal attacks or name-calling. And the fact that we don't agree on all points has not caused any one of us to refer to the other as a dishonest scumbag.

[D1B]

Ummmm, growing up in a loving caring environment that teaches love for your fellow man...and experience.

Or are you suggesting that empathy and cooperation do not exist outside the friendly confines of the church?

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm stating a fact. There is nothing about atheism which compels its adherents to adopt a humanistic moral code and which establishes a clear standard to assess right or wrong.

In a theistic outlook, there is such a standard for truth -- right or wrong -- by which actions can be objectively assessed.

The issue isn't whether some atheists are kind, and some theists are not or have not been historically. The issue is, with respect to theism, we have an objective standard to measure right or wrong, and this standard is compelled by the source of those truths. And this is entirely consistent with the natural law articulation for the basis of our government.

In atheism, at best, you have a hope that one follows humanism. But an atheist may reason that, since there are no objective consequences resulting from his actions, it is more rational to act out of blatant, naked self-interest than following "humanistic principles."

You should note that the Humanist Manifesto states an explicit desire to, in most cases, preserve Judeo-Christian morality. The problem is that nothing objectively commands it.

All that Joe is arguing is the need for a hammer, executioner, someone/god with the power to punish people for bad behavior. This is it. He thinks people act out of self interest if they're not religious. That's it.

You can also see him beginning to backpeddal here and accept humanism. You see him now, finally, make a demarcation between atheism and secular humanism. He pins his entire argument on the threat that if someone doesn't accept god, they'll automatically become disoriented and only act in self interest. Even though millions and millions of people live wonderful lives outside of a belief in god - Billions outside of a belief in his god. Even though the secularization of nations and religions is the primary reason they're better now and not the oppressive regimes that darkened our planet for 1500 years.

Joe's particular source of objective truth is god. His god. You know the one in bible who has murdered the entire world save for a few people. The one who has commanded people to perform the most atrocious of horrors, including killing infants, rape and murder of women. This is the god that tells us one thing in a commandment yet instructs us to do the categorigal opposite a few pages later. This is the god who felt it necessary to impregnate a married woman so she could give birth to a clone with the express intent that this clone, his son, would be brutally murdered for our sins, whatever those were.

This is the god that punished women and humanity for eternity for desiring knowledge.

And this is his objective source of truth? Really, this guy is the hammer.

[D1B]

Did I hear something? I thought some guy "was done with me."

Butt out. Cluck, kalm and I are having a conversation in which ideas are being exchanged in a polite, civil manner, without personal attacks or name-calling. And the fact that we don't agree on all points has not caused any one of us to refer to the other as a dishonest scumbag.

Uhhh, Cluck and Kalm are making you look like an ass.

[D1B]

This was because atheism remains unable to address the great question posed to it: if there is no objective source for truth which compels an objective morality, what then compels an atheist to embrace a humanist morality? Couldn't he accept there is no God, and then use that belief to justify anything, like a Stalin?

Until some atheist comes up with a meaningful answer to that question (and it is doubtful one will), the field is dead, he said.

Ummmm, growing up in a loving caring environment that teaches love for your fellow man...and experience.

Or are you suggesting that empathy and cooperation do not exist outside the friendly confines of the church?

Joes right, atheism cannot come up with his answer, because atheism is not a religion, moral or ethical belief system or political system. It's simply the absence of belief in god.

Secular Humanism though is a viable alternative.

[JoltinJoe]

Did I hear something? I thought some guy "was done with me."

Butt out. Cluck, kalm and I are having a conversation in which ideas are being exchanged in a polite, civil manner, without personal attacks or name-calling. And the fact that we don't agree on all points has not caused any one of us to refer to the other as a dishonest scumbag.

Uhhh, Cluck and Kalm are making you look like an ass.

Did I hear something?

Be quiet. The mature adults are having a conversation.

[D1B]

Uhhh, Cluck and Kalm are making you look like an ass.

Did I hear something?

Yes, Joe, you're hearing the voices of reason.

[D1B]

Did I hear something?

Yes, Joe, you're hearing the voices of reason.

Nice edit Joe. Quit masturbating and get your shit straight the first time.

[JoltinJoe]

Did I hear something?

Yes, Joe, you're hearing the voices of reason.

[YoUDeeMan]

What are you talking about?

Of course murdering people for no reason is wrong...if only because if you say it isn't then you can expect the same to happen to you. Most people act mainly out of fear

So this is the basis of morality? Fear?

That is perhaps the worst indictment you can make of mankind; and perhaps the best justification for a totalitarian state.

I'll hand in my human card before I accept that.

Didn't Aristotle say something similar to, "the person who conquers his fear will truly be free"? It's been 30 years, but I'm sure it was something like that.

Joe, why was the Bible written...and why was it written the way it was written? Who started the whole idea about Hell being a burning pit of misery while Heaven is a peaceful place? Why, when people are afraid, do they pray?

[D1B]

So this is the basis of morality? Fear?

That is perhaps the worst indictment you can make of mankind; and perhaps the best justification for a totalitarian state.

I'll hand in my human card before I accept that.

Didn't Aristotle say something similar to, "the person who conquers his fear will truly be free"? It's been 30 years, but I'm sure it was something like that.

Joe, why was the Bible written...and why was it written the way it was written? Who started the whole idea about Hell being a burning pit of misery while Heaven is a peaceful place? Why, when people are afraid, do they pray?

[D1B]

Joe, are you saying morals dont have at least some socio-biological basis? The fact that our children need 20 or so years of nurturing for our species to survive has nothing to do with the development of moral guidelines, law and ethical systems?

[D1B]

Joe, how can ethical principles be deduced from the concept of God considering the existence of God is questionable, not all people share the same religious beliefs and thus no uniformity can ever be achieved?

You , the Jews and the Muslims have been fighting since day one.

[JoltinJoe]

So this is the basis of morality? Fear?

That is perhaps the worst indictment you can make of mankind; and perhaps the best justification for a totalitarian state.

I'll hand in my human card before I accept that.

Didn't Aristotle say something similar to, "the person who conquers his fear will truly be free"? It's been 30 years, but I'm sure it was something like that.

Joe, why was the Bible written...and why was it written the way it was written? Who started the whole idea about Hell being a burning pit of misery while Heaven is a peaceful place? Why, when people are afraid, do they pray?

Doesn't Aristotle quote support my position, i.e., that one must conquer fear to be free suggests that true morality results when one is free of fear?

The suggestion of your second question is that the Bible was written to create fear, or that people will act out of a fear of being damned, or that people pray because the are afraid. I don't think any of that is true.

You can't really say "why" the Bible was written. The Bible includes up to 73 books (depending on your faith) and each of the books were written for a different purpose. From a Catholic perspective, the Bible tells of an evolving process of revelation (on the part of God) and discernment (on the part of man) by which the nature of God has been revealed over time. That is why you can't take any story of the Bible as a single representation of God, as atheists do when they recount some Old Testament story about how "bad: God was. or focus on stories about the horrors of hell. The Old Testament, in fact, demonstrates an evolving understanding of God (like Psalm 103: Loving and forgiving are You, O, Lord; Slow to anger, rich in justice ... Was this written to inspire fear?). As a Catholic, I believe that the relationship between God and his creation was forever altered by the Incarnation, a transcendent sign of God's love for us.

I think, as a whole, the Bible exists to teach us how to live, not to inspire fear. I certainly do not fear the Bible, or God. Similarly, people don't people pray out of fear. They pray for comfort and because it relieves anxieties.

[D1B]

Joltin Joe Quote:
The suggestion of your second question is that the Bible was written to create fear, or that people will act out of a fear of being damned, or that people pray because the are afraid. I don't think any of that is true.


I think, as a whole, the Bible exists to teach us how to live, not to inspire fear. I certainly do not fear the Bible, or God. Similarly, people don't people pray out of fear. They pray for comfort and because it relieves anxieties.

[Chizzang]

Didn't Aristotle say something similar to, "the person who conquers his fear will truly be free"? It's been 30 years, but I'm sure it was something like that.

Joe, why was the Bible written...and why was it written the way it was written? Who started the whole idea about Hell being a burning pit of misery while Heaven is a peaceful place? Why, when people are afraid, do they pray?

Doesn't Aristotle quote support my position, i.e., that one must conquer fear to be free suggests that true morality results when one is free of fear?

The suggestion of your second question is that the Bible was written to create fear, or that people will act out of a fear of being damned, or that people pray because the are afraid. I don't think any of that is true.

You can't really say "why" the Bible was written. The Bible includes up to 73 books (depending on your faith) and each of the books were written for a different purpose. From a Catholic perspective, the Bible tells of an evolving process of revelation (on the part of God) and discernment (on the part of man) by which the nature of God has been revealed over time. That is why you can't take any story of the Bible as a single representation of God, as atheists do when they recount some Old Testament story about how "bad: God was. or focus on stories about the horrors of hell. The Old Testament, in fact, demonstrates an evolving understanding of God (like Psalm 103: Loving and forgiving are You, O, Lord; Slow to anger, rich in justice ... Was this written to inspire fear?). As a Catholic, I believe that the relationship between God and his creation was forever altered by the Incarnation, a transcendent sign of God's love for us.

I think, as a whole, the Bible exists to teach us how to live, not to inspire fear. I certainly do not fear the Bible, or God. Similarly, people don't people pray out of fear. They pray for comfort and because it relieves anxieties.

Joe,
You explain that the bible is an evolving understanding of God (Indeed I agree)
And I would say to you that many people have indeed evolved beyond the bible - it was fine while it was relevant but it is largely irrelevant today - even spiritually rudimentary... I see it frequently as a system that blocks many people from a deeper understanding of God

I agree with you
It is in us all to "seek God"
and I don't think we should make to hard of terms to those who do - God is a wide target - in fact you can't miss
Each person is born with everything they already need to know about God
Each person has their own God experience

[Grizalltheway]

Joe, are you saying morals dont have at least some socio-biological basis? The fact that our children need 20 or so years of nurturing for our species to survive has nothing to do with the development of moral guidelines, law and ethical systems?

Wondering why Joe hasn't answeredthis?

[JoltinJoe]

Joe, are you saying morals dont have at least some socio-biological basis? The fact that our children need 20 or so years of nurturing for our species to survive has nothing to do with the development of moral guidelines, law and ethical systems?

Wondering why Joe hasn't answeredthis?

I'm not answering him because I'm ignoring him.

But since you asked, I certainly don't think that our morality is biologically driven in the manner described, although I'm sure it is one of many factors. Now that I'm a parent, I have to come to think it is even a smaller factor than I originally thought.

Being a parent plainly deepens an understanding of our overall humanity, and presents yet another way that we experience person-hood. Does it deepen your understanding of morality? Yes -- and in ways that you might never suspect until you become a parent. I find it hard to describe my emotions toward my children as being biologically driven.

Let me explain. I sometimes watch my sons play soccer or baseball, and I watch with other parents who are there to watch their children. And I sometimes begin to think that there may one parent watching the game whose son might someday die in a car accident, or lose their way in life and do something horrific, or in some other way do something or have something done to them which will cause deep sadness for their parents -- who are smiling broadly today and basking in their love for their child. And I become deeply troubled by this thought. I never had such thoughts before I became a parent. Is my concern for one of these parents driven by biology? How can you say something like that? For my kid, sure, you can make the argument, I suppose. But for some other parent?

There is something which ties us together as humans.

[JoltinJoe]

Doesn't Aristotle quote support my position, i.e., that one must conquer fear to be free suggests that true morality results when one is free of fear?

The suggestion of your second question is that the Bible was written to create fear, or that people will act out of a fear of being damned, or that people pray because the are afraid. I don't think any of that is true.

You can't really say "why" the Bible was written. The Bible includes up to 73 books (depending on your faith) and each of the books were written for a different purpose. From a Catholic perspective, the Bible tells of an evolving process of revelation (on the part of God) and discernment (on the part of man) by which the nature of God has been revealed over time. That is why you can't take any story of the Bible as a single representation of God, as atheists do when they recount some Old Testament story about how "bad: God was. or focus on stories about the horrors of hell. The Old Testament, in fact, demonstrates an evolving understanding of God (like Psalm 103: Loving and forgiving are You, O, Lord; Slow to anger, rich in justice ... Was this written to inspire fear?). As a Catholic, I believe that the relationship between God and his creation was forever altered by the Incarnation, a transcendent sign of God's love for us.

I think, as a whole, the Bible exists to teach us how to live, not to inspire fear. I certainly do not fear the Bible, or God. Similarly, people don't people pray out of fear. They pray for comfort and because it relieves anxieties.

Joe,
You explain that the bible is an evolving understanding of God (Indeed I agree)
And I would say to you that many people have indeed evolved beyond the bible - it was fine while it was relevant but it is largely irrelevant today - even spiritually rudimentary... I see it frequently as a system that blocks many people from a deeper understanding of God

I agree with you
It is in us all to "seek God"
and I don't think we should make to hard of terms to those who do - God is a wide target - in fact you can't miss
Each person is born with everything they already need to know about God
Each person has their own God experience

I agree with a lot of what you say. Although I don't think it's possible to evolve past the Bible in its fully revealed sense.

Rudimentary? Jefferson thought that Jesus, while not divine, was the most sublime moral philosopher who ever lived. I agree with that. He's so good that everyone wants a piece of him -- even many people who aren't exactly Christ-like.

As for my thoughts, in the end, I have two essential points. First, God is not hiding from us. If he exists, he is manifesting himself through a major world religion. Second, God has given it to us straight, by becoming one of us and telling what he wants us to know directly. I really find the notion of the Incarnation irresistible: a God who loves the world so much that he becomes one with us, to give us the lessons directly.

That this guy which one major world religion has pegged as the Incarnate also happens to be, in the eyes of brilliant men like Jefferson, the most sublime moral philosopher who ever lived puts it all together for me.

That the church that he founded even survived in the years after his death is a miracle too.

[D1B]

Joe,
You explain that the bible is an evolving understanding of God (Indeed I agree)
And I would say to you that many people have indeed evolved beyond the bible - it was fine while it was relevant but it is largely irrelevant today - even spiritually rudimentary... I see it frequently as a system that blocks many people from a deeper understanding of God

I agree with you
It is in us all to "seek God"
and I don't think we should make to hard of terms to those who do - God is a wide target - in fact you can't miss
Each person is born with everything they already need to know about God
Each person has their own God experience

I agree with a lot of what you say. Although I don't think it's possible to evolve past the Bible in its fully revealed sense.

Rudimentary? Jefferson thought that Jesus, while not divine, was the most sublime moral philosopher who ever lived. I agree with that. He's so good that everyone wants a piece of him -- even many people who aren't exactly Christ-like.

As for my thoughts, in the end, I have two essential points. First, God is not hiding from us. If he exists, he is manifesting himself through a major world religion. Second, God has given it to us straight, by becoming one of us and telling what he wants us to know directly. I really find the notion of the Incarnation irresistible: a God who loves the world so much that he becomes one with us, to give us the lessons directly.

That this guy which one major world religion has pegged as the Incarnate also happens to be, in the eyes of brilliant men like Jefferson, the most sublime moral philosopher who ever lived puts it all together for me.

That the church that he founded even survived in the years after his death is a miracle too.

God is speaking directly to us. OK. Joe, what about the billions of people who don't believe in your god?