Posts that seem less than useless, or something like that - Page 6

flouran · 2010-01-27, 07:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasong

On another note, there are plenty of ways that Christianity has influenced Americans and their politics.

Yep, it's called redneck politics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasong

Americans ideas of human kindness are very much influenced by Christian idealism. Even if you go to another country, I doubt you'll find a whole heck of a lot of free clinics based on Buddhism or Islam.

Really? Which countries? Or are you pulling that out of your God-given ass?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasong

Mercy is a very Christian concept, one could say that Christianity is grounded in mercy.

One could also say that your actions are grounded in illogical thinking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasong

While I understand that there are plenty of people that are non-Christians, I believe, in a country where tons of people claim to be Christian, for this very reason, laws should at least acknowledge in some way, our Christian heritage.

False. Laws should keep morons like you from posting on these forums. Sadly, none exist and will not come into fruition in the foreseeable future (if ever).

only_human · 2010-01-27, 07:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua2

What I am saying is that atheists have no moral codes they can use to keep others from doing bad things. If people were generally good this would be fine. But when there are enough people who want to do something, once its because close to a majority, an atheist has no justification for saying why is own moral views are superior to the majority. A Christian can say that the majority is wrong because they are doing something evil, and they have in many instances

Quote:

Honestly we probably aren't going to get anywhere discussing this so let's

! lol

I would agree with this second sentiment but the I find the implicit bigotry of the this first assumption so offensive that I just can't. This is an almost exact rehash of the thread Why aren't you a murderer?

I would say that in that other thread however, there were less tacit assumptions and a better attempt at understanding the other side.

Quote:

I would ask because atheism, in some senses, puzzles me. I understand some of its appeal, when put in naturalistic terms. But, even ignoring the spiritual aspects, I have logical/rational objections. We talked about these at some length previously. (At the time, I wasn't conversant enough with big names in atheism to present evidence that many of them believed atheism implied the human race is doomed, etc...) At any rate, the question about murder raises other questions.

Do atheists and believers have equivalent moral systems? (I would imagine we would both say no. In fact, I would add that there isn't one moral system for either group.) What impacts do those differences have? Does believing or non-believing have any noticeable benefit which *couldn't* be obtained in the other system? etc...

Joshua2 · 2010-01-27, 08:19

Yah I decided that I'm not expressing myself properly, and I don't have time to. I'm taking a really tough load this quarter. If this thread is still active after a quarter I can weigh in again. People are making alot of invalid assumptions about my arguments and stuff. Listen to this talk at google, he explains better than i can: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kxup3OS5ZhQ But have fun anyway :) midterm tomorrow!!

cheesehead · 2010-01-27, 18:19

When you return:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua2

A Christian can say that the majority is wrong because they are doing something evil, and they have in many instances. For example Boenhoeffer was a Christian pastor who stood up against Hitler and was killed for it. An atheist would have no higher authority in Germany to say why what Germany was doing was wrong, and would not have a reason to give up his life trying to stop the evil, other than the goodness of his heart, but I think it is pretty obvious that not everyone is basically good so we can't really on this.

It's interesting that you base your argument on authority.

Does your worldview require that some morality-dispensing higher authority figure exists?

Would you feel uncomfortable contemplating a universe in which there is no such "authority" figure above fellow human beings?

Would you feel more comfortable living in a kingdom than in a democracy?

Can you stop making pronouncements about atheists' morality, since you are apparently quite ignorant on that subject? Or is your religion too arrogant to allow for the possibility that its teachings are not the only truths?

petrw1 · 2010-01-27, 19:16

Forgive me if I appear to go to extremes ...

One of my personal ovservations is that society as a whole (not everyone by any means) is more concerned with their rights than with their responsibilities.

And if we could reverse that trend we would have less crime, less laws, less fights, etc.

You have the right to smoke BUT your responsibility as a human being to protect the health of others should make it obvious that you do NOT smoke around others. This pretty much eliminates the need for laws dictating where you can or cannot smoke.

You have the right to food, clothing and shelter BUT your responsibility to others makes it obvious that you do NOT steal, extort, etc. to acquire these.

You have the right to free speech BUT ... not in a way that offends, disgraces, slanders or otherwise adversely affects others.

etc...

Hmm, maybe this is where we tangent off to common sense, which many will agree is not very common.

flouran · 2010-01-28, 06:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

If you want to communicate in a professional manner, then please take the
time to write proper English. This includes proper capitalization, punctuation,
spelling and grammar.

If you can't take the time to communicate properly, then why should
anyone else take the time to answer you?

Sometimes I think that you're a broken record...

Did you perchance copy-and-paste content from your previous posts onto this one???

wblipp · 2010-01-28, 10:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua2

What I am saying is that atheists have no moral codes they can use to keep others from doing bad things.

I think you are saying "I don't know of any, so there must not be any." If you want to learn how wrong you are in real, personal terms, and you live in the United States, find a Unitarian Universalist church and ask your questions over coffee after the service. You'll find real live atheists (not everybody by any means, but they are there) with real moral codes and paying attention to their spiritual development.

R.D. Silverman · 2010-01-28, 12:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by petrw1

You have the right to free speech BUT ... not in a way that offends, disgraces, slanders or otherwise adversely affects others.
.

This claim is idiotic.

I strongly disagree. Noone has a right "not to be offended". If such
a right existed we would all stay home and never have any contact
with others, because everyone has things that offend him/her.

Everyone hears things we do not like. This adversely affects us.
If a right existed not to be adversely affected by the speech of others,
noone would be able to say anything, because there will always be
someone who does not like what we have to say.

Person 'A' says: "I don't like Senator 'B''" . Person 'C' likes senator 'B'
and is offended by the remark. Should person 'A' not have the right to
say what he said? Person 'X' says "I thank God for helping me". Person "Y"
thinks that belief in God is irrational and finds any such references to be
offensive. Should "X" not be allowed to say what he did? Person "Q"
says "I think Jane Fonda showed great moral conviction for what she did
during Vietnam". Person "R" thinks Jane Fonda was a traitor and finds the
remark offensive. Should "Q" not be allowed to say what he did?

None of us would ever open our mouths to say ANYTHING.

Free speech is meaningless if the only allowed speech is something that
is liked by everyone.

Mini-Geek · 2010-01-28, 12:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by wblipp

I think you are saying "I don't know of any, so there must not be any." If you want to learn how wrong you are in real, personal terms, and you live in the United States, find a Unitarian Universalist church and ask your questions over coffee after the service. You'll find real live atheists (not everybody by any means, but they are there) with real moral codes and paying attention to their spiritual development.

What an oxymoron. An atheist concerned about his spiritual development is like a not stamp collector (from the analogy, "atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby") concerned about his stamp collection!
(I'm not saying you're lying, but that the atheists in question are contradictory)

Where exactly did they get their moral codes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

This claim is idiotic.

I strongly disagree. Noone has a right "not to be offended". If such
a right existed we would all stay home and never have any contact
with others, because everyone has things that offend him/her.

Everyone hears things we do not like. This adversely affects us.
If a right existed not to be adversely affected by the speech of others,
noone would be able to say anything, because there will always be
someone who does not like what we have to say.

...

Free speech is meaningless if the only allowed speech is something that
is liked by everyone.

There's a difference between "your speech is free, as long as nobody could possibly be offended by it", and "your speech is free, as long as you're not saying it merely to slander and offend others". Obviously the first doesn't apply, which is what you were attacking instead of the latter. Whether you agree with the latter, and whether the right is guaranteed us in the US constitution is another matter entirely.

fivemack · 2010-01-28, 12:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mini-Geek

What an oxymoron. An atheist concerned about his spiritual development is like a not stamp collector (from the analogy, "atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby") concerned about his stamp collection!
(I'm not saying you're lying, but that the atheists in question are contradictory)

Morality can come from internal consideration rather than from faith in an external authority; spiritual development comes from considering and discussing moral matters.

I believe that I have a soul without believing that there is a God; I feel guilty for my actions which are unkind to my fellow men without feeling that this guilt is imposed by a higher power or will result in my eternal punishment - to feel miserable on Earth is enough.

fivemack · 2010-01-28, 12:58

[QUOTE=Greenbank;81867]I'll bite.

Even if you go to another country, I doubt you'll find a whole heck of a lot of free clinics based on Buddhism or Islam.

http://www.tzuchi.org/
http://thanhsiang.org/
http://muslims.net/news/newsfull.php?newid=260328
http://cnobbi.com/4561.html

I admit that I'd not heard of tzu chi until I went to Taiwan.

2010-01-27, 08:19	#58
Joshua2 Sep 2004 215₁₆ Posts	Yah I decided that I'm not expressing myself properly, and I don't have time to. I'm taking a really tough load this quarter. If this thread is still active after a quarter I can weigh in again. People are making alot of invalid assumptions about my arguments and stuff. Listen to this talk at google, he explains better than i can: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kxup3OS5ZhQ But have fun anyway :) midterm tomorrow!! Last fiddled with by Joshua2 on 2010-01-27 at 08:34

2010-01-27, 19:16	#60
petrw1 1976 Toyota Corona years forever! "Wayne" Nov 2006 Saskatchewan, Canada 2²×7×167 Posts	Rights vs Responsibilities Forgive me if I appear to go to extremes ... One of my personal ovservations is that society as a whole (not everyone by any means) is more concerned with their rights than with their responsibilities. And if we could reverse that trend we would have less crime, less laws, less fights, etc. You have the right to smoke BUT your responsibility as a human being to protect the health of others should make it obvious that you do NOT smoke around others. This pretty much eliminates the need for laws dictating where you can or cannot smoke. You have the right to food, clothing and shelter BUT your responsibility to others makes it obvious that you do NOT steal, extort, etc. to acquire these. You have the right to free speech BUT ... not in a way that offends, disgraces, slanders or otherwise adversely affects others. etc... Hmm, maybe this is where we tangent off to common sense, which many will agree is not very common.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Fedora gedit for bash has become useless	EdH	Linux	11	2016-05-13 15:36
Useless SSE instructions	__HRB__	Programming	41	2012-07-07 17:43
Useless DC assignment	lycorn	PrimeNet	16	2009-09-08 18:16
Useless p-1 work	jocelynl	Data	4	2004-11-28 13:28

2010-01-28, 12:58	#66
fivemack (loop (#_fork)) Feb 2006 Cambridge, England 1100100010011₂ Posts	[QUOTE=Greenbank;81867]I'll bite. Even if you go to another country, I doubt you'll find a whole heck of a lot of free clinics based on Buddhism or Islam. http://www.tzuchi.org/ http://thanhsiang.org/ http://muslims.net/news/newsfull.php?newid=260328 http://cnobbi.com/4561.html I admit that I'd not heard of tzu chi until I went to Taiwan.