It has recently been argued that anti-theists are being unfair to
theists. The argument boils down to this:
-If theists believe something that does not contradict secular
morality, then anti-theists have no justification to say it's
irrational and immoral.
-This is because they "just believe" in something based on "irrational
intuition", and if it does not contradict secular morality, then it is
permissible.
Let's apply this to the stance of the anti-theist... that religion, in
and of itself, is immoral. Let's pretend that anti-theists have
arrived at this conclusion via the same "irrational intuition" that
theists are allegedly using for their conclusions. Of course this
isn't actually true and anti-theists do a lot better with their
arguments, but pretend that it is based on nothing aside from
"irrational intuition". Now change "theists" in the above sentence to
"anti-theists".
-If anti-theists believe something that does not contradict secular
morality, then anti-anti-theists have no justification to say it's
irrational and immoral.
-This is because they "just believe" in something based on "irrational
intuition", and if it does not contradict secular morality, then it is
permissible.
Now, the question remains, does anti-theism contradict secular
morality?
Clearly anti-theism does not contradict secular morality more than
theism (and of course, I believe it contradicts secular morality a
great deal less, but that's besides the point to this discussion at
hand). Therefore, based exclusively on this, there is no justification
that someone should be "anti-anti-theist" for the reasons above. An
anti-anti-theist can not consistently criticize anti-theists for the
very thing the anti-theists are criticizing theists for.
Thank you, rappy. I've been saying this for a while here. If
"intolerance" in and of itself is bad, then being "intolerant of
intolerance" is of course hypocritical. I've seen this attitude pop up
here and there, right now bob600 and Walt seem particularly guilty of
it (although theists constantly whine about "intolerance" despite the
"intolerance" that is built into their respective faiths), and I
really can't have any respect for people whose core "values" are
completely based on holding standards to others that they don't hold
to themselves. I think not living up to your own standards is failing
the most basic test of ethics.
On Jun 27, 9:46 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It has recently been argued that anti-theists are being unfair to
> theists. The argument boils down to this:
> -If theists believe something that does not contradict secular
> morality, then anti-theists have no justification to say it's
> irrational and immoral.
> -This is because they "just believe" in something based on "irrational
> intuition", and if it does not contradict secular morality, then it is
> permissible.
> Let's apply this to the stance of the anti-theist... that religion, in
> and of itself, is immoral. Let's pretend that anti-theists have
> arrived at this conclusion via the same "irrational intuition" that
> theists are allegedly using for their conclusions. Of course this
> isn't actually true and anti-theists do a lot better with their
> arguments, but pretend that it is based on nothing aside from
> "irrational intuition". Now change "theists" in the above sentence to
> "anti-theists".
> -If anti-theists believe something that does not contradict secular
> morality, then anti-anti-theists have no justification to say it's
> irrational and immoral.
> -This is because they "just believe" in something based on "irrational
> intuition", and if it does not contradict secular morality, then it is
> permissible.
> Now, the question remains, does anti-theism contradict secular
> morality?
> Clearly anti-theism does not contradict secular morality more than
> theism (and of course, I believe it contradicts secular morality a
> great deal less, but that's besides the point to this discussion at
> hand). Therefore, based exclusively on this, there is no justification
> that someone should be "anti-anti-theist" for the reasons above. An
> anti-anti-theist can not consistently criticize anti-theists for the
> very thing the anti-theists are criticizing theists for.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:46 PM, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It has recently been argued that anti-theists are being unfair to > theists. The argument boils down to this:
> -If theists believe something that does not contradict secular > morality, then anti-theists have no justification to say it's > irrational and immoral. > -This is because they "just believe" in something based on "irrational > intuition", and if it does not contradict secular morality, then it is > permissible.
> Let's apply this to the stance of the anti-theist... that religion, in > and of itself, is immoral. Let's pretend that anti-theists have > arrived at this conclusion via the same "irrational intuition" that > theists are allegedly using for their conclusions. Of course this > isn't actually true and anti-theists do a lot better with their > arguments, but pretend that it is based on nothing aside from > "irrational intuition". Now change "theists" in the above sentence to > "anti-theists".
> -If anti-theists believe something that does not contradict secular > morality, then anti-anti-theists have no justification to say it's > irrational and immoral. > -This is because they "just believe" in something based on "irrational > intuition", and if it does not contradict secular morality, then it is > permissible.
> Now, the question remains, does anti-theism contradict secular > morality?
> Clearly anti-theism does not contradict secular morality more than > theism (and of course, I believe it contradicts secular morality a > great deal less, but that's besides the point to this discussion at > hand). Therefore, based exclusively on this, there is no justification > that someone should be "anti-anti-theist" for the reasons above. An > anti-anti-theist can not consistently criticize anti-theists for the > very thing the anti-theists are criticizing theists for.
> That makes anti-anti-theists hypocritical.
That seems to apply to all of this persons "analogies".
They seem to have the same internal contradictions and are therefore an expression of his own hypocrisy.
-- ------------------------------------------------ Trance Gemini Irrationally held "truths" may be more harmful than reasoned errors. -- Thomas Henry Huxley
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Thank you, rappy. I've been saying this for a while here. If > "intolerance" in and of itself is bad, then being "intolerant of > intolerance" is of course hypocritical. I've seen this attitude pop up > here and there, right now bob600 and Walt seem particularly guilty of > it (although theists constantly whine about "intolerance" despite the > "intolerance" that is built into their respective faiths), and I > really can't have any respect for people whose core "values" are > completely based on holding standards to others that they don't hold > to themselves. > I think not living up to your own standards is failing > the most basic test of ethics.
This is a really good point and the fact is that any moral and ethical human being will, by virtue of their morality and ethics, be intolerant of that which is immoral and unethical.
Many theists seem to think that because they are theists and they have a doctrine which they obey that somehow gives them the moral high ground, but they don't actually have to apply any other moral or ethical guidelines to themselves.
The better one's apply secular morality and ethics, others are in jail waiting to go to heaven and be forgiven by god and the rest just running around acting holier than thou while doing whatever they nasty thing they want to and using their doctrine to put up the pretense that their shit smells sweeter than anyone else's and to cover for their nasty behavior.
I have a neighbor like that. She's the nastiest person in the world and would sell out her own mother given the chance but parades around "god blessing" everyone while she screws everyone she can for whatever she can get. She hides behind her Christianity to commit bad acts and then uses it to protect herself from the consequences of her bad acts (god will forgive me, I'm a sinner type crap).
A moral and ethical person first has to hold themselves to the highest standards before they can expect that from anyone else and to claim moral superiority while not holding oneself to those standards is self-serving at best and immoral and unethical at worst.
> On Jun 27, 9:46 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It has recently been argued that anti-theists are being unfair to > > theists. The argument boils down to this:
> > -If theists believe something that does not contradict secular > > morality, then anti-theists have no justification to say it's > > irrational and immoral. > > -This is because they "just believe" in something based on "irrational > > intuition", and if it does not contradict secular morality, then it is > > permissible.
> > Let's apply this to the stance of the anti-theist... that religion, in > > and of itself, is immoral. Let's pretend that anti-theists have > > arrived at this conclusion via the same "irrational intuition" that > > theists are allegedly using for their conclusions. Of course this > > isn't actually true and anti-theists do a lot better with their > > arguments, but pretend that it is based on nothing aside from > > "irrational intuition". Now change "theists" in the above sentence to > > "anti-theists".
> > -If anti-theists believe something that does not contradict secular > > morality, then anti-anti-theists have no justification to say it's > > irrational and immoral. > > -This is because they "just believe" in something based on "irrational > > intuition", and if it does not contradict secular morality, then it is > > permissible.
> > Now, the question remains, does anti-theism contradict secular > > morality?
> > Clearly anti-theism does not contradict secular morality more than > > theism (and of course, I believe it contradicts secular morality a > > great deal less, but that's besides the point to this discussion at > > hand). Therefore, based exclusively on this, there is no justification > > that someone should be "anti-anti-theist" for the reasons above. An > > anti-anti-theist can not consistently criticize anti-theists for the > > very thing the anti-theists are criticizing theists for.
> > That makes anti-anti-theists hypocritical.
-- ------------------------------------------------ Trance Gemini Irrationally held "truths" may be more harmful than reasoned errors. -- Thomas Henry Huxley
I don't think that anti-theism is immoral, as
long as you never allow it to influence choices
other than those you have arbitrary discretion
over, such as who to be friends with.
But if you feed your spite on people, that
can rationally be said to present a danger that
you at some point will harm those people.
And mocking does count as harming. Many
people, especially school children, commit
suicide because they can no longer endure
the pain of being mocked.
On Jun 27, 11:46 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It has recently been argued that anti-theists are being unfair to
> theists. The argument boils down to this:
> -If theists believe something that does not contradict secular
> morality, then anti-theists have no justification to say it's
> irrational and immoral.
> -This is because they "just believe" in something based on "irrational
> intuition", and if it does not contradict secular morality, then it is
> permissible.
> Let's apply this to the stance of the anti-theist... that religion, in
> and of itself, is immoral. Let's pretend that anti-theists have
> arrived at this conclusion via the same "irrational intuition" that
> theists are allegedly using for their conclusions. Of course this
> isn't actually true and anti-theists do a lot better with their
> arguments, but pretend that it is based on nothing aside from
> "irrational intuition". Now change "theists" in the above sentence to
> "anti-theists".
> -If anti-theists believe something that does not contradict secular
> morality, then anti-anti-theists have no justification to say it's
> irrational and immoral.
> -This is because they "just believe" in something based on "irrational
> intuition", and if it does not contradict secular morality, then it is
> permissible.
> Now, the question remains, does anti-theism contradict secular
> morality?
> Clearly anti-theism does not contradict secular morality more than
> theism (and of course, I believe it contradicts secular morality a
> great deal less, but that's besides the point to this discussion at
> hand). Therefore, based exclusively on this, there is no justification
> that someone should be "anti-anti-theist" for the reasons above. An
> anti-anti-theist can not consistently criticize anti-theists for the
> very thing the anti-theists are criticizing theists for.
again Dev low IQ wisdom of yours lead you to a dark dead end.
It is "place" and to refuse intolorance is to SHUNN and to shunn is to
refuse contact with the corruption.
That means closed communities and not the mox then complain world you
live in and think is wrong but know not better or think it is right
and so again know not better.
You not being able to solve such an easy thing...not surprising.
On Jun 28, 8:13 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Thank you, rappy. I've been saying this for a while here. If
> "intolerance" in and of itself is bad, then being "intolerant of
> intolerance" is of course hypocritical. I've seen this attitude pop up
> here and there, right now bob600 and Walt seem particularly guilty of
> it (although theists constantly whine about "intolerance" despite the
> "intolerance" that is built into their respective faiths), and I
> really can't have any respect for people whose core "values" are
> completely based on holding standards to others that they don't hold
> to themselves. I think not living up to your own standards is failing
> the most basic test of ethics.
> On Jun 27, 9:46 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It has recently been argued that anti-theists are being unfair to
> > theists. The argument boils down to this:
> > -If theists believe something that does not contradict secular
> > morality, then anti-theists have no justification to say it's
> > irrational and immoral.
> > -This is because they "just believe" in something based on "irrational
> > intuition", and if it does not contradict secular morality, then it is
> > permissible.
> > Let's apply this to the stance of the anti-theist... that religion, in
> > and of itself, is immoral. Let's pretend that anti-theists have
> > arrived at this conclusion via the same "irrational intuition" that
> > theists are allegedly using for their conclusions. Of course this
> > isn't actually true and anti-theists do a lot better with their
> > arguments, but pretend that it is based on nothing aside from
> > "irrational intuition". Now change "theists" in the above sentence to
> > "anti-theists".
> > -If anti-theists believe something that does not contradict secular
> > morality, then anti-anti-theists have no justification to say it's
> > irrational and immoral.
> > -This is because they "just believe" in something based on "irrational
> > intuition", and if it does not contradict secular morality, then it is
> > permissible.
> > Now, the question remains, does anti-theism contradict secular
> > morality?
> > Clearly anti-theism does not contradict secular morality more than
> > theism (and of course, I believe it contradicts secular morality a
> > great deal less, but that's besides the point to this discussion at
> > hand). Therefore, based exclusively on this, there is no justification
> > that someone should be "anti-anti-theist" for the reasons above. An
> > anti-anti-theist can not consistently criticize anti-theists for the
> > very thing the anti-theists are criticizing theists for.
> > That makes anti-anti-theists hypocritical.- Hide quoted text -
bullshit with crap on top!
who's morals and who's ethics and who's vertues?
if your morals are to kill people and drink the blood
if you ethics are that it is sin to let the victims live
if your vertues are in killing and slaughter and making of opponents
suffer?
your words are worthless dribble!
You have no foundation to use them but you use them as if you can
steal the morals of God and then use them against they that follow
them EVEN IF THEY FOLLOW POORLY!
FIND YOUR OWN FOUNDATION! steal not ours and then claim you just got
it out of nowhere!
On Jun 28, 8:50 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > Thank you, rappy. I've been saying this for a while here. If
> > "intolerance" in and of itself is bad, then being "intolerant of
> > intolerance" is of course hypocritical. I've seen this attitude pop up
> > here and there, right now bob600 and Walt seem particularly guilty of
> > it (although theists constantly whine about "intolerance" despite the
> > "intolerance" that is built into their respective faiths), and I
> > really can't have any respect for people whose core "values" are
> > completely based on holding standards to others that they don't hold
> > to themselves.
> > I think not living up to your own standards is failing
> > the most basic test of ethics.
> This is a really good point and the fact is that any moral and ethical human
> being will, by virtue of their morality and ethics, be intolerant of that
> which is immoral and unethical.
> Many theists seem to think that because they are theists and they have a
> doctrine which they obey that somehow gives them the moral high ground, but
> they don't actually have to apply any other moral or ethical guidelines to
> themselves.
> The better one's apply secular morality and ethics, others are in jail
> waiting to go to heaven and be forgiven by god and the rest just running
> around acting holier than thou while doing whatever they nasty thing they
> want to and using their doctrine to put up the pretense that their shit
> smells sweeter than anyone else's and to cover for their nasty behavior.
> I have a neighbor like that. She's the nastiest person in the world and
> would sell out her own mother given the chance but parades around "god
> blessing" everyone while she screws everyone she can for whatever she can
> get. She hides behind her Christianity to commit bad acts and then uses it
> to protect herself from the consequences of her bad acts (god will forgive
> me, I'm a sinner type crap).
> A moral and ethical person first has to hold themselves to the highest
> standards before they can expect that from anyone else and to claim moral
> superiority while not holding oneself to those standards is self-serving at
> best and immoral and unethical at worst.
> > On Jun 27, 9:46 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It has recently been argued that anti-theists are being unfair to
> > > theists. The argument boils down to this:
> > > -If theists believe something that does not contradict secular
> > > morality, then anti-theists have no justification to say it's
> > > irrational and immoral.
> > > -This is because they "just believe" in something based on "irrational
> > > intuition", and if it does not contradict secular morality, then it is
> > > permissible.
> > > Let's apply this to the stance of the anti-theist... that religion, in
> > > and of itself, is immoral. Let's pretend that anti-theists have
> > > arrived at this conclusion via the same "irrational intuition" that
> > > theists are allegedly using for their conclusions. Of course this
> > > isn't actually true and anti-theists do a lot better with their
> > > arguments, but pretend that it is based on nothing aside from
> > > "irrational intuition". Now change "theists" in the above sentence to
> > > "anti-theists".
> > > -If anti-theists believe something that does not contradict secular
> > > morality, then anti-anti-theists have no justification to say it's
> > > irrational and immoral.
> > > -This is because they "just believe" in something based on "irrational
> > > intuition", and if it does not contradict secular morality, then it is
> > > permissible.
> > > Now, the question remains, does anti-theism contradict secular
> > > morality?
> > > Clearly anti-theism does not contradict secular morality more than
> > > theism (and of course, I believe it contradicts secular morality a
> > > great deal less, but that's besides the point to this discussion at
> > > hand). Therefore, based exclusively on this, there is no justification
> > > that someone should be "anti-anti-theist" for the reasons above. An
> > > anti-anti-theist can not consistently criticize anti-theists for the
> > > very thing the anti-theists are criticizing theists for.
> > > That makes anti-anti-theists hypocritical.
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
> Trance Gemini
> Irrationally held "truths" may be more harmful than reasoned errors.
> -- Thomas Henry Huxley
> Which God Do You Kill For? --Unknown
> Love is friendship on fire -- Unknown- Hide quoted text -
If you think just killing ones sell is the reaction to mockings...you
need to add the whole spectrum of change it causes in people from
anger to revenge to revolt or reject, hurt harm hasitate... the yes or
no choice that weould be other... the making of the RANDOM AND EXTREMe
AND CLEAR LOSS OF FREEDOM BY CONTACT.
Just proof people should not live together or even have the same
communities just by the way the think and act or serve as function...
a place for each and to each a place.
On Jun 28, 11:06 am, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I don't think that anti-theism is immoral, as
> long as you never allow it to influence choices
> other than those you have arbitrary discretion
> over, such as who to be friends with.
> But if you feed your spite on people, that
> can rationally be said to present a danger that
> you at some point will harm those people.
> And mocking does count as harming. Many
> people, especially school children, commit
> suicide because they can no longer endure
> the pain of being mocked.
> On Jun 27, 11:46 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It has recently been argued that anti-theists are being unfair to
> > theists. The argument boils down to this:
> > -If theists believe something that does not contradict secular
> > morality, then anti-theists have no justification to say it's
> > irrational and immoral.
> > -This is because they "just believe" in something based on "irrational
> > intuition", and if it does not contradict secular morality, then it is
> > permissible.
> > Let's apply this to the stance of the anti-theist... that religion, in
> > and of itself, is immoral. Let's pretend that anti-theists have
> > arrived at this conclusion via the same "irrational intuition" that
> > theists are allegedly using for their conclusions. Of course this
> > isn't actually true and anti-theists do a lot better with their
> > arguments, but pretend that it is based on nothing aside from
> > "irrational intuition". Now change "theists" in the above sentence to
> > "anti-theists".
> > -If anti-theists believe something that does not contradict secular
> > morality, then anti-anti-theists have no justification to say it's
> > irrational and immoral.
> > -This is because they "just believe" in something based on "irrational
> > intuition", and if it does not contradict secular morality, then it is
> > permissible.
> > Now, the question remains, does anti-theism contradict secular
> > morality?
> > Clearly anti-theism does not contradict secular morality more than
> > theism (and of course, I believe it contradicts secular morality a
> > great deal less, but that's besides the point to this discussion at
> > hand). Therefore, based exclusively on this, there is no justification
> > that someone should be "anti-anti-theist" for the reasons above. An
> > anti-anti-theist can not consistently criticize anti-theists for the
> > very thing the anti-theists are criticizing theists for.
> > That makes anti-anti-theists hypocritical.- Hide quoted text -
On Jun 27, 8:46 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It has recently been argued that anti-theists are being unfair to
> theists. The argument boils down to this:
> -If theists believe something that does not contradict secular
> morality, then anti-theists have no justification to say it's
> irrational and immoral.
I believe that secular morals are ever on the decline. I do not base
or compare my morals to secular ones, except
