Originally Posted by pizal81

t is especially hard to see how something like rape is wrong on atheism. We all no that it is an objective moral truth, but you are hard pressed to be able to prove it without some kind of God.

Rape is wrong because it violates a person's sense of security in their own body. It violates human dignity.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

This coming from someone who bases his views on astrology.

I can't remember the last time I've had any argument disproven here. I have had Boomers repeatedly post mile-long responses and then declare that they've disproven my argument, when they haven't. At some point, there is no reason to even try to engage them in conversation.

It's simple fact. That's the way these people are. They are deaf to all reason; they believe (simple as that). And you yourself are an example of it.

H-m-m-m. This is the perception problem on steroids. Is A true or is it B? Well, how do we measure A and B? It's clear that you have a different yardstick than I do, and I won't concede that yours is valid where it clearly isn't. Where it is valid, we can achieve a consensus, or an honest difference of opinion. But using disproven data (what is data that isn't?) to discredit something is an honest mistake the first time, a dispute the second time, and bullheadedness everytime there after. As two simple examples, you still cite Climategate and the ACORN drive-by, which even the rightwing pundits are now disowning. These were investigated and disproven, but not to you. Why? Because you simply don't trust the investigators. In other words, it must come from the mouth of a pure spirit, or it's false.

Well, the rest of us accept the work of experts. If we distrust, we own the responsibilty to disprove their work. You feel otherwise.

Originally Posted by pizal81

You have to remember you come from context of a somewhat religious society so some values are instilled in you. Plus you might need a religious book or rule to "know" something is objectively wrong, but someone else might. I would say even the atheist has a god given sense of right and wrong. Some distort is religious and nonreligious alike.

JPT's point is valid in that without God right isn't necessarily right and wrong isn't necessary wrong. Whether or not I murder someone because just two possible events that can happen. It is especially hard to see how something like rape is wrong on atheism. We all no that it is an objective moral truth, but you are hard pressed to be able to prove it without some kind of God.

There are plenty of "godly" people that believe marital rape is an oxymoron or blame the victim for being raped. There are plenty of "godly" people that believe it's OK to mistreat or even kill "infidels". There are plenty of "Godly" people that are selfish and justify their selfishness using Calvinist arguments.

You have it backwards, a society's moral beliefs does not come from religion, religion is simply used to rationalize those moral beliefs. If a society is racist or sexist it will use religion to justify the morality of racism and sexism.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Rape is wrong because it violates a person's sense of security in their own body. It violates human dignity.

If we are just animals why do we have any more dignity than a dog. We are just different species. My point that you ignored was that there is no difference between right and wrong on atheism. If I want to rape someone damn the consequences there is no moral reason not to do it. The idea that people have a special dignity is predicated on the existence of God or gods.

Originally Posted by pizal81

If we are just animals why do we have any more dignity than a dog. We are just different species. My point that you ignored was that there is no difference between right and wrong on atheism. If I want to rape someone damn the consequences there is no moral reason not to do it. The idea that people have a special dignity is predicated on the existence of God or gods.

Would you want to get raped, robbed, or murdered? Of course not. It's the Golden Rule, treat others as you yourself would want to be treated. Morality is based in putting yourself in other people's shoes, not in imaginary beings. That is why psychopaths and narcissists act so immorally, they are incapable of caring for anyone except for themselves.

Oy Vey, the RW hate is strong with this one:

Lawsuit claims Obama can't be president because he's 'mulatto'

They aren't even trying to hide the racism anymore.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. This is the perception problem on steroids. Is A true or is it B? Well, how do we measure A and B? It's clear that you have a different yardstick than I do, and I won't concede that yours is valid where it clearly isn't. Where it is valid, we can achieve a consensus, or an honest difference of opinion. But using disproven data (what is data that isn't?) to discredit something is an honest mistake the first time, a dispute the second time, and bullheadedness everytime there after. As two simple examples, you still cite Climategate and the ACORN drive-by, which even the rightwing pundits are now disowning. These were investigated and disproven, but not to you. Why? Because you simply don't trust the investigators. In other words, it must come from the mouth of a pure spirit, or it's false.

Well, the rest of us accept the work of experts. If we distrust, we own the responsibilty to disprove their work. You feel otherwise.

I went back and perused some of JPT's posts from when he first joined the forum. It's striking. His rhetoric hasn't changed one bit. It all starts right here and continues throughout that thread. David, he even accused you of anti-Christian bigotry back then!!

Anyway, I found another instance in which JPT is just dead wrong on the fact. Back in 2007 he made this claim:

"...there is strong evidence that children raised in same-sex households suffer severe dysfunction more often than not."

I challenged him on several occasions to provide his "strong evidence," but none was to follow. And I don't think he's going to find any. Because the actual evidence seems to be to the contrary. He's just plain wrong about this, and I'm not going to just let him get away with saying stuff like:

I can't remember the last time I've had any argument disproven here.

Originally Posted by pizal81

If we are just animals why do we have any more dignity than a dog. We are just different species. My point that you ignored was that there is no difference between right and wrong on atheism. If I want to rape someone damn the consequences there is no moral reason not to do it. The idea that people have a special dignity is predicated on the existence of God or gods.

No it's based on the fact that we are senscient beings (which means the admonition against rape also applies to dogs, by the way). And atheism certainly recognizes that we should not do harm to each other.

This is actually a great set of questions. They were addressed to Kiff, but I'll barge in too.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

This is a serious question. Do you believe in religious freedom?

I have absolutely no proble with religous belief and virtually no problem with religous practice. I have a problem with religous indoctrination, but accpet that some forms are outside my purview. I really have a problem with religous browbeating and harrassment .. by and to anyone.

Originally Posted by JPT ...

Do you respect the rights of others to believe what they believe, and to freely practice their faith?

To the extent that your freedom does not constrain mine, I'm on board. I'm not OK with the belief that 2+2=5. The closer you are to that standard, the less supportive I am. If you stay within the domain of faith, you won't hear me utter a peep.

Originally Posted by JPT ...

Because most of what comes from the mouths of the anti-Christian left makes it sound like the answer to those questions is no. It certainly appears that the left considers genuine religious faith to be a disqualifier not only for public office, but for public speech.

See my previous answer. If you are driven by your faith to impose your views on me through the force of law, then yes, I have a problem with that. Take the hot-button of all hot-buttons: abortion. You wish to deny others the right to choose a legal procedure through whatever means you can concoct. I understand that you think aborton is murder, but the courts disagree. If you are able, amend the Contitution to agree with you. Otherwise, leave it alone. The same applies to using public funds for religous purposes, yet you persist.

Originally Posted by JPT ...

It seems clear that while the left is vehemently opposed to any hint of religion being imposed on those who don't want it, they have no problem whatsoever imposing no religion on people of faith.

How can anyone impose 'no religion', especially in a nation of churches? I can think your ideas are ludicrous, but you can hold them, however you can't use them as a weapon.

Originally Posted by pizal81

JPT's point is valid in that without God right isn't necessarily right and wrong isn't necessary wrong. Whether or not I murder someone because just two possible events that can happen. It is especially hard to see how something like rape is wrong on atheism. We all no that it is an objective moral truth, but you are hard pressed to be able to prove it without some kind of God.

This is ridiculous.. most human beings are naturally repulsed by the sight of human suffering and they don't need any sort of justification to behave in ways that minimize it. For those who cannot feel the slightest drop of empathy, we have the law to threaten them with punishment. Whether or not one believes in hell, they must surely believe in prisons!

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I went back and perused some of JPT's posts from when he first joined the forum. It's striking. His rhetoric hasn't changed one bit. It all starts right here and continues throughout that thread. David, he even accused you of anti-Christian bigotry back then!!

Anyway, I found another instance in which JPT is just dead wrong on the fact. Back in 2007 he made this claim:

I challenged him on several occasions to provide his "strong evidence," but none was to follow. And I don't think he's going to find any. Because the actual evidence seems to be to the contrary. He's just plain wrong about this, and I'm not going to just let him get away with saying stuff like:

We all tend to be bull headed at times. Hopefully, we wake up the next day knowing we were, and do our best to avoid doing it again. Being human, we never succeed perfectly, but evidence that we are getting better is usually enough for most other people to give us a bye. They (and we) will withdraw that consideration if the bull headedness proves a pathelogical. That's human nature too.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We all tend to be bull headed at times. Hopefully, we wake up the next day knowing we were, and do our best to avoid doing it again. Being human, we never succeed perfectly, but evidence that we are getting better is usually enough for most other people to give us a bye. They (and we) will withdraw that consideration if the bull headedness proves a pathelogical. That's human nature too.

Some time back JPT and I came to an understanding of our differing paths as Christians. I appreciate that he acknowledged it above.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Dude. You really believe that animal abuse is acceptable?

It was badly worded, but I think he's arguing the case that religion separates us from nature in the raw. I disagree, but I get what he is saying.

Originally Posted by pizal81

You have to remember you come from context of a somewhat religious society so some values are instilled in you. Plus you might need a religious book or rule to "know" something is objectively wrong, but someone else might. I would say even the atheist has a god given sense of right and wrong. Some distort is religious and nonreligious alike.

JPT's point is valid in that without God right isn't necessarily right and wrong isn't necessary wrong. Whether or not I murder someone because just two possible events that can happen. It is especially hard to see how something like rape is wrong on atheism. We all no that it is an objective moral truth, but you are hard pressed to be able to prove it without some kind of God.

Actually, I was illustrating the fact that "keeping religion out of politics" requires a pretty massive infringement of the First Amendment. Religious values and religious leaders have always played a role in politics in America. The First Amendment is designed to preserve religious liberty, not impose atheism on society.

Originally Posted by Eric

As Jesus said, love your enemies.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Even if they're zombies?

Yes Rani, even if they're Zombies!

Prince

Originally Posted by pizal81

I would say even the atheist has a god given sense of right and wrong . . .
JPT's point is valid in that without God right isn't necessarily right and wrong isn't necessary wrong.

If both of these statements are true, then the fact that God exists and created a moral order is irrelevant to living a moral life. If so, there's no need to believe in him. So, what's the point?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Then I assume you oppose the Obama Administration's decision to force the Catholic Church to pay for contraception, which goes against their beliefs? For the record, I'm not a Catholic and I don't think there's anything wrong with contraception, but I oppose the government's actions, which I believe violate the First Amendment.

I don't see how that follows. What would violate the First Amendment would be telling the employee that they had to buy birth control. That's because health care benefits are part of the employee's compensation. Those benefits are theirs, just as much as their wages.

Seriously, think about the implications of a "conscience carve-out" for all medical coverage provided by an employer. Do anti-vax people get to deny vaccinations to the children of their employees? Do alt-med dipshits get to restrict your coverage to herbs and homeopathy? Do Christian Scientists get to require a prayer session before you can see a doctor at all? The religious freedom issue is that religious employers are abusing the substantial market power granted to them by our ridiculous insurance system to control their employees lives. The employee is the one whose free exercise is being abused, not the employer.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Even if they're zombies?

Yes, but not in my temple! Only aliens!

Originally Posted by pizal81

You have to remember you come from context of a somewhat religious society so some values are instilled in you. Plus you might need a religious book or rule to "know" something is objectively wrong, but someone else might. I would say even the atheist has a god given sense of right and wrong. Some distort is religious and nonreligious alike.

JPT's point is valid in that without God right isn't necessarily right and wrong isn't necessary wrong. Whether or not I murder someone because just two possible events that can happen. It is especially hard to see how something like rape is wrong on atheism. We all know that it is an objective moral truth, but you are hard pressed to be able to prove it without some kind of God.

In which case "God" could refer to the moral truth you perceive in your heart and mind.

If a politician says something like the things Rick Santorum has said, should he be impeached and removed from office?

Not for what he says, but if he actually got elected and tried to require Americans to submit to his religious ideas, then yes he should be impeached for violating the constitution.

We can't entirely separate religion from politics, because at some level all things interact, and religion in general is a means of knowing spiritual and moral truth. But a religion cannot be the basis for policies that require Americans to believe in and practice the doctrines of that particular religion.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Yes Rani, even if they're Zombies!

Prince

Yes, I think Bob got the wrong party!

Originally Posted by pizal81

If we are just animals why do we have any more dignity than a dog. We are just different species. My point that you ignored was that there is no difference between right and wrong on atheism. If I want to rape someone damn the consequences there is no moral reason not to do it. The idea that people have a special dignity is predicated on the existence of God or gods.

Pizza81, I often disagree with you, but this is the first time I've felt you have gone totally off the track. That statement is, literally, absurd.

Have you ever heard of the Golden Rule, or Kant's categorical imperative? Both argue for morality without reference to a deity. We do not kill others because we want the right not to be killed ourselves; we do not rape because we do not want our wives or daughters to be raped; etc. The whole Anglo-American legal tradition, the best guarantee for freedom ever devised, is built on this..

Conversely, one could just as easily argue that belief in a Supreme Being--say, Allah--can be a license to kill. It certainly has been treated as such by dozens of religious groups throughout history. I'll put my trust in the common interests of humanity, thank you very much.

Originally Posted by pizal81

If we are just animals why do we have any more dignity than a dog. We are just different species. My point that you ignored was that there is no difference between right and wrong on atheism. If I want to rape someone damn the consequences there is no moral reason not to do it. The idea that people have a special dignity is predicated on the existence of God or gods.

Perhaps that last is true.

On the other hand, appeals to 'dignity' are themselves no better than appeals to deities. What we do have is the fact that behaving in a manner more or less consistent with what is pretty universally-recognized as a basic moral code is an objectively-successful survival strategy for a social animal species. No deities necessary -- the hard-wired capacity to create and maintain societies is simply a very effective way for animals dependent on a social environment to not die out. Like how lightweight porous bones and no teeth are a very effective way for flying animals to not die out. And how gills are a very effective way for aquatic animals not to die out.

The hard-wired inclination (not just capacity, mind) to behave in a civilized manner towards at least those we recognize as our own, as well as the capacity for us to take an expansive view of what constitutes 'our own', are our gills and wings.

Gods aren't necessary -- just unimaginable numbers of iterations running up against against cold, merciless entropy.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Actually, I was illustrating the fact that "keeping religion out of politics" requires a pretty massive infringement of the First Amendment. Religious values and religious leaders have always played a role in politics in America. The First Amendment is designed to preserve religious liberty, not impose atheism on society.

I don't think you can keep religious values out of politics. But there's a difference between values and dogma.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by The Rani

Dude. You really believe that animal abuse is acceptable?

It was badly worded, but I think he's arguing the case that religion separates us from nature in the raw. I disagree, but I get what he is saying.

I'd like to hear his response, if you don't mind.

I don't mind at all, but if you expect a private response, don't post an open question in a public place.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

The religious freedom issue is that religious employers are abusing the substantial market power granted to them by our ridiculous insurance system to control their employees lives. The employee is the one whose free exercise is being abused, not the employer.

Are you still working under the quaint assumption that individuals have rights, but corporations do not?