Quote :

"but if there really is no big guy upstairs, what's stopping people from murdering, raping, and doing whatever the hell they want?"

another, more trite response to that, is to simply pose this scenario:
A Christian man may ask, "If it is not for the fear of God, what is to stop you from cheating on your wife?"

Well, I would say... "I love my wife, respect her, and care for her and her feelings. It would cause her great pain if I cheated on her, and it would cause me great guilt and shame for breaking the single most important promise I have ever made to her."
Is that not enough reason for anyone with a conscious? I say to him, "if the only reason you're not cheating on your wife is because you fear the repercussions from God, then I feel sorry for your wife."

10/31/2008 12:03:47 AM

Quote :

"Give me reasons. So far, I don't see anyone "respecting" my beliefs. I see them disagreeing with me and telling me why they disagree with them (well, most of the time), and I admire that. I, personally, can handle criticism. I'm sorry if people with religious faith cannot."

Common decency.

Criticize me all you want. I don't think you're any worse of a person than I am because you don't believe what I do. I don't go around calling atheists immoral pieces of shit or whatever. What's the point of being an asshole about it? And it's not even when you're engaged with a discussion with somebody about it, atheists just throw around terms like "nutjobs" and "lunatics" when referring to Christians, even if they're normal and fairly moderate Christians like myself.

Quote :

"Atheism has a comparatively small public voice, but it is a voice that many believers hear. However, when they listen to this voice, they often hear little more than slurs and insults. When interacting with atheists, believers are frequently met with the same arrogance and condescension, the same hatred and vitriol, the same bigotry and prejudice, as atheists so often receive from believers. In short, believers tend to encounter in atheists exactly what they have been taught to expect."

- Mark I. Vuletic, an atheist

That's what I'm saying.

10/31/2008 12:05:21 AM

^^

I think there are 2 options, which I basically presented earlier.

1.) People who use that argument are just idiots or just aren't thinking when they say it, because if they could think or did think, they'd realize that it's not only a painfully stupid argument but also doesn't reflect even their own lives.
2.) People who use that argument should be preemptively locked up and evaluated for psychotic tendencies. Maybe if that had been done all along, 9/11, Oklahoma City, The Crusades, and the Israel / Palestine fighting would never have happened. Actually, the funny thing about Israel and Palestine is that NOBODY would want to live there if not for religious reasons. It's a fucking desert.

^
So, I'm not exercising common decency when I present a name for a deity that describes him exactly as he is described by his followers? A deity who lives in the sky is NOT a sky fairy? Or are you saying that it's indecent to point out reality to people?

[Edited on October 31, 2008 at 12:09 AM. Reason : .]

10/31/2008 12:07:58 AM

look, i'm not trying to shit on atheism here. i respect that as your belief and your view

the only point i was trying to make is that i think hate and bigotry, and all of the chaos that comes with it could exist in a godless society as well. that is all.

v clearly i don't act out of fear of punishment and i don't think anyone really does (in fact i think your suggestion that i seek help or that i'm another species is a bit trite and unneccessary). but, if someone truely is sick or lacks all morality, are their actions actually wrong? basically, who is responsible for passing the ultimate judgement on what is acceptable and what is not? and are those actions written in stone or are they subject to change as a society progresses?

[Edited on October 31, 2008 at 12:30 AM. Reason : ]

10/31/2008 12:08:59 AM

You are obviously quite confused.

I don't care if you shit on atheism, because I'm not some namby pamby person who gets his feelings hurt when someone questions what I think. I know how to argue my points and point out stupidity. This is the entire point. As a person with no religious beliefs based on nothing but speculation and thousands-of-years-old books, I base my thoughts on evidence and reality, as much as that is possible for a person to do and still function in society. The faithful, on the other hand, live their lives based on ideas that are more delicate than eggshells and expect everyone else to tiptoe over those shells like they do. I refuse to tiptoe over someone else's eggshells just because they accidentally stuck them under my heels.

What I'm upset about is that you have insulted the whole of humanity and presented yourself as an idiot, which I don't think you really are, but you won't simply admit that what you said was stupid as hell and retract it. You also won't answer my very simple question, which I'll repeat here:

Let me ask you this - are YOU only not murdering and raping people because you believe there will be punishment for you in the afterlife? If so, please do seek help. If not, do you think that some percentage of the world thinks that way? What percentage?

[Edited on October 31, 2008 at 12:14 AM. Reason : .]

10/31/2008 12:10:24 AM

Quote :

"I'm not exercising common decency when I present a name for a deity that describes him exactly as he is described by his followers? A deity who lives in the sky is NOT a sky fairy? Or are you saying that it's indecent to point out reality to people? "

You're not clever. Everybody who fucking read the sentence with "sky fairy" referring to God knew that it was meant to be a jab at Christians to insinuate that what they believe is the same as a children's make-believe fantasy story.

Quote :

"This is the entire point."

No, that's not the entire point. This was never a theological discussion. It was me bringing up the question as to why it's necessary to be such an asshole about what they don't believe and what others do.

[Edited on October 31, 2008 at 12:15 AM. Reason : .]

10/31/2008 12:13:58 AM

It WAS meant to point out exactly that, because it IS the same as a children's story. Am I really not making myself abundantly clear? What it wasn't, however, was a "jab." It's just the reality of the situation. It's like you'd say that my pointing out someone needed to eat when they looked sickly and were passing out was a "jab."

And I am clever. Very clever.

[Edited on October 31, 2008 at 12:16 AM. Reason : .]

10/31/2008 12:14:58 AM

Quote :

"the only point i was trying to make is that i think hate and bigotry, and all of the chaos that comes with it could exist in a godless society as well"

and again, we can pretty easily point out that much or most of the hate and bigotry in the world today is a result of religion and religious differences.
Not to mention the vast amounts of chaos in the world today associated with religious wars and religious fanatics, such as terrorists.

10/31/2008 12:15:56 AM

Quote :

"Sam Harris is on a mission to eradicate what he sees as the pernicious influence of religion from modern life. Now he’s written a misleading and shallow analysis of Islam and suicide bombers. His single-minded crusade has led him to a one-dimensional conclusion: It’s the religion, stupid. Except that it’s not. Sam, you’re oversimplifying. You’re attributing this behavior to religion alone, when logic and facts tell us it’s driven more by culture and politics than it is by theology. There are more than 1 billion Muslims worldwide, yet the vast majority of suicide bombers come from one language group (Arabic) comprising no more than 20% of all Muslims. While the practice has now spreading outside that one group (as we saw recently in Britain), it is doing so with training, support, and guidance from within it. Suicide bombing is a vile and hideous act that targets the innocent. Nevertheless, one isn't defending this horror by pointing out the obvious: A few hundred murderers cannot be used to condemn the beliefs of a billion people."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/blind-faith-sam-harris-_b_8686.html

10/31/2008 12:19:14 AM

^^true, but of course, if the entire world were one unanimous religion, whether it be christianity or atheism or any other, there would most likely be less chaos. you could agree with that, right?

so my question to atheist is this, and it is only out of curiosity: is society what passes the ultimate judgement of what is right and wrong? and are those morals subject to revision?

[Edited on October 31, 2008 at 12:20 AM. Reason : ]

10/31/2008 12:20:06 AM

^^ ........ point?

Quote :

"and are those morals subject to revision?"

of course, as society evolves, so does how people interact with each other.
You know, just like how half of the Bible is ignored today by modern Christians because it's backwards archaic bullshit, like how to treat your slaves or how to punish gays.

[Edited on October 31, 2008 at 12:22 AM. Reason : .]

10/31/2008 12:20:22 AM

.... read?

10/31/2008 12:21:55 AM

^^ so then would it be just to execute someone today if society evolved only to later find those initial actions less vile or subject to less severe punishment?


v i don't think you're referencing me, because i never said a godless society would create more chaos (i don't believe it would create more) i just don't think it would end it.

[Edited on October 31, 2008 at 12:26 AM. Reason : ]

10/31/2008 12:23:40 AM

^^ you said that a godless society would somehow promote chaos.
I said that a world inundated with Gods of one kind or another seems to be doing just fine with promoting vast amounts of chaos already, even if it's just a select few people causing this chaos.

I see nothing in Harris' comments that would suggest a godless society would somehow be more chaotic than our current society.

10/31/2008 12:24:26 AM

^^ sure. As I said, as societies evolve, morals and values will evolve with them.

I know you're trying to back me into a corner by acting like The Word of God is this on-high, never changing set of morals and values that will always be true.
But when was the last time anyone, Christian or not, suggested stoning to death was legitimate punishment for being gay, as is demanded in Leviticus?
When was the last time you punish someone for working on the Sabbath or coveting your neighbor's property, as Commanded to all Christians?

Seems like God's values are changing and evolving right along with the rest of society's.

10/31/2008 12:29:22 AM

Quote :

"And for an atheist, unlike a Christian, death is not just the start of an eternity sitting in the clouds. i.e. an atheist has no reason to look forward to death, and therefore has all the reason in the world to behave like a rational, compassionate human in order to prolong his life on Earth as long as possible, because there is nothing after this. Killing and raping people is certainly one way to end your life on Earth as quickly as possible."

This.

I mean, seriously, to everyone reading this who believes in God and Heaven:

If dying means eternal bliss and happiness, why do you wear a seat belt?

10/31/2008 12:30:23 AM

^^dude, relax. i'm not trying to back you into a corner or push christianity on you. i'm not very religious at all. i'm just asking questions, because i'm geniunely curious on your views.


yikes...

10/31/2008 12:32:55 AM

And we're genuinely curious on why you believe in God. Have you ever really thought about it?

10/31/2008 12:33:39 AM

who said i believe in god? you kind of just assumed that about me. ever think there's a reason why i'm curious on your beliefs?


and you said with a sense of certainty that as societies evolve their morals do as well. so, given how large the earth is, is not possible that those morals shift from the original morals based on a groups region? if so, then wouldn't there exist the possibility of moral differences between groups and factions, possibly resulting in hate, bigotry, and all that jazz? i mean, this is the real reason why i don't think a godless society is any less likely to revert to war and hate than one with multiple religions. that's not to suggest that you insinuated that, but someone (can't remember who) basically blamed religion for most of societies problems, if not only a large part.

[Edited on October 31, 2008 at 12:42 AM. Reason : ]

10/31/2008 12:35:40 AM

burn

10/31/2008 12:48:34 AM

lol its gonna be the shit if we get 60 in the senate + obama

10/31/2008 12:54:54 AM

^^

"..And I had no clue I flew to a fund-raiser and was accepting money from an Atheist group. I was told just to walk in, take the check, smile, and walk out. You can't expect me to know where all my contributions are coming from, can you? Money is money."

[Edited on October 31, 2008 at 12:55 AM. Reason : .]

10/31/2008 12:55:13 AM

Quote :

"So far, I don't see anyone "respecting" my beliefs. I see them disagreeing with me and telling me why they disagree with them (well, most of the time), and I admire that. I, personally, can handle criticism. I'm sorry if people with religious faith cannot."

There's a large difference between people disagreeing with your beliefs and you running around attempting to be inflammatory.

So while I respect the fact that you're an atheist, it doesn't mean you're not intentionally a dick about it.

Quote :

"However, find me someone who hates Jews, homosexuals, or abortion supporters "for no real reason" or for a reason that isn't religious."

Are you kidding me? Adolf Hilter. That was kind of his thing.

10/31/2008 8:23:30 AM

Yeah, he's like the Neo of those issues. The one "anomaly."

But, if you look at the majority of people in America who are against those issues, the reason always boils down to something about the Bible telling them so.

10/31/2008 8:41:22 AM

wait, what? Hitler is an anomaly because his hatred of Jews wasn't religiously motivated?

I must have these speech and book quotes mixed up with another Adolf Hitler then.....

Quote :

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Quote :

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison."

Quote :

"I say: my Christian feeling tells me that my lord and savior is a warrior. It calls my attention to the man who, lonely and surrounded by only a few supporters, recognized what they [the Jews] were, and called for a battle against them, and who, by God, was not the greatest sufferer, but the greatest warrior. . ."

Quote :

"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lords work."

[Edited on October 31, 2008 at 8:50 AM. Reason : .]

10/31/2008 8:49:37 AM

agentlion: It's naive, at best, to chalk Hilter's motivations for the slaughtering of Jews, gays, and gypsies as a type of religious fervor.

If you're asking me if I believe he would've used religion as a way to motivate those around him, as evidenced above, then yes, I'd agree with you.

10/31/2008 9:02:37 AM

those quotes came from Mein Kampf and from speeches in the early 1920s, indicating that his original hatred of Jews was based in his Christianity. It appears that he became more secular later in life, but he carried those feelings with him.

10/31/2008 9:10:38 AM

[Edited on October 31, 2008 at 10:16 AM. Reason : embed fail]

10/31/2008 10:16:29 AM

I've made my points and, I feel, proven that the claim of people only being good because of god is idiotic, so I'm leaving now. This shit gives me a headache.

10/31/2008 10:56:43 AM

i hear you. me too.....

back to the point - go Hagan!
http://www.pollster.com/polls/nc/08-nc-sen-ge-dvh.php

10/31/2008 10:59:43 AM

I was hoping that there would be some posts about Kay Hagan and Elizabeth Dole, because i'm stil on the fence.

wtf was i thinking?

10/31/2008 11:00:52 AM

Oh, I can help with that.

Dole is clearly a classless assclown, so vote Hagan.

10/31/2008 11:05:15 AM

what is there to be on the fence about with these two?

What redeeming qualities does Dole have for NC? Seriously.

10/31/2008 11:05:43 AM

Granted, I haven't been following it closely, but I can tell you that while Hagan every so often has a commercial about what she wants to do in the gov't, Dole's ads consist of either "Hagan is godless and never takes a stand on anything" or "Hey, if you like low taxes, you should vote for me because I like low taxes, too"

Honestly, I think Dole is just trying to run on name recognition at this point.

10/31/2008 11:05:59 AM

After hosing me off in the yard, they blindfolded me and drove me to a trailer in an undisclosed location where I was greeted by some of the most beleaguered members of the Republican senatorial establishment. Mitch McConnell was there. So were Norm Coleman, Gordon Smith, Saxby Chambliss, and Elizabeth and Bob Dole.
Sen. McConnell began the briefing, saying, "General, we're getting our asses kicked out there."
"That's right," Elizabeth Dole interjected, "Pat Roberts is already at 55%. He's creaming me."
"Jesus H. Christ," McConnell responded, "how many times do I have to explain it to you? You live in Kansas, so Roberts is your senator, but you are North Carolina's senator, and therefore, your opponent is Kay Hagen. Now enough of this bullshit; let me brief the General."

http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2008/10/heart-of-dorkness-mission.html

10/31/2008 11:18:50 AM

Only right-wing crazy moonbats and illeterates would be dumb enough to vote for Dole

10/31/2008 11:31:07 AM

AFAIK, dole hasn't done anything particularly good or bad-- basically just been an absentee.

I'm cool with that, but, certainly if NC was in some serious need of federal assistance, she might be playing nero.

Kay hagan has a history of voting for sales tax increases. Therein lies my issue with her-- typical tax loving democrat.

10/31/2008 9:26:25 PM

^what the hell? Cool with a "do nothing" Senator as long as the Senator is not a Democrat??? take of your GOP blinders for once.....

of course, you are the 100k plus a year crowd who just loves the GOP....

[Edited on October 31, 2008 at 9:32 PM. Reason : w]

10/31/2008 9:31:35 PM

who is going to vote for obama.

so....

what were you saying again?

This thread is 4 pages long, and not a single post has any substantive argument for or against either candidate.

[Edited on October 31, 2008 at 9:50 PM. Reason : more]

10/31/2008 9:48:49 PM

Quote :

"Kay hagan has a history of voting for sales tax increases. Therein lies my issue with her-- typical tax loving democrat."

and sales tax increases usually go to public projects like infrastructure and schools.
How else would you propose we pay for them?

10/31/2008 9:49:35 PM

I thought schools were primarily property taxes?

I really feel icky voting for either one, but I really, really hate Dole trying to smear Hagan by insinuating she wants to take Christmas away.

10/31/2008 9:51:37 PM

We are already regressively taxed to shit in NC between high income taxes, high sales taxes, high gas taxes, and our awesome education lottery. We need more taxes why? Just because it's easier to pull more money out of our wallets than it is for the government to trim wasteful spending.

10/31/2008 10:03:09 PM

The education lottery is a joke, and everything the opponents said would happen pretty much came true.

Our state level leadership has been pretty pathetic all around, and there is nothing the local politicians are saying that really show they have any interest at all in trying to fix things, or that they are capable of fixing things.

10/31/2008 10:05:30 PM

This was a good thread before people started attempting to discuss theology.

11/1/2008 7:41:31 AM

Dole is in the top 10 for politicians that have taken money from the oil industry she may change gas prices but it won't be in the way you want.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cid=N00008071&cycle=2008

11/1/2008 7:47:49 AM

Both are shitty, I voted Cole.

11/1/2008 11:08:39 PM

Is it true Dole only spent 6 days in NC on 2006 or something like that?

11/1/2008 11:11:16 PM

Quote :

"WASHINGTON - Locked in a tight re-election bid, Sen. Elizabeth Dole has become a familiar face in North Carolina this year. She's spent nearly 100 days here, cheering at ACC basketball games and NASCAR races, meeting with troops and local sheriffs, and, of course, attending fundraisers and enjoying plenty of barbecue. Her frequent travel across North Carolina this year is a departure from previous years, when Dole has spent much less time in the state, a review of Senate travel records shows. Dole's critics say that the amount of time Dole has spent in North Carolina during her term -- especially 2006, when records document only 13 days of visits -- suggest she is out-of-touch with N.C. voters."

http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2008/sep/28/nc-time-an-issue-in-dole-race/

11/1/2008 11:23:19 PM

^ wow, is that normal practice for senators to not spend MOST of their time in the state they represent?

Why is there even a question of if she even spend 10% of her time in NC?

11/1/2008 11:29:12 PM

not normal at all, especially when it's a state close to DC

I bet Ted Stevens spent more time in Alaska or Senators Akaka or Inouye spent more time in Hawaii....


(don't quote me on that, just assuming... )

11/1/2008 11:32:45 PM