'Imagine No Religion' signs to go up around Phoenix

[D1B]

Don't belong to a church, quippin' kitty. See discussion of Kierkegaard.

There's been a lot of thought-provoking wisdom posted by Cleets and Joltin Joe on this thread. If you and "1TP" (OneTrickPony) were as open-minded as you ENVISION yourselves, you'd understand the value of these discussions and knock off the "Chicago-esque" belittling/name calling.

Thanks, T-Man. Cleets & I have some solid areas of agreement ... but, on the other hand, his calling Hegel "pompous" was a subtle shot at me, I understood it as it was intended.

Cleets sees Hegel all over my thought process, at least from a philosophy standpoint ... but I actually think I'm closer to Christian Existentialism.

Oh, please.

[AZGrizFan]

Don't belong to a church, quippin' kitty. See discussion of Kierkegaard.

There's been a lot of thought-provoking wisdom posted by Cleets and Joltin Joe on this thread. If you and "1TP" (OneTrickPony) were as open-minded as you ENVISION yourselves, you'd understand the value of these discussions and knock off the "Chicago-esque" belittling/name calling.

Hey dipshit, look at Joe, you dumbass. He's doing almost all the namecalling.

You are the world's biggest asshole, hands down.

Your irony does NOT escape me...

[D1B]

Hey dipshit, look at Joe, you dumbass. He's doing almost all the namecalling.

You are the world's biggest asshole, hands down.

Your irony does NOT escape me...

Of course not. Tman is Joe's knight in shining armor. Cute, but Joe blew a gasket a long time ago and started with the personal attacks. Shameful behavior indeed.

Tman needs to stick to what he's best at - heavy drinking and ripping heads off Barbie Dolls.

[travelinman67]

Don't belong to a church, quippin' kitty. See discussion of Kierkegaard.

There's been a lot of thought-provoking wisdom posted by Cleets and Joltin Joe on this thread. If you and "1TP" (OneTrickPony) were as open-minded as you ENVISION yourselves, you'd understand the value of these discussions and knock off the "Chicago-esque" belittling/name calling.

Hey dipshit, look at Joe, you dumbass. He's doing almost all the namecalling.

You are the world's biggest asshole, hands down.

Tman needs to stick to what he's best at - heavy drinking and ripping heads off Barbie Dolls.

...you just don't get it. This is why you have no credibility.

You're not on the playground anymore, where shout downs and name calling are substitutes for intelligence and maturity. Grow up.

[Cap'n Cat]

...you just don't get it. This is why you have no credibility.

You're not on the playground anymore, where shout downs and name calling are substitutes for intelligence and maturity. Grow up.

This coming from the ConkHate AGS Credibility Orphan.

When you show something that resembles maturity, Conk Bully, then you can talk. Same goes for the fascist pseudo-intellectual sh*t, Smithers.

[travelinman67]

...you just don't get it. This is why you have no credibility.

You're not on the playground anymore, where shout downs and name calling are substitutes for intelligence and maturity. Grow up.

This coming from the ConkHate AGS Credibility Orphan.

When you show something that resembles maturity, Conk Bully, then you can talk. Same goes for the fascist pseudo-intellectual sh*t, Smithers.

Right back at ya', Cat.

(...funny how that's so often the case with your posts...)

[D1B]

Hey dipshit, look at Joe, you dumbass. He's doing almost all the namecalling.

You are the world's biggest asshole, hands down.

Tman needs to stick to what he's best at - heavy drinking and ripping heads off Barbie Dolls.

...you just don't get it. This is why you have no credibility.

You're not on the playground anymore, where shout downs and name calling are substitutes for intelligence and maturity. Grow up.

Reread the thread Oppenheimer. With the exception of a humorous thread directed at you, most of the shout downs are coming from your hero Joe. The guy is a loose canon and a cornered rat. So much so, he's busting out Keirkegaard and changing the subject at every turn.

Don't need Keirkegaard to realize that an anonymous married woman getting knocked up by a murderous ghost, then giving birth to a clone of the ghost for sole purpose of getting murdered to save man from something that the ghost is responsible for - is utter bullshit. A myth like thousands of others throughout history. Unoriginal in every aspect too.

Is there a god? I don't know and, gasp, neither does Joltin Joe or you. Arrogant fvcks. Is there a higher power? There has got to be. Is this higher power the clown described in the bible? Of course not, that clown is absolutely impossible in so many ways.

Get your head out of clouds jackass, there's work to be done here on earth. The sooner you realized this the better things will be.

[travelinman67]

Joe didn't "lose his cool", until you provocatively called him a liar, which YOU KNEW to be "UTTER BULLSHIT".
You have a right to your beliefs, but to imply that anyone who has a differing view from yours about a "higher power" is a moron, only belies your own ignorance.

[JoltinJoe]

Seriously, this is why I'm finished with Jeff.

Loose cannon? Cornered rat? Liar? The guy just gets ugly when he can't hold his own. All the times I defended him over at AGS, and this is how he says thanks.

Let's just be glad atheists are dying off. Atheism rose as a companion, and as an essential companion, to the same nihilistic and utilitarian movements that infused the most brutal governments of the 20th century.

Show me an atheist, and I'll show you a nihilist or a utilitarian. They go hand in hand.

As movements, nihilism is dead, utilitarianism is dead, and atheism is dead -- although hundreds of millions are dead too, victims of these gruesome experiments.

We are all better off because these philosophies have been so thoroughly discredited.

This will be my last post here. See you over at AGS.

[Cap'n Cat]

Seriously, this is why I'm finished with Jeff.

Loose cannon? Cornered rat? Liar? The guy just gets ugly when he can't hold his own. All the times I defended him over at AGS, and this is how he says thanks.

Let's just be glad atheists are dying off. Atheism rose as a companion, and as an essential companion, to the same nihilistic and utilitarian movements that infused the most brutal governments of the 20th century.

Show me an atheist, and I'll show you a nihilist or a utilitarian. They go hand in hand.

As movements, nihilism is dead, utilitarianism is dead, and atheism is dead -- although hundreds of millions are dead too, victims of these gruesome experiments.

We are all better off because these philosophies have been so thoroughly discredited.

This will be my last post here. See you over at AGS.

Puss.



Well, I'm no nihilist. Nor am I a utilitarian. I am an atheist. I pay taxes and respect nearly everyone. I'm raising a family, quite well, too. I'm going to mentor a teen.

[JoltinJoe]

Puss.



Well, I'm no nihilist. Nor am I a utilitarian. I am an atheist. I pay taxes and respect nearly everyone. I'm raising a family, quite well, too. I'm going to mentor a teen.

I bet I'm going to regret this, but ...

Actually, Cap, I think you are a nihilist, but not in the dark sense which is commonly (and often inaccurately) associated with the term.

From what I gather, you do not believe in objective truth, but are more inclined to view truth as relative; your sense of why you do what is "right" is not formed by a belief that you must conform to a value system imposed by some objective and higher force, or that it is objectively or logically better than another choice; that your existence does not have any greater significance; and that there is no sound or rational reason to believe in God.

Instead, you are generous because you just like people (and you seemed to want to be liked -- nothing wrong with that), and it brings you pleasure to be generally an agreeable, happy sort. (I don't say that with any sense of criticism).

You would call yourself a "humanist." I would call that the agreeable and social version of nihilism; the dark, disagreeable side being anarchy.

The problem is that your values are not rooted in any sense of firm conviction that your sense of right or wrong is objectively correct. And that can be a dangerous philosophy in the mind of someone who does not care whether he is kind or generous or likeable; and whose view of what makes him "happy" is to maximize his power or wealth. In his hands, your ethical system means anything is justifiable in the name of his goals.

You're like Stepan in Dostoyevsky's "The Possessed," a/k/a "The Demons." You are an amiable humanist who believes that one does not have to believe in God in order to be kind and generous. But in the hands of the next generation, that "humanist" philosophy becomes perverted; the lack of accountability to higher being is passed on, but the "humanism" is lost. And, without accountability to a higher being, your philosophy becomes twisted into something you don't recognize, because they see that your philosophy does not mandate humanist ethics as an objective truth.

Dostoyevsky wrote in the 19th century in Russia. It is remarkable just how prescient his vision of Russia's future turned out to be.

I swear, Cap, if you read that book, and knowing what happened in Russia in the 20th Century, you would become convinced that Dostoyevsky was a prophet -- right down to the call of "100 million heads."

[Appaholic]

Puss.



Well, I'm no nihilist. Nor am I a utilitarian. I am an atheist. I pay taxes and respect nearly everyone. I'm raising a family, quite well, too. I'm going to mentor a teen.

I bet I'm going to regret this, but ...

Actually, Cap, I think you are a nihilist, but not in the dark sense which is commonly (and often inaccurately) associated with the term.

From what I gather, you do not believe in objective truth, but are more inclined to view truth as relative; your sense of why you do what is "right" is not formed by a belief that you must conform to a value system imposed by some objective and higher force, or that it is objectively or logically better than another choice; that your existence does not have any greater significance; and that there is no sound or rational reason to believe in God.

Instead, you are generous because you just like people (and you seemed to want to be liked -- nothing wrong with that), and it brings you pleasure to be generally an agreeable, happy sort. (I don't say that with any sense of criticism).

You would call yourself a "humanist." I would call that the agreeable and social version of nihilism; the dark, disagreeable side being anarchy.

The problem is that your values are not rooted in any sense of firm conviction that your sense of right or wrong is objectively correct. And that can be a dangerous philosophy in the mind of someone who does not care whether he is kind or generous or likeable; and whose view of what makes him "happy" is to maximize his power or wealth. In his hands, your ethical system means anything is justifiable in the name of his goals.

You're like Stepan in Dostoyevsky's "The Possessed," a/k/a "The Demons." You are an amiable humanist who believes that one does not have to believe in God in order to be kind and generous. But in the hands of the next generation, that "humanist" philosophy becomes perverted; the lack of accountability to higher being is passed on, but the "humanism" is lost. And, without accountability to a higher being, your philosophy becomes twisted into something you don't recognize, because they see that your philosophy does not mandate humanist ethics as an objective truth.

Dostoyevsky wrote in the 19th century in Russia. It is remarkable just how prescient his vision of Russia's future turned out to be.

I swear, Cap, if you read that book, and knowing what happened in Russia in the 20th Century, you would become convinced that Dostoyevsky was a prophet -- right down to the call of "100 million heads."

But could the same not be said for religious folk? Correct me if I am wrong, and chances are I am misunderstanding what you just stated, but are you saying that deeds can only be good if they ARE rooted in an accountability to a higher being? Are the good deeds performed by a humanist not as right as the good deeds performed by a Christian. And do those deeds become good just by that association with a higher being? Are good deeds performed by a humanist any less good than bad deeds performed in the name of a god less bad?

[travelinman67]

Joltin Joe said...

You are an amiable humanist who believes that one does not have to believe in God in order to be kind and generous. But in the hands of the next generation, that "humanist" philosophy becomes perverted; the lack of accountability to higher being is passed on, but the "humanism" is lost. And, without accountability to a higher being, your philosophy becomes twisted into something you don't recognize, because they see that your philosophy does not mandate humanist ethics as an objective truth.

Cap, D1B...???

If a humanist philosophy isn't "taught", how is it passed on? And if it is taught, doesn't that philosophy then become it's own religion?

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Joltin Joe said...

You are an amiable humanist who believes that one does not have to believe in God in order to be kind and generous. But in the hands of the next generation, that "humanist" philosophy becomes perverted; the lack of accountability to higher being is passed on, but the "humanism" is lost. And, without accountability to a higher being, your philosophy becomes twisted into something you don't recognize, because they see that your philosophy does not mandate humanist ethics as an objective truth.

Cap, D1B...???

If a humanist philosophy isn't "taught", how is it passed on? And if it is taught, doesn't that philosophy then become it's own religion?

If what my dad and mom and other good people taught me as right from wrong then I suppose it is a religion but I always just thought of it as good parents trying to insure that they raised good people that they could be proud of for making moral and just decisions. It was done inside the context of home life and not in the context of religion. If people want to call it a religion the what do I care...I always just called it good parenting.

[JoltinJoe]

I bet I'm going to regret this, but ...

Actually, Cap, I think you are a nihilist, but not in the dark sense which is commonly (and often inaccurately) associated with the term.

From what I gather, you do not believe in objective truth, but are more inclined to view truth as relative; your sense of why you do what is "right" is not formed by a belief that you must conform to a value system imposed by some objective and higher force, or that it is objectively or logically better than another choice; that your existence does not have any greater significance; and that there is no sound or rational reason to believe in God.

Instead, you are generous because you just like people (and you seemed to want to be liked -- nothing wrong with that), and it brings you pleasure to be generally an agreeable, happy sort. (I don't say that with any sense of criticism).

You would call yourself a "humanist." I would call that the agreeable and social version of nihilism; the dark, disagreeable side being anarchy.

The problem is that your values are not rooted in any sense of firm conviction that your sense of right or wrong is objectively correct. And that can be a dangerous philosophy in the mind of someone who does not care whether he is kind or generous or likeable; and whose view of what makes him "happy" is to maximize his power or wealth. In his hands, your ethical system means anything is justifiable in the name of his goals.

You're like Stepan in Dostoyevsky's "The Possessed," a/k/a "The Demons." You are an amiable humanist who believes that one does not have to believe in God in order to be kind and generous. But in the hands of the next generation, that "humanist" philosophy becomes perverted; the lack of accountability to higher being is passed on, but the "humanism" is lost. And, without accountability to a higher being, your philosophy becomes twisted into something you don't recognize, because they see that your philosophy does not mandate humanist ethics as an objective truth.

Dostoyevsky wrote in the 19th century in Russia. It is remarkable just how prescient his vision of Russia's future turned out to be.

I swear, Cap, if you read that book, and knowing what happened in Russia in the 20th Century, you would become convinced that Dostoyevsky was a prophet -- right down to the call of "100 million heads."

But could the same not be said for religious folk? Correct me if I am wrong, and chances are I am misunderstanding what you just stated, but are you saying that deeds can only be good if they ARE rooted in an accountability to a higher being? Are the good deeds performed by a humanist not as right as the good deeds performed by a Christian. And do those deeds become good just by that association with a higher being? Are good deeds performed by a humanist any less good than bad deeds performed in the name of a god less bad?

App: I was simply summarzing the plot of the book. The point wasn't that the good deeds of humanists are not as good as the good deeds of people who believe in God. The point was that humanism is simply an expression of a preference of what is "good," not rooted in any sense that what is "right" is mandated by objective truth.

Dostoyevsky wrote a time when many Russian intellectuals were embracing Marxist economics and with it, secular morality. They were amiable humanists who disregarded the idea of God. Dostoyevsky, through his plot line, predicted that the next generation of Marxists would not be so amiable; that they would be drawn to the concepts of a strong centralized government, centralized economics, and state atheism; and that, as a result, they would justify action, morally, on whether it advanced the goals of the centralized political and economic power. He predicted the death of "100 million heads" if the atheist revolution ever achieved its objectives in Russia.

[D1B]

But could the same not be said for religious folk? Correct me if I am wrong, and chances are I am misunderstanding what you just stated, but are you saying that deeds can only be good if they ARE rooted in an accountability to a higher being? Are the good deeds performed by a humanist not as right as the good deeds performed by a Christian. And do those deeds become good just by that association with a higher being? Are good deeds performed by a humanist any less good than bad deeds performed in the name of a god less bad?

App: I was simply summarzing the plot of the book. The point wasn't that the good deeds of humanists are not as good as the good deeds of people who believe in God. The point was that humanism is simply an expression of a preference of what is "good," not rooted in any sense that what is "right" is mandated by objective truth.

Dostoyevsky wrote a time when many Russian intellectuals were embracing Marxist economics and with it, secular morality. They were amiable humanists who disregarded the idea of God. Dostoyevsky, through his plot line, predicted that the next generation of Marxists would not be so amiable; that they would be drawn to the concepts of a strong centralized government, centralized economics, and state atheism; and that, as a result, they would justify action, morally, on whether it advanced the goals of the centralized political and economic power. He predicted the death of "100 million heads" if the atheist revolution ever achieved its objectives in Russia.

Again Joe, when you speak of communism here you are talking about another religion. As stated by many scholars, communism is "deification of the state". When looking at Marx/Engels' philosophy, atheism is a rather small part of the overall theory.

The Russian people at the time of Dostoyevsky were very religious. In fact, the Russian people for centuries under czarist rule, suffered trememdously, most in the bonds of slavery, in a deeply christian nation. Again, religion is no guarantee of moral or ethical behavior - See the slaver in christian and muslim nations, the subjection of women, etc...

During and after the revolution, millions of people were killed, not because they were religious but they were seen as a threat to the dictatorship. Tens of Millions in Russia and China died in failed economic/agricultural programs forced upon them by brutal dictators. Looking at this objectively the tragedies of this era were the result of failed leadership, agricultural programs and paranoid brutality, not atheism.

It is interesting that the tragedies of Russia and Germany arose out of countries with strong christian religious traditions. As I mentioned before, using religion as a means to transmit morals, culture and ethics is disastrous as it primarily requireds authoritarion means and blind obediance to a god. In fact religion is a necessary condition to transition from one system of goverment to totolitarianism and dictatorship. Religion thwarts critical inquiry and ethical awareness and prepares people to acquiess to authority. Again we've witnessed this in Germany and Russia.

Perhaps a discussion on humanism is required because it is obvious you either are not very familar with its pricipals or, more likely, not presenting the complete picture. To say than secular humanism/morality is simply a "denial of god" belies your ignorance, as does exaggerating it's role in dictatorships and collectivisation. It is good that you addressed embracing marxixt economics.

7:16am - Got to go to work, will have more later.

"To passively obey the Ten Commandments or the injunctions of Jesus without being able to define or evaluate such prescriptions is hardly to have attained ethical awareness."

Paul Kurtz

[Cap'n Cat]

But could the same not be said for religious folk? Correct me if I am wrong, and chances are I am misunderstanding what you just stated, but are you saying that deeds can only be good if they ARE rooted in an accountability to a higher being? Are the good deeds performed by a humanist not as right as the good deeds performed by a Christian. And do those deeds become good just by that association with a higher being? Are good deeds performed by a humanist any less good than bad deeds performed in the name of a god less bad?

App: I was simply summarzing the plot of the book. The point wasn't that the good deeds of humanists are not as good as the good deeds of people who believe in God. The point was that humanism is simply an expression of a preference of what is "good," not rooted in any sense that what is "right" is mandated by objective truth.

Dostoyevsky wrote a time when many Russian intellectuals were embracing Marxist economics and with it, secular morality. They were amiable humanists who disregarded the idea of God. Dostoyevsky, through his plot line, predicted that the next generation of Marxists would not be so amiable; that they would be drawn to the concepts of a strong centralized government, centralized economics, and state atheism; and that, as a result, they would justify action, morally, on whether it advanced the goals of the centralized political and economic power. He predicted the death of "100 million heads" if the atheist revolution ever achieved its objectives in Russia.

Joe, here highlights one of your many issues - pretending to be in others' heads and knowing what they believe and think. You're holier than thou, ad nauseam. And don't tell me about Dostoyevsky and Stalin, I've been a keen student of that stuff for 30 years.



You get after me for smoking pot and, now, I'm getting after you for huffing excessive quantities of myrrh before you post. How in the fvck does your family sand you?



Then there's travelinidiot, Robin to your Batman. My morals need not be based on any of your ghosts and goblins sh*t and they are as strong as yours, you pompous, know-it-all fvck.

Other than that, hope you have a nice Thursday, old person!

[D1B]

App: I was simply summarzing the plot of the book. The point wasn't that the good deeds of humanists are not as good as the good deeds of people who believe in God. The point was that humanism is simply an expression of a preference of what is "good," not rooted in any sense that what is "right" is mandated by objective truth.

Dostoyevsky wrote a time when many Russian intellectuals were embracing Marxist economics and with it, secular morality. They were amiable humanists who disregarded the idea of God. Dostoyevsky, through his plot line, predicted that the next generation of Marxists would not be so amiable; that they would be drawn to the concepts of a strong centralized government, centralized economics, and state atheism; and that, as a result, they would justify action, morally, on whether it advanced the goals of the centralized political and economic power. He predicted the death of "100 million heads" if the atheist revolution ever achieved its objectives in Russia.

Joe, here highlights one of your many issues - pretending to be in others' heads and knowing what they believe and think. You're holier than thou, ad nauseam. And don't tell me about Dostoyevsky and Stalin, I've been a keen student of that stuff for 30 years.



You get after me for smoking pot and, now, I'm getting after you for huffing excessive quantities of myrrh before you post. How in the fvck does your family sand you?



Then there's travelinidiot, Robin to your Batman. My morals need not be based on any of your ghosts and goblins sh*t and they are as strong as yours, you pompous, know-it-all fvck.

Other than that, hope you have a nice Thursday, old person!

Absolutely, Joe and Joe Jr. (Travelinmoron) are fvcks of biblical magnitude. He often posits irrevelant crap and tangents and assign adherents as he sees fit. Accuses others of subcription or claims they don't or can't understand an issue. All the while dismissing the fact that there is a direct correlation between freedom in a society and a diminishing role of religion in government. That some of the greatest advances in freedoms were a direct result of secular challenges to religious tyranny and done in spite of religous dogma.

Christianity, historically has advocated slavery, war, racism and the subjection of women. Christianity is no guarantee of a moral society. Fact.

[Cap'n Cat]

Joe, here highlights one of your many issues - pretending to be in others' heads and knowing what they believe and think. You're holier than thou, ad nauseam. And don't tell me about Dostoyevsky and Stalin, I've been a keen student of that stuff for 30 years.



You get after me for smoking pot and, now, I'm getting after you for huffing excessive quantities of myrrh before you post. How in the fvck does your family sand you?



Then there's travelinidiot, Robin to your Batman. My morals need not be based on any of your ghosts and goblins sh*t and they are as strong as yours, you pompous, know-it-all fvck.

Other than that, hope you have a nice Thursday, old person!

Absolutely, Joe and Joe Jr. (Travelinmoron) are fvcks of biblical magnitude. He often posits irrevelant crap and tangents and assign adherents as he sees fit. Accuses others of subcription or claims they don't or can't understand an issue. All the while dismissing the fact that there is a direct correlation between freedom in a society and a diminishing role of religion in government. That some of the greatest advances in freedoms were a direct result of secular challenges to religious tyranny and done in spite of religous dogma.

Christianity, historically has advocated slavery, war, racism and the subjection of women. Christianity is no guarantee of a moral society. Fact.

And little do these dilettantes know that America itself was born out of the Enlightenment, civilization's first convulsive effort to throw off the yoke of Jesus-fellating despots and corruption! Classic liberalism planted the seeds for their now-gone-wildly-awry country.
Freedom from religion was the cry. The influence of religion has waxed and waned ever since but is on a decided decline, worldwide.

Two smug, misinformed, blind Conk turds. And atheists are dangerous??????

[D1B]

Absolutely, Joe and Joe Jr. (Travelinmoron) are fvcks of biblical magnitude. He often posits irrevelant crap and tangents and assign adherents as he sees fit. Accuses others of subcription or claims they don't or can't understand an issue. All the while dismissing the fact that there is a direct correlation between freedom in a society and a diminishing role of religion in government. That some of the greatest advances in freedoms were a direct result of secular challenges to religious tyranny and done in spite of religous dogma.

Christianity, historically has advocated slavery, war, racism and the subjection of women. Christianity is no guarantee of a moral society. Fact.

And little do these dilettantes know that America itself was born out of the Enlightenment, civilization's first convulsive effort to throw off the yoke of Jesus-fellating despots and corruption! Classic liberalism planted the seeds for their now-gone-wildly-awry country.
Freedom from religion was the cry. The influence of religion has waxed and waned ever since but is on a decided decline, worldwide.

Two smug, misinformed, blind Conk turds. And atheists are dangerous??????

Absolutely, Joe and Joe Jr. can wallow all they want in the obscurities of christian existentialism and russian fatalism and the political upheavals of christian serfdoms. An enlightened thinker, a school child just needs to sit back and observe the realities of history. Religion is a kinder and gentler beast solely due to the forces of secularism and it's values rooted in rational ethical inquiry.

America is a great example.

I will keep Joe, his children, those he influences with his message of hate and intolerance in my thoughts. Fvck Tman, he's a lost cause, irrelevant and and a rapidly-dying breed of lizard-brained dork.

[JoltinJoe]

I knew I was going to regret it ... I was trying to have a conversation ... This is what I get in return.

Two self-righteous atheists, incapable of defending themselves, and having to resort to invective because they can't engage in reasonable discussion ...

Much of what you guys have said is flat-out wrong, but I don't have the inclination to continue this ...

[D1B]

And under-read too (which has been apparent to me for a long time, but I've polite enough not to say anything, until now).

See Cleets' discussion above about Kierkegaard and his Christian existentialism? You don't really have a clue what he is talking about, do you? In fact, numerous times over the years with you I have justified faith as a "leap" not based in common rationality, and you have soundly dismissed that as foolish, without once showing any recognition that this concept is at the foundation of one of the most respected philosophical traditions anchored by some of the weightiest thinkers ever.

You've rejected entire schools of philosophy without ever reading from some of their representative thinkers.

For years, I have been suggesting to you to take that leap, and that you can do it without sacrificing your respect for rationality. I've done that under my mistaken impression that you were a decent guy. My first encounter with you involved my suggestion that our five senses limited our ability to perceive reality, and that there were surely more than five ways to experience reality. If we had a sixth sense, I said, the existence of God may be as obvious to you as a tree right before you. So I said you can take that leap, recoginizing it was a leap. You dismissed me in some pretty harsh terms -- as if I was the one who tought of that. Maybe I should have taken the hint then. When it gets to a boilong point, you do nothing but insult me. Why do I continue this conversation?

Maybe if you make it a little more obvious to one of his five senses...

'Course, then again, Joe, that would require admitting that man's knowledge is incomplete and finite...

...WOW!

Too much to handle! Where's my pipe...I gotta get stoned so i can deal with this.

What a dumbass, I'll be the first to admit man's knowledge is incomplete and finite, hence my skepticism. YOU and Cardinal Joe and the rest of christian army are the arrogant fvcks who claim to know the divine.

What a crock. Your ignorance here is remarkable. Just a another dumb post by you.

[D1B]

I knew I was going to regret it ... I was trying to have a conversation ... This is what I get in return.

Two self-righteous atheists, incapable of defending themselves, and having to resort to invective because they can't engage in reasonable discussion ...

Much of what you guys have said is flat-out wrong, but I don't have the inclination to continue this ...

What cowardice.

Open your eyes Joe and take a close look at the tyranny of christianity during the last 300 years. To do so would be to admit that science, free thought, secular ideals have tamed the beast. We now witness the waning influence of religion as millions are fleeing for a more rational ethic and religion, as posited thousands of years ago by nomadic tribes, has failed to keep up with contemporary challenges.

[JoltinJoe]

Joltin Joe said...

You are an amiable humanist who believes that one does not have to believe in God in order to be kind and generous. But in the hands of the next generation, that "humanist" philosophy becomes perverted; the lack of accountability to higher being is passed on, but the "humanism" is lost. And, without accountability to a higher being, your philosophy becomes twisted into something you don't recognize, because they see that your philosophy does not mandate humanist ethics as an objective truth.

Cap, D1B...???

If a humanist philosophy isn't "taught", how is it passed on? And if it is taught, doesn't that philosophy then become it's own religion?

T-Man, I don't think humanism is a "religion." It is a philosophy, a political philosphy of governance, which is at odds with natural law. Its theological expression is found in atheism.

Natural law is a product of the enlightenment which challenged the concept of the divine right of rulers. Natural law holds that each individual is endowed by a creator with certain inalienable rights which no ruler has any right/privilege to invade. It is at the root of our concept of individual liberty.

Our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence are pure expressions of natural law. Under our constitution, the government does not derive its authority from any sense of "divine right"; instead, it governs only with the consent of the governed, who are understood to be created with certain inalienable rights. To bombastically suggest that our constiution rejects any sense of theology, or "freedom from religion" is ridiculous. What it rejects is "divine right." Our constitution sees the Creator as the source of individual rights, and the inviduals as the source of governmental authority, through a contract with government -- a government by consent of the governed. Accordingly, the government's authority is secondary to invidual rights.

Humanists, however, reject the idea of a creator, and thus reject the concept of having been endowed by a creator with inalienable rights. Many humanists still understand, however, that there is "natural order" to existence which is the font of individual rights. This sounds fine in concept but has proven elusive in practice. This concept was at the root of the Soviet constitution, a pure expression of humanist political and social ideology which, in theory, expressed an idealized vision of man as the "most precious capital." In practice, however, without the assurance that the concept of individual liberty transcended the authority of the central government, or that government acted only with the consent of the governed, the government devolved into a totalitarian state -- despite its beautiful constitution.

So beware when amiable intellectuals in our universities attack natural law, and advance humanism as an alternative. Historically, that has proven to be a slippery slope.

[JoltinJoe]

I knew I was going to regret it ... I was trying to have a conversation ... This is what I get in return.

Two self-righteous atheists, incapable of defending themselves, and having to resort to invective because they can't engage in reasonable discussion ...

Much of what you guys have said is flat-out wrong, but I don't have the inclination to continue this ...

What cowardice.

Open your eyes Joe and take a close look at the tyranny of christianity during the last 300 years. To do so would be to admit that science, free thought, secular ideals have tamed the beast. We now witness the waning influence of religion as millions are fleeing for a more rational ethic and religion, as posited thousands of years ago by nomadic tribes, has failed to keep up with contemporary challenges.

Cowardice? Cowardice is shouting down someone else because they disagree with you.

You depict me as some zealot trying to ram my religion down others' throats. To the contrary, I merely respond when someone likes you starts ponitificating about the virtues of your atheism, and its intellectual superiority to what foolish religious people believe. Actually, I rarely speak about my faith, except when it is viciously attacked. Since you left AGS, I have not had one discussion about faith, religion, or atheism.

Anyway, what's the point of continuing this discussion? Through all your invective, I see your point, however strongly I disagree. You say Soviet ideology itself wasn't the cause of totalitarianism in Russia, bad leadership was. You say Communist ideology doesn't explain the failures in China. Bad leadership does. You made your points. You could have done so without being so personal, but it's done and over (in more way than one).

Anyway, this explains why you are willing to give these ideas a second chance, while I am not. What is there left to discuss?

So our opinions are now published in the market-place of opinions, and we will let the market decide. That's what Voltaire thought, correct?

Have a nice life.
I