I'm sure if you're an atheist, agnostic, secular humanist or just generally not very religious you've been in this situation. You claim you don't follow X's beliefs and they reply with the ole "then you have no morals" line.

Now usually I'd respond with a bit of moral relativism or maybe 'is what you do good because God says it is, or does morality transcend even God?'

There's a better - and wittier - remark though.

How are we, the ethically challenged, supposed to judge whether your belief structure or God is worthy of our support if we have no morals to judge by? Are we to simply take a blind leap of faith, or did you not want us to join and merely chastise us for being so naive?

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

I say, a woman discussing morality?

What will they think of next?

On a more serious note, I like the retort.

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

How are we, the ethically challenged, supposed to judge whether your belief structure or God is worthy of our support if we have no morals to judge by? Are we to simply take a blind leap of faith, or did you not want us to join and merely chastise us for being so naive?

I think you need to shorten it somehow. As it stands it is hard to remember and recite and Christians could easily point out several (nonsensical) reasons to take a blind leap of faith.

I've got one for you though:

Whenever a Christian tries to explain away a ridiculous story from the Bible as a metaphor for something vague, just use this retort:

"The Bible is a metaphor for Christian stupidity."

Whereas your logical retort will only serve to confuse them for a few minutes before they forget it, my insulting retort will apply social pressure to them, which is, unfortunately, much more affective at making them doubt themselves. It is, after all, social pressure which brings idiots to religion - not logic.

That's right kids: all the cool people are athiests. Only dorks read two thousand year-old textbooks.

Don't forget smoking. All the cool kids smoke while they flip off God.

quote:Originally posted by Sarter:

I think you need to shorten it somehow. As it stands it is hard to remember and recite and Christians could easily point out several (nonsensical) reasons to take a blind leap of faith.

I've got one for you though:

Whenever a Christian tries to explain away a ridiculous story from the Bible as a metaphor for something vague, just use this retort:

"The Bible is a metaphor for Christian stupidity."



If you can't beat them, stoop to their level!

This is just as bad as fundies saying every non-christian is an infidel who deserves to burn in hell.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

If you can't beat them, stoop to their level!

This is just as bad as fundies saying every non-christian is an infidel who deserves to burn in hell.

Poor analogy. I'm not saying or implying cranially deficient bible-quoters should suffer. Rest assured, fire and brimstone may burn your flesh, but words will never hurt you.

Looking only to old religious scriptures as a source of morality is good for people who like being told what to do in no uncertain terms. People who like to think for themselves have philosophers (many of whom were religious themselves) as an alternative, or supplement, to blind dogma.

My retort:

Who is morally superior, the God-fearing individual who is a good person because he's afraid of going to Hell, or the Atheist who is a good person simply because that's the kind of person he wants to be?

Having morals for the wrong reasons isn't moral at all.



[This message has been edited by LutherX (edited 09-21-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Sarter:

Poor analogy. I'm not saying or implying cranially deficient bible-quoters should suffer. Rest assured, fire and brimstone may burn your flesh, but words will never hurt you.

It's just as stupid as when they say their fire and brimstone spiel.

Calling them stupid is just as stupid as them calling you evil.

On the other hand, it is fair to call someone ignorant if they only listen to fundamentalist interpretations of ancient texts. It's reasonable to assume that God is rational, and it's reasonable to assume that if such a God created the universe, it's rules would obey rational principles, allowing them to be perceived by rational and inquisitive people.

So logically if someone says that they are a devout follower of God, they should be reaching for a copy of Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals to determine proper ethics, or at least listening to someone who can explain it clearly.

Instead religious conservatives obey only the literal words of a text written by "prophets" thousands of years ago. How does that make any sense? The logical holes in the practise are big enough to sail the Titanic through. If the prophets were spoken to by God, why aren't there more prophets today? What if God changed his mind about certain things since then? What about the issues that didn't exist back then, how can arguments be applied to things that weren't even conceivable? The Devil used to trick people, being the prince of lies, so what if the Devil pretended to be God and tricked all those prophets? And on, and on, and on. The point is that people who only acknowledge the literal interpretation of religious texts are staggeringly close minded, and it's in no way inaccurate to say that they are almost intentionally ignorant.

This is based off your own system of judgement though. According to their system of judgement, he would be a sinner and an evil person. This is why they're both equally stupid things to say.

I see what you mean.

I agree that the fundies are pretty ignorant, but that is only in our eyes. From their perspective, we're just as bad as we perceive them to be.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I agree that the fundies are pretty ignorant, but that is only in our eyes. From their perspective, we're just as bad as we perceive them to be.

What about all those people who fall for Nigerian e-mail scams? They take obviously dubious texts as truth and then give away their money just like Christians and Scientologists do. But if Nigerian scam victims aren't 'stupid' then nobody is.

What do Nigerian scam victims have to do with this?

There is a HUGE difference between being scammed and being religious, as odd as that may seem to you.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

What do Nigerian scam victims have to do with this?

There is a HUGE difference between being scammed and being religious, as odd as that may seem to you.

I don't know. There's a common element of gullibility. Of accepting asinine claims as truth. You can make a semi-valid comparison.

The comparison is more than valid.

The victims of those scams are taking those claims as true, thus, they are true in "their perspective". According to napoleon_complex, we can't possibly call them stupid because they believe they are doing the right thin "in their perspective".

"I agree that the fundies are pretty ignorant, but that is only in our eyes. From their perspective, we're just as bad as we perceive them to be."

Just change the word "fundie" to "vicitm if Nigerian e-mail scams" and the same thing applies. That's his point.

Except that for a fundamentalist, the text in question forms the basis of their worldview, it defines the parameters of reality for them. For a Nigerian scam victim the text is just bait for their greed to seize on.

You can say that they are both forms of delusion if you really insist, but you can't equate the metaphysical value of all texts simply because they are written words that inspire belief, it's a difference of scope.

You're bogging this down in details that are not important at all. What was being discussed was whether or not the fact that a party believes something is true, means that we cannot call that party stupid. We were not discussing the scope of that belief, or the role that belief plays in their lives.

That was napoleon's argument as I understand it. He was saying that because "fundies" believe what they are saying is true, we cannot call them stupid. Therefore, the analogy involving the victoms of the Nigerian email scams is completely valid.

Those victims believe what is being said is true, and thus we, according to his logic, shouldn't call them stupid.

You can't equate the two situations simply because you have people believing something in each, unless you're a relativist of the most extreme kind. I think it's reasonable to say that there's a difference between believing something because it corresponds with what you believe to be fundamentally true about the universe, and then believing something because you are momentarily seduced by some passion.

The difference lies in the fact that when you're talking about something as fundamental as a worldview, everybody makes assumptions, since none of us has access to absolute truth about the universe. Nonfundamentalists have different types of beliefs about the universe than fundamentalists, but at the most basic level rationalists are making a priori assumptions about causality, space and time, in order for rational knowledge to hold true. So I can say I disagree with fundamentalists, but I can't say that my belief system is any more "true".

Someone who believes a Nigerian hoax on the other hand can be labeled as wrong within the consensus belief system, because they made their choices within it, we aren't judging them from a relative position but on the same basis as we judge our own actions and choices.

the difficulties come when you bring god into a straight forward yes or no answer,

does god exist? NO.

are the religious deluded? YES

Regarding the original post, someone who claims that another person lacks morals solely because they don't believe in a higher being is ignorant. Most morals nowadays are societal. We are condtitioned as young kids, "Share. Don't lie. Killing is bad. Stealing is bad. etc." It's a matter of social conditioning. Looking at religious people, there are those who ignorantly follow any rules set before them by said religion; and those who look at the religion as a whole, analyzing and discovering the reasons why the rules are there in the first place.

The same goes with atheists; there are those who ignorantly follow moral standards because society has proposed them, and those who analyze the logical reasoning why said morals are in place.

Moving on to the analogy relating the Nigerian scam to religion, this is a flawed analogy in one major respect. If someone has been scammed by a Nigerian, they have gained nothing. Those who are religious, whether their religious is truly existant or merely a figment of their imagination, are still gaining something. For some people, it's a purpose in life. For some, it's strength. Some use it to conquere fears. And for some it's a tool to achieve peace and happiness in an otherwise miserable life.

[This message has been edited by Elephantitis Man (edited 09-22-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You're bogging this down in details that are not important at all. What was being discussed was whether or not the fact that a party believes something is true, means that we cannot call that party stupid. We were not discussing the scope of that belief, or the role that belief plays in their lives.

That was napoleon's argument as I understand it. He was saying that because "fundies" believe what they are saying is true, we cannot call them stupid. Therefore, the analogy involving the victoms of the Nigerian email scams is completely valid.

Those victims believe what is being said is true, and thus we, according to his logic, shouldn't call them stupid.

I never said we couldn't call them stupid, but I think it is stupid for us to call them stupid for criticizing them, when we are criticizing them just the same.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

You can't equate the two situations simply because you have people believing something in each, unless you're a relativist of the most extreme kind. I think it's reasonable to say that there's a difference between believing something because it corresponds with what you believe to be fundamentally true about the universe, and then believing something because you are momentarily seduced by some passion.

The difference lies in the fact that when you're talking about something as fundamental as a worldview, everybody makes assumptions, since none of us has access to absolute truth about the universe. Nonfundamentalists have different types of beliefs about the universe than fundamentalists, but at the most basic level rationalists are making a priori assumptions about causality, space and time, in order for rational knowledge to hold true. So I can say I disagree with fundamentalists, but I can't say that my belief system is any more "true".

Someone who believes a Nigerian hoax on the other hand can be labeled as wrong within the consensus belief system, because they made their choices within it, we aren't judging them from a relative position but on the same basis as we judge our own actions and choices.

Summed up perfectly.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Someone who believes a Nigerian hoax on the other hand can be labeled as wrong within the consensus belief system, because they made their choices within it, we aren't judging them from a relative position but on the same basis as we judge our own actions and choices.

Interesting point, but I skeptical about it. You are trying to draw a line between "relative" and "same" value systems when no two people have the same value systems. It is all relative, so drawing a line between when 'stupid' is valid and when it is not is arbitrary. I guess I am an extreme relativist.

But here is another way of looking at it:

Say I were to make up some sort of wacky deity from the depths of my imagination. This deity would have very little anchoring it to the real world. Then say I manage to get a large group of people to believe in it, worship it, dedicate their lives to its teachings, and live and breath it in their everyday lives. Couldn't I call these people complete boneheads? Utter idiots of the highest order? Or, since they were scammed so completely as to adopt my untruth as their fundamental belief system, would they in fact be no more or less stupid than before they had heard my ridiculous lies?

I say they are stupid for not following Occam's razor, as people normally do, in their everyday existence. In fact, I would say they (if they are adults) are even dumber than Nigerian scam victims, since

A) The untruths they believe in have less anchor in the observable realm.

B) They have accepted the untruths even more deeply into their lives, which implies they have had driven through more logical roadblocks and red flashing warning lights of common sense.

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

Those who are religious, whether their religious is truly existant or merely a figment of their imagination, are still gaining something. For some people, it's a purpose in life. For some, it's strength. Some use it to conquere fears. And for some it's a tool to achieve peace and happiness in an otherwise miserable life.



so everything about religion is selfish, why should the world and non religios ppl suffer through all the wars and hate just so some idiots can feel better about themselves inside?

fuck all of you religious people, seriously

you're fucking shit and a fucking drain on society and progress, if the human race did what religion wanted it to do we'd all still be slaves or peasants or illiterate and we wouldn't know anything real about the world because we'd just swallow any old bullshit.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I never said we couldn't call them stupid, but I think it is stupid for us to call them stupid for criticizing them, when we are criticizing them just the same.

Can I cry "semantics" here?

I know we're physcially capable of calling them stupid. That is not being debated. The "cannot" acutally means, "NC thinks is wrong to".

The point still stands.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

You can't equate the two situations simply because you have people believing something in each, unless you're a relativist of the most extreme kind. I think it's reasonable to say that there's a difference between believing something because it corresponds with what you believe to be fundamentally true about the universe, and then believing something because you are momentarily seduced by some passion.

The difference lies in the fact that when you're talking about something as fundamental as a worldview, everybody makes assumptions, since none of us has access to absolute truth about the universe. Nonfundamentalists have different types of beliefs about the universe than fundamentalists, but at the most basic level rationalists are making a priori assumptions about causality, space and time, in order for rational knowledge to hold true. So I can say I disagree with fundamentalists, but I can't say that my belief system is any more "true".

Someone who believes a Nigerian hoax on the other hand can be labeled as wrong within the consensus belief system, because they made their choices within it, we aren't judging them from a relative position but on the same basis as we judge our own actions and choices.



Assuming of course, that all of those assumptions hold water...

I believe those Nigerians are saying the truth. Not only do I believe this, I believe that it is something fundamentally true about the universe. There, your argument crumbles. Why? Because your assumptions crumble.

The underlying facts, devoid of these assumptions, remain: You have two parties believing something is true. Whether one believes it is "fundamentally true" or not is irrelevant since claiming one believes it as A, and the other believes it as B is something you arbitrarily chose, not something explained in the scenario.

You believe it's an essential feature of reality that Nigerians offering to send people money over the internet are always telling the truth??

If you believe that Rust, then you would be an idiot, because there is in fact evidence from experience that would teach people that this is not in fact true. Even without hearing about Nigerian scams before, everybody experiences people trying to trick them out of their money, or at least hears about these things happening to other people when they grow up. Anybody who has learned a typical amount about the world growing up knows that there are bad people out there who will lie to you in various situations to get something they want from you. So if a person then falls for the Nigerian scam, it's either because they are so stupid they never learned this basic feature about the world we live in after experiencing it for a couple of decades, or they chose to ignore their critical faculties because they weren't interested in thinking too much about the situation, both things qualify as stupid.

About the existence or not of God, there is no evidence one way or the other and no analysable experiences to prove or disprove his existence. We're talking here about something beyond reality and experience, unlike the Nigerian hoax it's not a question of good or bad inductive reasoning.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Can I cry \"semantics\" here?

I know we\'re physcially capable of calling them stupid. That is not being debated. The \"cannot\" acutally means, \"NC thinks is wrong to\".

The point still stands.

Uhhhhh.....thanks for your contribution to the thread? http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Uhhhhh.....thanks for your contribution to the thread? http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

Why are you confused? You made a silly semantic observation. I pointed it out, while also pointing out that the point stands.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

If you believe that Rust, then you would be an idiot, because there is in fact evidence from experience that would teach people that this is not in fact true.

Really? Then we can of course call Christians idiots. Right? Because we have evidence of it not being true: contradictions in logic.

So if we can, Sarter was correct. If we cannot, then please tell me what is the difference. To do so, you have to show me this evidence showing the what the Nigerians are saying is false ... in all possible points of view, and then argue that there is absolutely no evidence against gods.

quote:

Even without hearing about Nigerian scams before, everybody experiences people trying to trick them out of their money, or at least hears about these things happening to other people when they grow up. Anybody who has learned a typical amount about the world growing up knows that there are bad people out there who will lie to you in various situations to get something they want from you. So if a person then falls for the Nigerian scam, it's either because they are so stupid they never learned this basic feature about the world we live in after experiencing it for a couple of decades, or they chose to ignore their critical faculties because they weren't interested in thinking too much about the situation, both things qualify as stupid.

Wrong, this is circular logic. You're proving I'm an idiot for letting them trick me (according to you)... by assuming that what they are doing is tricking me. You cannot do that.

Moreover, in this case, "tricking" is completely dependent on the point of view, just as the opinion of which one is "stupid". In your opinion, they are tricking me. Who the hell are you to say what they are doing in my opinion? For you to say that there is absolutely no doubt that they are tricking me, is for you to conclusively arrive at something based on your own opinion, ignoring someone else's. So can we do that? If so, what can't Sarter call them stupid?

Also, I believe they are not tricking me.

quote:

About the existence or not of God, there is no evidence one way or the other and no analysable experiences to prove or disprove his existence. We're talking here about something beyond reality and experience, unlike the Nigerian hoax it's not a question of good or bad inductive reasoning.

There is evidence against the existence of many gods: logical contradictions. That's evidence. It may not be proof, but it surely is evidence.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Really? Then we can of course call Christians idiots. Right? Because we have evidence of it not being true: contradictions in logic.

So if we can, Sarter was correct. If we cannot, then please tell me what is the difference. To do so, you have to show me this evidence showing the what the Nigerians are saying is false ... in all possible points of view, and then argue that there is absolutely no evidence against gods.

Yes, if you can call fundamentalist Christians stupid in the sense that they ignore logic and facts, because of the logical inconsistencies in the Bible. From your point of view, within the framework of logic, you're saying they are wrong/bad/whatever according to your belief system. Likewise, Christians can call you evil, blasphemous, heretical, and suchlike from their point of view, because within their framework of beliefs you are those things.

But both you and the fundamentalists are operating within your own belief systems. You're perfectly justified in calling them stupid for believing something without demonstrable proof, even though it's bit meaningless and self-referential. Same thing for them calling you evil. What you can't do however is call one or the other wrong, which was my original point.

Now take the fundementalist operating within their non-rational belief system. In that system, as is their right if they don't choose to accept logic for determining truth (which no matter how much you might disagree with them, you can't say that this is wrong because you don't have access to absolute truth about the universe), they use the working belief that all their assumptions are true. Once you consider this, logic doesn't come into it unless you're judging it from an external point of reference. Their beliefs about God, which might be the total acceptance of Christian dogma, are the premise, the base upon which all other beliefs are formed as a superstructure. You can't look beyond our most basic assumptions, because there's nothing behind them.

As for the person believing in the Nigerian hoax, they could be fundamentalist Christians or they could be rationalists, the choice to believe in the hoax has NOTHING to do with essential premises about the universe (either taking those of scripture, or those of logic). A person of either group choosing to believe the hoax is comparable to a fundamentalist Christian believing that the ark of the covenant was made of chocolate, or a rationalist believing that light travels as fast as a running cheetah. Both beliefs can be judged incorrect only within their own system of knowledge.

Finally, the person believing in the Nigerian scam isn't necessarily being judged by the religious or scientific framework of beliefs. They are being judged by the general system of determining right from wrong, likely from unlikely, and so on: common sense. Common sense is a kind of mix between logical and intuitive thought, and when we normally call someone stupid, we mean it in terms of common sense. Common sense would tell us somewhat intuitively that a shady looking guy on the street asking to borrow our mobile phone to make a call is going to steal it. If we don't realise that and give it to him anyway, in terms of common sense that was pretty stupid. Common sense would tell us that a random stranger walking up to us on the street and asking to borrow a hundred dollars isn't going to give it back. If we give it to him anyway and are surprised when we never see it again, in terms of common sense we did a pretty stupid thing. And if some stranger contacting us over the internet offers to send us millions of dollars in exchange for doing no work except for handing out details of our bank account, and they don't send us money but steal from us, then in terms of common sense we are pretty stupid.

quote:Wrong, this is circular logic. You're proving I'm an idiot for letting them trick me (according to you)... by assuming that what they are doing is tricking me. You cannot do that.

Moreover, in this case, "tricking" is completely dependent on the point of view, just as the opinion of which one is "stupid". In your opinion, they are tricking me. Who the hell are you to say what they are doing in my opinion? For you to say that there is absolutely no doubt that they are tricking me, is for you to conclusively arrive at something based on your own opinion, ignoring someone else's. So can we do that? If so, what can't Sarter call them stupid?

Also, I believe they are not tricking me.

I think I've addressed most of the points I needed to already. But first, there's nothing perspective dependent about saying that someone who intends to tell you a lie and deceive you in order to steal money from you is tricking you, I think it's quite a straightforward definition.

Just for the sake of using an example of where your logic is deeply flawed, let's say a woman thinks a guy is chatting her up because he really likes her and has all sorts of romantic feelings for her, when he's just faking it to try and have sex with her. As an outside observer, with knowledge of what's going on, I can confidently say that he is tricking her. I don't care what she thinks, I'm not saying anything about what he's doing in her opinion, and that should have nothing to do with it because I'm talking about HIS motives, not her perception of them. It's precisely the same for the Nigerian hoax, and to use your common method of replying to a point, if you disagree with me I require 15 billion forms of example explaining why I am wrong, burden of proof, bla bla.

Frankly I don't know where you came up with your reasoning for this line of argument.

quote:There is evidence against the existence of many gods: logical contradictions. That's evidence. It may not be proof, but it surely is evidence.

There is no evidence against the existence of any god, there is simply no evidence in favor of their existence. There is evidence that textual descriptions of them have logical inconstistencies, which isn't the same thing.

[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 09-26-2005).]

religion comes with a lot of emotional baggage.

often they got these beliefs from their parents or the community they grew up in.

to admit that these beliefs are flawed if not completely wrong, would mean rejecting their family and parents or community.

this is why theists still carry on believing even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I'll change to you can't call them stupid and call yourself objective at the same time. My point now stands.

You changed the point completely.

That is a truism, since if we have a subjective opinion of them, then we're subjective, not objective. That was not at all what was being argued. If that was what you were trying to say, then you've changed the argument completely.

Can I now change my argument to 3+3=6?



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-26-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Yes, if you can call fundamentalist Christians stupid in the sense that they ignore logic and facts, because of the logical inconsistencies in the Bible. From your point of view, within the framework of logic, you're saying they are wrong/bad/whatever according to your belief system. Likewise, Christians can call you evil, blasphemous, heretical, and suchlike from their point of view, because within their framework of beliefs you are those things.

Then what are you doing here? We are not arguing "wrongness", but "stupidity".

You've just justified Sarter calling them stupid, which I find hilarious given that napoleon_complex goes on to say that you've just summed his point "perfectly".

quote:I think I've addressed most of the points I needed to already. But first, there's nothing perspective dependent about saying that someone who intends to tell you a lie and deceive you in order to steal money from you is tricking you, I think it's quite a straightforward definition.

There is something completely circular about it, since you're assuming he's telling me a lie, and using that assumption to imply that I am stupid for falling for that lie. It's circular logic.

quote:Just for the sake of using an example of where your logic is deeply flawed, let's say a woman thinks a guy is chatting her up because he really likes her and has all sorts of romantic feelings for her, when he's just faking it to try and have sex with her. As an outside observer, with knowledge of what's going on, I can confidently say that he is tricking her. I don't care what she thinks, I'm not saying anything about what he's doing in her opinion, and that should have nothing to do with it because I'm talking about HIS motives, not her perception of them. It's precisely the same for the Nigerian hoax, and to use your common method of replying to a point, if you disagree with me I require 15 billion forms of example explaining why I am wrong, burden of proof, bla bla.

Frankly I don't know where you came up with your reasoning for this line of argument.

Terrible analogy.

In the analogy you supposedly "know" this guy is "just faking it to try and have sex with her", in the Nigerian scenario, you do not know if they are faking at all. You assume they are. Two very differnt things.

If you know they are scaming me, then there is no debate, you would have "universal knowledge" of it being a scam. The fact is, you do not. Hence what you have is an assumption, an assumption that would therefore do nothing to refute my point.

Moreover, the analogy proves my point perfectly! That being, that you are reaching a conclusion on whether or not the guy is faking, while ignoring whether or not the woman believes the guy is faking (i.e. ignoring her point of view). If you argue that you can conclude this by observing the scenario as a third person observer, then you're arguing against napoleon_complex's argument that we shouldn't conclude that someone is stupid because to them, they are not (i.e. that in their point of view, they are not stupid -- to use your analogy, that in the woman's point of view, the man is not faking). Thus, you've just helped my position.

quote:There is no evidence against the existence of any god, there is simply no evidence in favor of their existence. There is evidence that textual descriptions of them have logical inconstistencies, which isn't the same thing.

Wrong, as it would be evidence against the existence of the gods described in those texts.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-26-2005).]

http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif)

Am I the only person who thinks Rust purposefully "misunderstands" the points people make?

Rust, you're smart now I won't doubt that, but really when it comes down to it you're a troll that happens to have an intellect.

How fucking pathetic. Instead of pointing out how I am supposedly "purposely misunderstanding" your point, you result to insults.

Any other useless bullshit you want to grace this thread with or are you now prepared to post something meaningful, like backing up your allegations?

Let's make it easy on you. My points, in order, and a quote of what I'm basing myself on, so that it is clear that I'm not "purposely misunderstanding" anything:

1. We were arguing whether or not it was justified to call them stupid. If you admit that they can certainly be called stupid, then you help our point:

Source:

"Yes, if you can call fundamentalist Christians stupid in the sense that they ignore logic and facts, because of the logical inconsistencies in the Bible."



2. Your point about the Nigerians "tricking" me, is circular/illogical.

If you claim that I am stupid because they are tricking me, you cannot claim that they are tricking me without first proving that they are. You have not.



3. Your analogy was atrocious.

Not only do you:

A. Have an universal knowledge of what the man is doing (something which you absolutely do not have in the Nigerian scenario).

Source:

"As an outside observer, with knowledge of what's going on, I can confidently say that he is tricking her. "



B. But the analogy also helps me as it is an example of a case where you ignore the woman's perspective, something that napoleon_complex said was important to take into consideration.

Source:

" I don't care what she thinks, I'm not saying anything about what he's doing in her opinion, and that should have nothing to do with it because I'm talking about HIS motives, not her perception of them."

4. If there are logical inconsistencies in "textual descriptions" of a god, then there are logical inconsistencies in the gods described by those texts.

Source:

"There is evidence that textual descriptions of them have logical inconstistencies"

By admitting that a description is a logical contradiction, no matter where that description is found, you're admitting that the object being described has characteristics which are illogical. Hence, the gods being described in the texts are illogical.

----

Now please, either kindly show how I am "misunderstanding your point"... even when I've sourced exactly where I'm basing my arguments on, or kindly shut up.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-26-2005).]

It gets disheartening when time after time the same thing happens after I do try to explain my points when you're around, no matter what I say you seem to twist it around into an alternate meaning and demand further explanation of various new related points. I'll probably respond to your points some point later on.

And time and time again you show absolutely no "twisting" on my part. So what are we to conclude? That you, the one who makes these allegations and provides absolutely no evidence to support them, is right? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You changed the point completely.

That is a truism, since if we have a subjective opinion of them, then we're subjective, not objective. That was not at all what was being argued. If that was what you were trying to say, then you've changed the argument completely.

Can I now change my argument to 3+3=6?





Can I cry "semantics" here?

The point it is, it is hypocritical to call someone stupid for judging you based off their belief system when you would be doing the same thing back to them. That's my point, and I haven't seen anything in here suggest otherwise.

Why are you even responding to me? That post was never even addressed to you.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Can I cry "semantics" here?

The point it is, it is hypocritical to call someone stupid for judging you based off their belief system when you would be doing the same thing back to them. That's my point, and I haven't seen anything in here suggest otherwise.

Can I cry ... the pot calling the kettle black here?

quote: Originally posted by napolean_complex:



-You can't be this stupid.

-You really cannot be this dense.

-If you wouldn't do stupid things, I wouldn't be forced to call you stupid.

-That was a stupid comment based off nothing but stupid assumptions.

-I have every right to call you stupid, because you haven't shown anything to suggest the contrary.

Excerpted from "Simple Christianity": http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/004588.html

Practice what you preach, bro.

I readily admit I'm a hypocrite, so cry foul all you want.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Can I cry "semantics" here?

You could, if there were something "semantic" about what I said.

quote:

The point it is, it is hypocritical to call someone stupid for judging you based off their belief system when you would be doing the same thing back to them. That's my point, and I haven't seen anything in here suggest otherwise.

How many times are you going to change your argument?

This is not what you said initially. If you wanted to say something else, then by all means, admit that you were wrong and say what you did intend to say.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

It's just as stupid as when they say their fire and brimstone spiel.

Calling them stupid is just as stupid as them calling you evil.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

The point it is, it is hypocritical to call someone stupid for judging you based off their belief system when you would be doing the same thing back to them. That's my point, and I haven't seen anything in here suggest otherwise.



I know there are different words, but my argument is consistent. The only different is I went more in-depth in the second post.

I ask again, why are you responding for someone else?

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I know there are different words, but my argument is consistent. The only different is I went more in-depth in the second post.

I ask again, why are you responding for someone else?

Saying you were "now more in-depth" does not change the fact that they are different. Moreover, you forgot to quote another of your comments, here, I'll help:

"I'll change to you can't call them stupid and call yourself objective at the same time. My point now stands."

Hardly consistent.

quote:I ask again, why are you responding for someone else?

I'm not. Sarter is me. It's another account I have. Yes. That's the reason. Really.

Disregard that comment then. I'll even delete it so you don't lose focus on my first and last comments.

Edit: Sarter is much too level headed to ever be you. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

[This message has been edited by napoleon_complex (edited 09-26-2005).]

The Plot Thickens!

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Disregard that comment then. I'll even delete it so you don't lose focus on my first and last comments.

Poof! Like magic you undo everything...!

So... what are we doing now? Oh, yes, trying to point out an inconsistency in your statement. See Sarter's (my) reply to you when you first said it. Here, I'll quote him (me):

"What about all those people who fall for Nigerian e-mail scams? They take obviously dubious texts as truth and then give away their money just like Christians and Scientologists do. But if Nigerian scam victims aren't 'stupid' then nobody is."

Now answer this:

Would you call people who "fall" for those "scams", stupid?

If you would, then Sarter (I) was just as justified as you were. If not, then you're a hypocrite as AngryFemme just showed.

Choose wisely, but please be sure to choose. Either choice will be a perfect out come to this argument. Truly worth the time and effort.



quote: Sarter is much too level headed to ever be you. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)



I take Valium (three 10mg pills), whenever I use that account, in order to change my personality. Really. No joke.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I take Valium (three 10mg pills), whenever I use that account, in order to change my personality. Really. No joke.

It is going to break Rust's heart when I tell him his Valium-induced self is a member of the capitalist Bourgeoisie.

quote:Originally posted by Sarter:

It is going to break Rust's heart when I tell him his Valium-induced self is a member of the capitalist Bourgeoisie.

There I go again, saying gibberish... Damn you Valium!

I think this thread is officially off-track, but I'll still answer your question Sarte.....I mean Rust.

quote: Would you call people who "fall" for those "scams", stupid?

If you would, then Sarter (I) was just as justified as you were. If not, then you're a hypocrite as AngryFemme just showed.

Well considering I don't deny being a hypocrite, I'll take the second option.

May I quote you on that sometime?

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I think this thread is officially off-track, but I'll still answer your question Sarte.....I mean Rust.

Now you care about it being off-track? Not when you failed to answer Sarter's point, or when you failed to keep a consistent position?

quote:

Well considering I don't deny being a hypocrite, I'll take the second option.

Perfect. You're a hypocrite.

I bet everyone in this thread is a hypocrite on some issue or another, but that is neither here nor there.

Which of Sarte....I mean your points did I not address? I also deleted that post so you wouldn't lose focus on my other two posts, but I digress...

Well to be fair, you did answer it... 4 days after he had made it, and god knows how many posts later.

The point I'm referring to is the point I asked you to answer at the end:

"What about all those people who fall for Nigerian e-mail scams? They take obviously dubious texts as truth and then give away their money just like Christians and Scientologists do. But if Nigerian scam victims aren't 'stupid' then nobody is."



P.S. I'm sure someone is stupid in at one issue or another, don't you think?

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-27-2005).]

I answered your question that followed and said that I was a hypocrite, because that's what I am.

That isn't even worded that well because it assumes that christianity is inherently wrong and that it is a "scam" for money.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I answered your question that followed and said that I was a hypocrite, because that's what I am.



... Yes I already acknowledged this.. when I said you answered it 4 days later.

quote:

That isn't even worded that well because it assumes that christianity is inherently wrong and that it is a "scam" for money.

Re-read it. It assumes nothing of the sort.

The point he made has nothing to do with Christianity being a scam. It's about whether or not you would call them stupid, since by your logic you shouldn't. He provided a scenario where, in his opinion, any reasonable person would say "Yes, those people are stupid". He did this to put you in the position of sounding unreasonable, or showing you wrong you were. It has nothing to do with Christianity being a scam, it has everything to do with your point being a bogus one.

P.S. Could you answer my question? I edited so you might not have seen it.

His initial point does have to do with christianity being a scam, especially since he compared christians to Nigerian scam victims. That's how this whole issue started.

I can call the scam victims stupid, but you can't translate that into calling christians stupid because the two aren't comparable.

About your question. What do you mean by being stupid at an issue? I don't quite understand what you're specifically asking.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

His initial point does have to do with christianity being a scam, especially since he compared christians to Nigerian scam victims. That's how this whole issue started.

I can call the scam victims stupid, but you can't translate that into calling christians stupid because the two aren't comparable.

No, it does not. Did he ever say Christians are being scamed? No. Thus, that is just your assumption. Does his argument about Nigerian scam victims depend on Christians being scamed? No. Then your assumption is baseless.

Again, his point is to show you not applying your logic to another scenario, not to compare both scenarios.

quote:

About your question. What do you mean by being stupid at an issue? I don't quite understand what you're specifically asking.

Stupid at one thing, stupid at something.

quote:Originally posted by Sarter:

What about all those people who fall for Nigerian e-mail scams? They take obviously dubious texts as truth and then give away their money just like Christians and Scientologists do. But if Nigerian scam victims aren't 'stupid' then nobody is.

comparison.

quote:I'm sure someone is stupid in at one issue or another, don't you think?

Sure, but the ability to call someone stupid depends on what they're stupid at. Nigerian scam victims can be called stupid, because there is no doubt that it is a scam. The same can't be said about christians or christianity.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

comparison.

A very trivial one, that is not the center of the argument. Hell, let's take that as true. The point would still stand:

quote:

Sure, but the ability to call someone stupid depends on what they're stupid at. Nigerian scam victims can be called stupid, because there is no doubt that it is a scam. The same can't be said about christians or christianity.

Wrong. YOU believe that is the case. I don't. So there goes your "there is no doubt claim".

If you're allowed to claim that there is no doubt that the Nigerian "victims" are being scammed, then he's allowed to claim that there is no doubt that Christians are being scamme, and hence his point is clearer than ever!

Prove they're being scammed them.

If the people are called Nigerian scam victims, then it isn't an assumption that they were wrong. Prove that christians are wrong, otherwise your argument has no muster. Or better yet, what is the doubt about the Nigerian scam victims?

Sorry, but I don't have to prove anything.

If you said that we can conclude that they are stupid because you claim there is no doubt that they are being scammed, then so can he. If anyone here has to prove anything, it is you who has to prove that there is no doubt that they are scammed. Like I said, I do doubt, which means you are wrong in claiming that there is no doubt.

So what is it? Are you allowed to arbitrarily decide that there is no doubt, in which case he can do the same, or is there doubt, and thus you cannot call them stupid as you just claimed?

If they\'re called victims, then they were obviously scammed. What is there to prove? They wouldn\'t be called victims if they weren\'t scammed, right?

What doubt could there be if they\'re called scam victims? What could lead you to believe that the Nigerian scam victims aren\'t scam victims? You\'re making zero sense in your demands.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

If they\'re called victims, then they were obviously scammed. What is there to prove? They wouldn\'t be called victims if they weren\'t scammed, right?

Terrible logic. Not only is it circular, since the first person to call them "victims" must have assumed they were being scamed, which you're now using it to prove that they are scamed; but also the name means nothing. If I call Christians "victims" does that mean they are being scammed? Here: Christian victims. There. By your logic they are being scammed.

quote:

What doubt could there be if they\'re called scam victims? What could lead you to believe that the Nigerian scam victims aren\'t scam victims? You\'re making zero sense in your demands.

The reason why I doubt is irrelevant, I'm not here to satisfy you'r curiosity. The only relevant point is that a doubt exists.

Now please, answer the question:

"So what is it? Are you allowed to arbitrarily decide that there is no doubt, in which case he can do the same, or is there doubt, and thus you cannot call them stupid as you just claimed?"

quote:Terrible logic. Not only is it circular, since the first person to call them "victims" must have assumed they were being scamed, which you're now using it to prove that they are scamed; but also the name means nothing. If I call Christians "victims" does that mean they are being scammed? Here: Christian victims. There. By your logic they are being scammed.

I'm just going by what he said, so if he wants to change it then by all means he can, but until then my assumption is perfectly valid.

quote:The reason why I doubt is irrelevant, I'm not here to satisfy you'r curiosity. The only relevant point is that a doubt exists.

Now please, answer the question:

"So what is it? Are you allowed to arbitrarily decide that there is no doubt, in which case he can do the same, or is there doubt, and thus you cannot call them stupid as you just claimed?"

What doubt exists. I can't just take your word, because lord knows you wouldn't take my word. If a doubt exists like you say it does, then tell me what that doubt is.

I already explained how the circumstances are different, because there is no doubt with the Nigerian scam victims, but there is significant doubt with christianity.

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

I'm sure if you're an atheist, agnostic, secular humanist or just generally not very religious you've been in this situation. You claim you don't follow X's beliefs and they reply with the ole "then you have no morals" line.

Now usually I'd respond with a bit of moral relativism or maybe 'is what you do good because God says it is, or does morality transcend even God?'

There's a better - and wittier - remark though.

How are we, the ethically challenged, supposed to judge whether your belief structure or God is worthy of our support if we have no morals to judge by? Are we to simply take a blind leap of faith, or did you not want us to join and merely chastise us for being so naive?

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Atheists, agnostics, ect. are spiritually lawless, it doesn't make them immoral, it simply makes them spiritually lawless. They have no sin, because they don't call it sin, thus they need not strive to be better, and their lives will not have a constant continual change for the better, as a Christian's life SHOULD.

Now, they do have the laws of the land, and if they break one of those laws, they answer for it, they don't see it as sin, they see it as forbidden, and punishable, as Christians see sin. Nevertheless, forgiveable. Even when David commited adultry with a married woman, and put her husband on the frontline to be killed, he was forgiven, but he still has to face the consequences of his actions, as do we all.

Now, over into a christian's life. Christians should not be sitting there JUDGEING non-believers, but LOVING them where they are. This is what turns people away from the church, and I'm telling you the church really needs to repent for alot. If you have a christian telling you you're immoral, remind them that they didn't make the law, God did and only God's judgements are just, and Only God can judge by his law, because he made it. Futhermore, tell them Jesus didn't die for the righteous but the call the sinners to repentence and we should be living the life we say unbelievers should be living, so our lifestyles can be a witness to unbelievers.

To be quite honest, I don't care who reads this and gets offended because you will not be getting offended at me, but with God and his word. The way I see it, you can either get offended, or get convicted, and most chose to get offended, because if they take offense, then they don't have to change what would have been conviction.

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

Atheists, agnostics, ect. are spiritually lawless, it doesn't make them immoral, it simply makes them spiritually lawless. They have no sin, because they don't call it sin, thus they need not strive to be better

Wrong. Few atheists would agree that murder isn't a "sin".

quote:and their lives will not have a constant continual change for the better, as a Christian's life SHOULD.

Yes they will. Everyone desires to improve his/her position.

quote:Now, they do have the laws of the land, and if they break one of those laws, they answer for it, they don't see it as sin, they see it as forbidden, and punishable, as Christians see sin. Nevertheless, forgiveable. Even when David commited adultry with a married woman, and put her husband on the frontline to be killed, he was forgiven, but he still has to face the consequences of his actions, as do we all.

What are you getting at?

quote:Now, over into a christian's life. Christians should not be sitting there JUDGEING non-believers, but LOVING them where they are.

Loving them even though they are apparently so evil as to deserve entirely torture, right?

quote: This is what turns people away from the church, and I'm telling you the church really needs to repent for alot. If you have a christian telling you you're immoral, remind them that they didn't make the law, God did and only God's judgements are just, and Only God can judge by his law, because he made it.

Only the lawmaker can judge by his own law? I can't condemn a fellow citizen for murder since I didn't make the law?

quote:Futhermore, tell them Jesus didn't die for the righteous but the call the sinners to repentence and we should be living the life we say unbelievers should be living, so our lifestyles can be a witness to unbelievers.

The Christian lifestyle as laid out in the Bible doesn't attract me at all.

quote:To be quite honest, I don't care who reads this and gets offended because you will not be getting offended at me, but with God and his word.

Except I don't believe in God, and you're written nothing special or offending.

quote: The way I see it, you can either get offended, or get convicted, and most chose to get offended, because if they take offense, then they don't have to change what would have been conviction.

Or I can choose neither. Maybe I don't choose conviction because conviction would mean abandoning reason and logic because of one poorly-written post that really says nothing in particular.

They wouldn't call it is 'sin' they would call it, 'wrong'. Whereas a christian would call it a sin.

Jesus loved the sinners. In fact we were all sinners. "There are none righteous, no not one."

I didn't do anything to deserve forgiveness, but I was forgiven. Those sinners are still those that Jesus died for. He died for ALL sinners, not just you, not just me. "WHOSOEVER SHALL CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD." No you can't condemn a fellow citizen for murder if he broke the law, but the LAW can. You so missed 'what I was getting at'.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I'm just going by what he said, so if he wants to change it then by all means he can, but until then my assumption is perfectly valid.

Then you're arbitrarily deciding that there is no doubt, even when told that their is. Thus, you've made a choice, a choice which validates completely his statement of Christians being stupid.

"So what is it? Are you allowed to arbitrarily decide that there is no doubt, in which case he can do the same, or is there doubt, and thus you cannot call them stupid as you just claimed?"

You chose to decide that there is no doubt.

quote: What doubt exists. I can't just take your word, because lord knows you wouldn't take my word. If a doubt exists like you say it does, then tell me what that doubt is.

I already explained how the circumstances are different, because there is no doubt with the Nigerian scam victims, but there is significant doubt with christianity.

If you don't take my word then he doesn't have to take your word that there is a doubt about Christians being stupid, and thus you validate his statement either way.

You've reached the end of the road.

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

They wouldn't call it is 'sin' they would call it, 'wrong'. Whereas a christian would call it a sin.

Same thing, different terms.

quote:Jesus loved the sinners. In fact we were all sinners. "There are none righteous, no not one."

I didn't do anything to deserve forgiveness, but I was forgiven. Those sinners are still those that Jesus died for. He died for ALL sinners, not just you, not just me. "WHOSOEVER SHALL CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD." No you can't condemn a fellow citizen for murder if he broke the law, but the LAW can. You so missed 'what I was getting at'.



Fat lotta good his death did me. I guess I am missing your point; to me this seems like pointless rehashing of Christian doctrine.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

If you don\'t take my word then he doesn\'t have to take your word that there is a doubt about Christians being stupid, and thus you validate his statement either way.

You\'ve reached the end of the road.

Why don\'t we let him decide? I think I\'ll only argue his posts with him, since he is the only one who can say what he meant.

This is getting tiresome. I know you don\'t like me, but arguing for someone else? That\'s just a new low.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Why don\'t we let him decide? I think I\'ll only argue his posts with him, since he is the only one who can say what he meant.

There's nothing he has to decide about. The argument applies to anyone who could say that, be it me, him, or the hobo across the street.

If you can arbitrarily conclude that they are being scammed, then I, he, or anyone, can conclude that Christians are being scammed.



quote:

This is getting tiresome. I know you don\'t like me, but arguing for someone else? That\'s just a new low.

Who said I didn't like you? Who said I'm arguing for someone else just to spite you?

Then tell me what the doubt is about the Nigerian scam victims.

I doubt it because I participated in it and I don't see it as a scam. Now what are you going to do?

Wait for Sarter to reply, because talking with you is like talking to a brick wall.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Wait for Sarter to reply, because talking with you is like talking to a brick wall.

Sorry, but that's not me being a "brick wall" it's you reaching the corner and not wanting to admit it. You refuted yourself.

Again. If you can make those assumptions. then others can make those assumptions as well.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-29-2005).]

Not if they're two completely different things that are literally incomparable.

*thud as thread hits brick wall a.k.a Rust*

Wrong. Their beliefs are irrelevant. The two scenarios are not different in what matters, which is what you are doing. You made a statement saying that one shouldn't call them stupid because "to them, they aren't stupid". This can apply to those of the Nigerian scenario.

The only saving grace you would have is if you can conclude, for a fact, that those in the Nigerian scenario are being scammed. You cannot. Citing that they are called "victims" doesn't prove anything, becuase I could then call Christians, "victims", not to mention that it is circular logic to begin with.

So then it's obvious that you're deciding that they are being scammed because, in your opinion, they are. Then anyone could call Christians stupid if in their opinion Christians are being scammed. Thus your initial objection is refuted.



P.S. Keep insulting me, it only brings more attention to the fact that you're grasping at straws.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-29-2005).]

Whether one believes in one way or another doesn't matter. The problem is that you are using logic and science to seek sollutions to an illogical entity. What I mean is things are certainly relative to one's perspective on all things but that doesn't count in this subject of morality or religion.

You can not use secular reasoning to find a logical answer to a spiritual issue which is illogical if measured by the standards of science or humanistic reasoning.

The bottom line is since there are many ideas and philosophies, religions and other agents of governance around us then the one that is contested the most will most likely be the truth. If you pay close attention it seems most philosophies and ideas were born out of contention to a Judeo/Christian belief.

Rebellion requires a force of authority as they are dependent on each other. You can not rebel against something that has no power or authority. What would be the point?

You'll see that rebelling against the ways of immorality will carry no punishment. In other words, conforming to the laws of "love thy neighbor" will carry no debt. The answer lies within that fact.



[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 09-29-2005).]

Power needs logic or the universe is fucked.

I'm moving to Canadaverse

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Wrong. Their beliefs are irrelevant. The two scenarios are not different in what matters, which is what you are doing. You made a statement saying that one shouldn't call them stupid because "to them, they aren't stupid". This can apply to those of the Nigerian scenario.

The circumstances are completely different, which means you're the one grasping at straws. If you can't see the difference between "Nigerian scam victims" and "christians", then I'm not even going to waste my time discussing this with you. To talk about this you have to recognize the differences, and if you refuse then I simply won't bother.

I will discuss this with Sarter, you know? That person who's opinion your discussing...

The only saving grace you would have is if you can conclude, for a fact, that those in the Nigerian scenario are being scammed. You cannot. Citing that they are called "victims" doesn't prove anything, becuase I could then call Christians, "victims", not to mention that it is circular logic to begin with.

So then it's obvious that you're deciding that they are being scammed because, in your opinion, they are. Then anyone could call Christians stupid if in their opinion Christians are being scammed. Thus your initial objection is refuted.



P.S. Keep insulting me, it only brings more attention to the fact that you're grasping at straws.

[/B][/QUOTE]

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

If you pay close attention it seems most philosophies and ideas were born out of contention to a Judeo/Christian belief.

No.



quote:Rebellion requires a force of authority as they are dependent on each other. You can not rebel against something that has no power or authority. What would be the point?

People are what give religion its power.

quote:You'll see that rebelling against the ways of immorality will carry no punishment.

"Rebelling" against logical consequences will. Morality doesn't come into it.

I was being facetious at the time. The followups to my original assertion were crafted to see if I could somehow find an argument to support the idea of 'legitimate stupidity'. I could not. As I said: I am a pure relativist.

'Stupid' is subjective and, like all subjective things, it cannot be used to describe something from a universal perspective. The connotation, when used in the context of religion, serves only to create the illusion of superiority and inferiority.

Which was totally the effect I was going for. Atheists ruuuuuuuuuuuule!

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

If you pay close attention it seems most philosophies and ideas were born out of contention to a Judeo/Christian belief.

No.



quote:Rebellion requires a force of authority as they are dependent on each other. You can not rebel against something that has no power or authority. What would be the point?

People are what give religion its power.

quote:You'll see that rebelling against the ways of immorality will carry no punishment.

"Rebelling" against logical consequences will. Morality doesn't come into it.



You will have to expand on what a "logical consequence" is. My point was that following the "golden rule" has no laws or punishment against it. Rebelling against those who practice hating their neighbors will have no negative consequence in the eyes of the lawmakers or judges.

Morality has everything to do with everything. It is the very basis of our own philosophies and conduct and we can not escape it. One person has this morale code and another has that morale code. It makes no difference what that morale code is as it is the foundation that our lives are built on.

I agree that religion, as a dogmatic or ritualistic entity, gains it's power from people who hold it over others. This is not what Jesus taught in fact He spoke out against the religious many times. God doesn't like legalistic religion based on man made principles. It is just another snare for man's soul and keeps man from true faith. Jesus came to free us from all things that enslave us including man made traditions or religion.

On the first point, I will not contest it because it is too broad a subject to get into here.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

You will have to expand on what a "logical consequence" is.

If you attack someone, they'll undoubtedly attack you back. Biblical morality, which is what I assumed you were referring to, doesn't enter the equation. Following such a system often results in logical - but terrible - consequences.

quote: My point was that following the "golden rule" has no laws or punishment against it. Rebelling against those who practice hating their neighbors will have no negative consequence in the eyes of the lawmakers or judges.

What judges? What lawmakers? Is this because it's a universal rule, an objective morality?

quote:Morality has everything to do with everything. It is the very basis of our own philosophies and conduct and we can not escape it. One person has this morale code and another has that morale code. It makes no difference what that morale code is as it is the foundation that our lives are built on.

But - perhaps I am remembering incorrectly and I'm too lazy to check so forgive me - I thought you were insinuating that Christian morality is some objective, universal law that you cannot go wrong with. http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

quote:I agree that religion, as a dogmatic or ritualistic entity, gains it's power from people who hold it over others. This is not what Jesus taught in fact He spoke out against the religious many times. God doesn't like legalistic religion based on man made principles. It is just another snare for man's soul and keeps man from true faith. Jesus came to free us from all things that enslave us including man made traditions or religion.

Does that include the dogmatic, legalistic, and ritualistic Old Testament?



[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 09-30-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

The circumstances are completely different, which means you're the one grasping at straws. If you can't see the difference between "Nigerian scam victims" and "christians", then I'm not even going to waste my time discussing this with you. To talk about this you have to recognize the differences, and if you refuse then I simply won't bother.

You've just repeated your position. We already know that you believe one party is stupid while the other one isn't; the point is (which you're not dealing with since you boxed yourself into the corner) that you are doing so solely because it is your opinion, nothing else. Hence, anyone with the oppossite opinion can conclude the opposite. That's the point.

Now stop grasping at straws and deal with the point.

quote:Originally posted by Sarter:

I was being facetious at the time. The followups to my original assertion were crafted to see if I could somehow find an argument to support the idea of 'legitimate stupidity'. I could not. As I said: I am a pure relativist.

'Stupid' is subjective and, like all subjective things, it cannot be used to describe something from a universal perspective. The connotation, when used in the context of religion, serves only to create the illusion of superiority and inferiority.

Which was totally the effect I was going for. Atheists ruuuuuuuuuuuule!

Good enough for me, and I'm officially done with this thread.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Good enough for me, and I'm officially done with this thread.

If you attack someone, they'll undoubtedly attack you back. Biblical morality, which is what I assumed you were referring to, doesn't enter the equation. Following such a system often results in logical - but terrible - consequences.

You are right - but the bible doesn't teach us to attack others nor a gambit of other common misconceptions. However, by your logic anybody that agrees with the bible will often find themselves in logical but terrible consequences and that is completly false.

What judges? What lawmakers? Is this because it's a universal rule, an objective morality?

I'm talking about secular law and government in this case. The day we make laws that punish someone for loving their neighbor all the facet of it we would be in bad shape as a people. I'm not sure what you mean by objective morality - do you mean an absolute morality?



But - perhaps I am remembering incorrectly and I'm too lazy to check so forgive me - I thought you were insinuating that Christian morality is some objective, universal law that you cannot go wrong with.

If it were only that simple. I am saying that the laws and decrees set out by the God of the Christian faith are set down for our benefit and not our detriment. Going against those laws and decrees is what leads to our detriment. The laws I'm talking about are the natural consequence that are automatic to whatever action that lead to them. For example; if a man runs hard - he will eventually get tired - if hands clap a sound will be made - if you turn off a lamp then it will be dark - if you remove salt from something then it will lose it's saltiness - All actions have a consequence tied to them and this includes morales simply because it is from our heart and mind our morales lie and it is from our heart and minds that our actions spring from.

I can not say that following Christian morales will lead to happiness and contentment. This would be foolish because the entire concept of Christian morlity has nothing to do with man setting his own standards but man following a standard set for him by God. This is where it becomes illogical to those who do not accept that God exists.

Does that include the dogmatic, legalistic, and ritualistic Old Testament?

Are you talking about Judaism and how the Jews mishandled their place among the nations? If so we would have to assume that the entire text in the Old Testament originated with the Jews but that would be false to do so. It wasn't until the covenent between God and Abraham did the Jews have any place in biblical history.

Legalism was a strong rebuke Jesus had for the religious leaders in His time. All times before that we just read account after account of how miserable the Jews messed up time and time again and how things came against them but through these stories we see their triumphs and blessings when they returned to following God. There is much to be gleened from these accounts.

Of course this is a tie-in to the previous ideas of consequence for action. If we follow God's ways as a people we will prosper but if we do not then we as a super power nation (USA) will eventually be added to the list of other nations who have came and gone when they have become prideful and arrogent in their own power. Humility always comes at a great cost and this is one thing we are taught by the Jewish nation who was a "prophet to the nations". It would be prudent for us to learn from their example.