Right wing Radio host waterboarded, admits it's torture

[JoltinJoe]

Joe, check your facts. I never said N was the founder of modern humanism. Retract that statement immediately. This is why it's hard to discuss anything with you - the lies and pathetic ruses.

Well, you are correct that you said modern secularism, not humanism. But I find it funny that you would object to me using the terms interchangeably, since from your outlook, there would be so little meaningful distinction between the two. I'm the one who should be appalled by my mistake. I'm the one who thinks that there is world of difference between secularism and humanism.

[D1B]

Joe, check your facts. I never said N was the founder of modern humanism. Retract that statement immediately. This is why it's hard to discuss anything with you - the lies and pathetic ruses.

Well, you are correct that you said modern secularism, not humanism. But I find it funny that you would object to me using the terms interchangeably, since from your outlook, there would be so little meaningful distinction between the two. I'm the one who should be appalled by my mistake.

Thank you for your admission of error.


Oh BTW check out this write up on Kaufman from the good folks at Princeton:

http://philosophy.princeton.edu/walter_kaufmann.html

A brilliant and wonderful individual. Shame on you for your casual disregard of this giant of thought. You are petty and jealous of people like him.

[JoltinJoe]

Joe - but the same can be said for the Bible - parts used to justify any amount of hatred, intolerance, warfare, genocide, etc that the author did not intend.

Well, you are right about that, people twist the Bible all the time. But the Bible being a work of theological revelation, rather than philosophy, makes for a different type of conversation I think. Even when the Bible gets twisted, there is still some objective core, the true existence of God, from which the greater understanding can ultimately prevail.

If I take a philosophical system with a hole in the moral middle, I can fill it with anything.

[dbackjon]

Joe - but the same can be said for the Bible - parts used to justify any amount of hatred, intolerance, warfare, genocide, etc that the author did not intend.

Well, you are right about that, people twist the Bible all the time. But the Bible being a work of theological revelation, rather than philosophy, makes for a different type of conversation I think. Even when the Bible gets twisted, there is still some objective core, the true existence of God, from which the greater understanding can ultimately prevail.

If I take a philosophical system with a hole in the moral middle, I can fill it with anything.

So do you think you need religion to have morality?

[JoltinJoe]

Well, you are correct that you said modern secularism, not humanism. But I find it funny that you would object to me using the terms interchangeably, since from your outlook, there would be so little meaningful distinction between the two. I'm the one who should be appalled by my mistake.

Thank you for your admission of error.


Oh BTW check out this write up on Kaufman from the good folks at Princeton:

http://philosophy.princeton.edu/walter_kaufmann.html

A brilliant and wonderful individual. Shame on you for your casual disregard of this giant of thought. You are petty and jealous of people like him.

No matter how brilliant the guy was, he still leaves you with a moral system without any objective bearings. But you are right. Calling him a Nietzsche apologist was over the top.

[JoltinJoe]

Well, you are right about that, people twist the Bible all the time. But the Bible being a work of theological revelation, rather than philosophy, makes for a different type of conversation I think. Even when the Bible gets twisted, there is still some objective core, the true existence of God, from which the greater understanding can ultimately prevail.

If I take a philosophical system with a hole in the moral middle, I can fill it with anything.

So do you think you need religion to have morality?

No. But I think that the concept of morality is ultimately tied to the concept of objective truth, and the existence of objective truth implies the need for God. Someone who is striving to be moral is striving to find God (often unwittingly).

That's why I love the parable about the Prodigal Son, because the parable emphasizes as the son is returning home, and while he is still at such a great distance, the father sees him and runs into the distance to claim him.

If we are trying to be moral, we are trying to find truth. And when God sees that, he will find us before we find him.

[dbackjon]

So do you think you need religion to have morality?

No. But I think that the concept of morality is ultimately tied to the concept of objective truth, and the existence of objective truth implies the need for God. Someone who is striving to be moral is striving to find God.

Not sure if I agree with that. what you are saying in effect is that an atheist has no objective truths or morality.

[JoltinJoe]

No. But I think that the concept of morality is ultimately tied to the concept of objective truth, and the existence of objective truth implies the need for God. Someone who is striving to be moral is striving to find God.

Not sure if I agree with that. what you are saying in effect is that an atheist has no objective truths or morality.

I was editing my comment while you were posting, to clarify my intent. I think many atheists have a strong sense of objective truth are are searching for why.

[dbackjon]

Not sure if I agree with that. what you are saying in effect is that an atheist has no objective truths or morality.

I was editing my comment while you were posting, to clarify my intent. I think many atheists have a strong sense of objective truth are are searching for why.

Could it simply be that our evolutionary past has favored social cooperation, which would entail some sort of moral code (a group can not exist without some level of morality to hold it together), and that God was invented to explain this social contract?

[JoltinJoe]

I was editing my comment while you were posting, to clarify my intent. I think many atheists have a strong sense of objective truth are are searching for why.

Could it simply be that our evolutionary past has favored social cooperation, which would entail some sort of moral code (a group can not exist without some level of morality to hold it together), and that God was invented to explain this social contract?

Or perhaps our evolutionary process is a movement toward our collective greater understanding of God?

If I believe what you say, I'm still left with a whole in the middle of my existence: why?

If I believe what I say, then I understand why I'm here. I'm here to try to move toward the greater goodness which is God, by being just and fair to those I encounter; by loving my friends, neighbors and others, and by making their needs at least as important as mine.

I prefer to believe, and I have faith, that our lives have that greater meaning.

If you choose to not have faith, you may still be a moral person. But what is the purpose of being moral? And if it serves no purpose, other than the social contract, then there is always the risk of what Nietzsche calls the "ubermensch," the man who feels that the social contract does not apply to him.

[dbackjon]

Could it simply be that our evolutionary past has favored social cooperation, which would entail some sort of moral code (a group can not exist without some level of morality to hold it together), and that God was invented to explain this social contract?

Or perhaps our evolutionary process is a movement toward our collective greater understanding of God?

If I believe what you say, I'm still left with a whole in the middle of my existence: why?

If I believe what I say, then I understand why I'm here. I'm here to try to move toward the greater goodness which is God, by being just and fair to those I encounter; by loving my friends, neighbors and others, and by making their needs at least as important as mine.

I prefer to believe, and I have faith, that our lives have that greater meaning.

If you choose to not have faith, you may still be a moral person. But what is the purpose of being moral? And if it serves no purpose, other than the social contract, then there is always the risk of what Nietzsche calls the "ubermensch," the man who feels that the social contract does not apply to him.

Does that hole exist because you think it should be there? Or that your religious teaching has conditioned you to believe that it exists, or that it can only be filled by God, rather than the people in your life.

There are those, even among the religious, that feels social contracts do not apply to them, or that God is speaking about "other people".

[JoltinJoe]

Or perhaps our evolutionary process is a movement toward our collective greater understanding of God?

If I believe what you say, I'm still left with a whole in the middle of my existence: why?

If I believe what I say, then I understand why I'm here. I'm here to try to move toward the greater goodness which is God, by being just and fair to those I encounter; by loving my friends, neighbors and others, and by making their needs at least as important as mine.

I prefer to believe, and I have faith, that our lives have that greater meaning.

If you choose to not have faith, you may still be a moral person. But what is the purpose of being moral? And if it serves no purpose, other than the social contract, then there is always the risk of what Nietzsche calls the "ubermensch," the man who feels that the social contract does not apply to him.

Does that hole exist because you think it should be there? Or that your religious teaching has conditioned you to believe that it exists, or that it can only be filled by God, rather than the people in your life.

There are those, even among the religious, that feels social contracts do not apply to them, or that God is speaking about "other people".

The hole exists in an atheistic outlook because a source of objective truth has been removed. If you are saying you fill that hole with friends and other people in your life, you may be more religous than you acknowledge. But the Nazis, the Soviets, and Cambodia under Pol Pot filled that hole with a state-driven ideology that filled that hole with the goals of the state, which had the affect of diluting human dignity and individual rights.

[D1B]

Does that hole exist because you think it should be there? Or that your religious teaching has conditioned you to believe that it exists, or that it can only be filled by God, rather than the people in your life.

There are those, even among the religious, that feels social contracts do not apply to them, or that God is speaking about "other people".

The hole exists in an atheistic outlook because a source of objective truth has been removed. If you are saying you fill that hole with friends and other people in your life, you may be more religous than you acknowledge. But the Nazis, the Soviets, and Cambodia under Pol Pot filled that hole with a state-driven ideology that filled that hole with the goals of the state, which had the affect of diluting human dignity and individual rights.

Religion is hardly a guarantee of a moral and meaningful life. Millions upon millions of atheists lead ethical, moral and meaningful lives.

Joe has it ass backwards. Joe believes in a transcendental theistic morality where all morality must emanate from a divine source. In his case the divine source is a vengeful, murderous, jealous, genocidal lunatic who kills babies and maims innocent people for kicks, who got bored and knocked up a married woman so she would give birth to really himself, but we'll call him the son of god with the sole intent of setting him up to be slaughtered to save us from shit knows what. Oh they have friend called Holy the Ghost too! His moral system relies on obediance to inflexible commandments and rules.

Humanist ethics is primarily based on man's perception of good an evil. Contrary to Joe's religion and their pessimistic estimation of man and their pathetic wallowing in shame, man is absolutly capable of discovering and building a rational morality. This endeavor is as ancient as the theistic moral systems and continues to this day - Plato, Epicuris, Spinoza, Kant, Mill, Aristotle. My moral system relies on critical ethical inquiry and human responsibility.

Joe is at a much lower stage of moral development. I take responsibility for my choices, rather than they be based on unquestioning obediance to code.

Joe is a trained dog. I am a thinking human being.

[D1B]

Does that hole exist because you think it should be there? Or that your religious teaching has conditioned you to believe that it exists, or that it can only be filled by God, rather than the people in your life.

There are those, even among the religious, that feels social contracts do not apply to them, or that God is speaking about "other people".

The hole exists in an atheistic outlook because a source of objective truth has been removed. If you are saying you fill that hole with friends and other people in your life, you may be more religous than you acknowledge. But the Nazis, the Soviets, and Cambodia under Pol Pot filled that hole with a state-driven ideology that filled that hole with the goals of the state, which had the affect of diluting human dignity and individual rights.

Bullshit Joe. First, when the "objective truth" is the fuckhead genocidal maniac of the Old Testament or the bullshit character Horus of the New Testament - what's the loss?

Atheists/Humanists are generally guided by a genuine concern human rights and the well-being of humanity as a whole.

Both moral systems are products of the human mind and both are capable of corruption. The difference between you and I is that I refuse to decieve myself. Simple.

[JoltinJoe]

The hole exists in an atheistic outlook because a source of objective truth has been removed. If you are saying you fill that hole with friends and other people in your life, you may be more religous than you acknowledge. But the Nazis, the Soviets, and Cambodia under Pol Pot filled that hole with a state-driven ideology that filled that hole with the goals of the state, which had the affect of diluting human dignity and individual rights.

Religion is hardly a guarantee of a moral and meaningful life. Millions upon millions of atheists lead ethical, moral and meaningful lives.

Joe has it ass backwards. Joe believes in a transcendental theistic morality where all morality must emanate from a divine source. In his case the divine source is a vengeful, murderous, jealous, genocidal lunatic who kills babies and maims innocent people for kicks, who got bored and knocked up a married woman so she would give birth to really himself, but we'll call him the son of god with the sole intent of setting him up to be slaughtered to save us from **** knows what. Oh they have friend called Holy the Ghost too! His moral system relies on obediance to inflexible commandments and rules.

Humanist ethics is primarily based on man's perception of good an evil. Contrary to Joe's religion and their pessimistic estimation of man and their pathetic wallowing in shame, man is absolutly capable of discovering and building a rational morality. This endeavor is as ancient as the theistic moral systems and continues to this day - Plato, Epicuris, Spinoza, Kant, Mill, Aristotle. My moral system relies on critical ethical inquiry and human responsibility.

Joe is at a much lower stage of moral development. I take responsibility for my choices, rather than they be based on unquestioning obediance to code.

Joe is a trained dog. I am a thinking human being.

You are so underread it's sad.

[D1B]

Religion is hardly a guarantee of a moral and meaningful life. Millions upon millions of atheists lead ethical, moral and meaningful lives.

Joe has it ass backwards. Joe believes in a transcendental theistic morality where all morality must emanate from a divine source. In his case the divine source is a vengeful, murderous, jealous, genocidal lunatic who kills babies and maims innocent people for kicks, who got bored and knocked up a married woman so she would give birth to really himself, but we'll call him the son of god with the sole intent of setting him up to be slaughtered to save us from **** knows what. Oh they have friend called Holy the Ghost too! His moral system relies on obediance to inflexible commandments and rules.

Humanist ethics is primarily based on man's perception of good an evil. Contrary to Joe's religion and their pessimistic estimation of man and their pathetic wallowing in shame, man is absolutly capable of discovering and building a rational morality. This endeavor is as ancient as the theistic moral systems and continues to this day - Plato, Epicuris, Spinoza, Kant, Mill, Aristotle. My moral system relies on critical ethical inquiry and human responsibility.

Joe is at a much lower stage of moral development. I take responsibility for my choices, rather than they be based on unquestioning obediance to code.

Joe is a trained dog. I am a thinking human being.

You are so underread it's sad.

Joe, you are blinded by bullshit religion. Obedience to a half-assed god is a basis for morality and meaningful? You've got to be kidding.

[D1B]

Joe - but the same can be said for the Bible - parts used to justify any amount of hatred, intolerance, warfare, genocide, etc that the author did not intend.

Well, you are right about that, people twist the Bible all the time. But the Bible being a work of theological revelation, rather than philosophy, makes for a different type of conversation I think. Even when the Bible gets twisted, there is still some objective core, the true existence of God, from which the greater understanding can ultimately prevail.

Are you serious? There's a brutal history of religious warfare and persecution among catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Christains and Jews - THESE RELIGIONS WITH ONE OBJECTIVE CORE - that they believe in the same god. And a greater understanding will prevail!? You people continue to kill each other and fight. When is this good gonna prevail? You asshats can't agree on anything, and a rational morality should be grounded in this chaos and nonsense.

You crack me up Joe.

[JoltinJoe]

Anyone see evidence here why atheists account for an insiginificant 1.6% of the popoluation?

I feel bad for atheists who are really striving to find answers being lumped in with the outspoken lunatic fringe of their group.

Hey Jeff, until you can demonstrate that atheists account for at least 2 percent of the population, I'm done discussing this with you. Your views are insignificant (and lazy).

[houndawg]

So, how long have you two been married?

[D1B]

Anyone see evidence here why atheists account for an insiginificant 1.6% of the popoluation?

I feel bad for atheists who are really striving to find answers being lumped in with the outspoken lunatic fringe of their group.

Hey Jeff, until you can demonstrate that atheists account for at least 2 percent of the population, I'm done discussing this with you. Your views are insignificant (and lazy).

Yeah, Joe, you are real noble.

Joe, you are a member of a cult, plain and simple. Each Sunday you drag your poor, brainwashed children and terrified wife into an empty, scary building to eat the flesh and blood of a fictional cartoon character and chant. I've always wondered why there's never been a National Geographic special chronicaling this spectacle.

Insignificant? Joe, you've been up day and night dealing with this thread, fumblin over yourself, retracting statements... Your ego/conscience just can't allow you to sleep.

[Appaholic]

Anyone see evidence here why atheists account for an insiginificant 1.6% of the popoluation?

I feel bad for atheists who are really striving to find answers being lumped in with the outspoken lunatic fringe of their group.
Hey Jeff, until you can demonstrate that atheists account for at least 2 percent of the population, I'm done discussing this with you. Your views are insignificant (and lazy).

Likewise for Christianity and Judaism.....can't list Islam as I believe the lunatic fringe is actually a majority....

[wideright82]

so........................ waterboarding............... crazy stuff man

[BlueHen86]

so........................ waterboarding............... crazy stuff man

I hear it's overrated.

[wideright82]

so........................ waterboarding............... crazy stuff man

I hear it's overrated.

wrong thread 86. That's WAKEboarding

[BlueHen86]

I hear it's overrated.

wrong thread 86. That's WAKEboarding

Waterboarding is the thing you do to get good abs right?