DescentBB

I am magnet for theists, and I have no idea why.

While on a walk with my dog, I ran across a group of people openly worshiping in a park and they tried to stop me to pray with them. I informed the individual that I was agnostic and that I donâ??t subscribe to any one religious belief.

I was informed that, without god there are no values. I tried to argue that prayer and the open display of worship are not values. They are actions. They are actions like homosexual acts.

Do you think homosexual acts should be openly displayed or do you think such a private perform needs to stay where it belongs: behind closed doors? That's how I view prayer and worship. These are private matters. I'm sure Christians wouldn't be too thrilled if the Wiccans of Salem decided to start "openly display their worship" in the town's square, Or Islamic minarets in your city "openly" announcing the call to prayer for Muslims?

Can't values simply be an effort to make our short lives on this earth as pleasant as possible for one another? I would tend to argue that basing morality on a deity makes the moral acts self-serving. Doing these acts mainly to stay in the good graces of a god, rather than to serve your fellow man.

Let us take the beam out of our own eye before we try to pluck the speck from our neighbors.

While I am agnostic and not atheist, this quote accurately shows my contempt for the need of spiritual enlightenment.

â??We are all Atheists; some of us just believe in fewer gods than others. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.â?

BfDiDDy wrote:basing morality on a deity makes the moral acts self-serving.

Find me a single basis of morality that isn't self-serving. People aren't going to follow what doesn't suit their own interests.

Whoa. A post in E&C I can wholeheartedly agree with (goes for Tet too). That doesn't happen every day

Yeah, religion should be a personal matter. People should keep it to themselves - as long as they do, I don't mind one bit, just as they won't mind me keeping mine to myself.

Of course, religion can be excercised in groups, and often is, in churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, or even outdoors like this. That doesn't bother me.

What's wrong is them not leaving you alone once you had made it fairly clear you were not a follower of - nor interested in - their belief. Freedom of religion goes both ways.

Did they threaten to kill you if you didn't pray with them? If not, then your definition of "fanatic" seems a bit strong.

There's nothing wrong with praying or meditating in a public place. They shouldn't push it on you, however.

BfDiDDy wrote:I am magnet for theists, and I have no idea why.

Off hand, I'd say someone is praying for you behind those closed doors. Now you have 2 more...

I look at it this way: when one type of faith is condoned and displayed in public while another type of faith displayed in public discouraged is quite hypocritical and selfish. I think there is even a section on the US constitution starting that people have the right to freedom of religion.

Now if freedom of religion is not allowed.. I wonder what else won't be allowed.

BFDD, I don't mean to be offensive, but I just wanted to get your take on a few situations. Would you disapprove of someone, me for instance, openly wearing religious medals or a crucifix? How about a group of nuns in full habits walking down the street? Or a group of devout Muslim women in burqas? How about a person silently praying on a street corner or a bus? Do you feel uncomfortable about people doing these things? They're not in private, as they can be seen by anyone, but are they doing you any real harm? I understand that the group you encountered made you uncomfortable; I agree that they went too far, and I agree with Wolf's statement that religion should not be forced upon anyone who expresses no interest in it. However, can you really make religious practices go behind closed doors? You mentioned the Muslim call to prayer; do you have any problem with the ringing of church bells? It's really the same message expressed in a different fashion. I'm not trying to convince you that religious faith is necessary or worthwhile; that's your own decision. But, as the First Amendment says, there is a freedom of religious belief and practice in this country. No one can be forced to hide their beliefs or to give them up. Those people had every right to worship outdoors, even if they were heavy-handed with you. This is one of the basic tenets of this country, and as tough as it may seem, this is one of those "accept it or leave" issues.

(I agree with Pebkac: those people were by no means "fanatics." Maybe a little over-zealous, yes, but if you want to see the definition of a true fanatic, turn on CNN and wait for some Middle East coverage. There's a big difference.)

They are actions like homosexual acts.

I don't think I'll join you on the idea bus in which speaking about religion in public equates to same-gender sex in public. I may have gotten on board if you compared it to a gay pride march or something. But, I guess those aren't kept behind close doors, so the analogy would fall apart.

Sorry you were accosted by the unpleasantness of "fanatics". I'm glad you didn't drink the Kool-Aid though, as your presence verifies

Proud athiest!

Anecdote mode:

I found myself working in the negev around sixteen years ago building massive greenhouses for an Israeli firm. Along with myself and a few Israelis there were twenty odd Palestinian lads all mucking in to build these things. All of a sudden the lads downed tools, wipped out their mats and proceeded to kneel in prayer. What i noticed was that the rest of us sat waiting, maybe a little embarrassed, but nevertheless respectful of their religion, as it should be. After they finished we up tooled and got on with it. Nothing was said till we went to eat and one of the lads asked me if i had a god. After i replied no,he said, "hmmm... i wonder who's right?" I'll never forget it.

I don't mind public displays of prayer, but i hate to be forced to listen to it because the people involved think it's right. Leave me to my own view on how the world works and i'll leave you with yours.

Top, I think bfdd was focusing more on public displays with public harassment (even with supposed good intent). I don't think anyone cares about private prayer in public, whether it's a group in a park or an individual standing on the corner.

I'm curious how that person equated no god=no good values. I have no god, yet I have plenty of good values. Probably more than most that have a god.

Flabby Chick wrote:...

...why did I have this thought in my in head that you were Jewish? Maybe the whole living Israel thing I guess.

Well I'm Lutheran by heritage and I still consider myself to be. But the other day I was driving and people were preaching on the street corner (probably not Lutheran, more likely Baptist), holding signs, reading from the Bible etc. And it really bothered me because A. it was annoying. B. since it was annoying it was horribly presented. C. because it was horribly presented it was an embarassment to what I feel I was apart of.

Who on earth gets out of their car to listen to something that they initially feel is not for them anyway? It's like your preaching to the choir. No, it's worse than that, it's like advertisments and spam on the Interent. I didn't ask you to preach to me, but you did it unsolicited. I already buy your product so take me off your newsletter. I really think these people need some classes in salesmenship. What if HP got 10 people on a street corner and started yelling "HP deskjets on sale! Buy them now! 50% off! It's the only way to print things! Abandon Cannon and Epson!" over and over and over again. "Jesus Saves" sounds like a great punch line, but it means nothing if you don't express the benifits (and consequences) of joining. You can't get people interested in something by scaring them into it. That's when you know your a cult instead of a religion.

Nope not Jewish. The Mrs and Kids are though....in a pig eating, non synagogue, rafting on shabbat, bbq on yom kippur kind of way.

The box i've been placed in is Methodist, from a family of very high ranking Salvation Army-ists. It's where i discovered my atheism.

I agree with Testi. People for long have associated knowing god with knowing good and evil. I don't pray to any god but I wont' go out and shoot someone. And I certainly dont bother people that are praying and tell them there is no god, nor do I knock on their door and tell them that.

First off, let me say that Iâ??m not attacking religion, Iâ??m not attacking someoneâ??s right to their first amendment. Iâ??m upholding everyoneâ??s right to live life the way they chose to live life.

Top Gun wrote:BFDD, I don't mean to be offensive, but I just wanted to get your take on a few situations. Would you disapprove of someone, me for instance, openly wearing religious medals or a crucifix? How about a group of nuns in full habits walking down the street? Or a group of devout Muslim women in burqas? How about a person silently praying on a street corner or a bus? Do you feel uncomfortable about people doing these things? They're not in private, as they can be seen by anyone, but are they doing you any real harm?

Iâ??ve seen a few homosexual marriage threads, and their rights, in the E&C and so Iâ??m going to use this for an example. Would it be as offensive if I saw someone with a rainbow sticker on their back windshield? Or someone quietly kissing his husband on the street corner. Or a man in full drag walking down the street. All of these things are as intrusive into my life as your examples, they do not effect me. Do I find this behavior repulsive, no. Distasteful, yes. Iâ??m not saying that I find the act of homosexuality objectionable. Iâ??m expressing a sense of resentment towards having to show personal correlation to ANY belief on your sleeve. Individualism is the greatest gift to mankind. Religious belief that requires you to show outward belief, diminishes everything that is so great about being a human being.

If you have to identify yourself with a deity to have comfort in your life. I, without a doubt would fight for your right to do that. In the same respect I would hope that those individuals would give me the respect to make my decision of my own free will. I value people like Duper who, till this day, I have never known to be â??Christianâ?

Just to be curious, exactly why do you feel that public religious displays are in poor taste? I know that you personally do not have religious beliefs, but is it a real problem if someone expresses them in public? True, it may make you feel uncomfortable, but I wouldn't consider it to be poor taste. To the people who have religious faith, it is the central and most important aspect of their lives, more so than anything else. Given this view, isn't it only right that they acknowledge such a large part of who they are? It may seem strange or distasteful to you, but to those of a religious persuasion, it seems as natural as breathing or eating. That may seem a bit corny, but it's the way that many people feel, possibly the majority of people.

I myself would never dream of prosletyzing in a public manner, as the people whom you encountered did. I, too, have seen many examples of this, both physically and on the Internet, and I agree that such tactics are disrespectful and overbearing. I recognize the right of every person to have their own beliefs, and even if I wish that everyone would share my own beliefs, I would certainly never tell them so.

You mention individuality as an important value of humanity. If you feel this way, why do you have such issues with public displays of faith? Does a "Jesus fish" bumper sticker cause any real harm? If you don't like it, ignore it. Do you have any problem with the displays Testi mentioned, or the situation that Flabby Chick was in? In both cases, no one is trying to persuade you to believe anything. If I walk outside wearing a crucifix, I'm not trying to convert the passers-by to Christianity. I'm simply making a statement about my own beliefs and my pride in them. To me, the ability to do so is the single-most endearing factor about our country, and, offensive to you or not, these public displays must be allowed to continue.

Edit: I do recognize that morality and ethics aren't limited to those with religious faith. While my own moral beliefs are centered on my faith, I know that many people who are not religious still have a similar code of ethics. People like those you met probably think that all atheists are murderous pedophiles or something .

Edit 2: Drakona put it much more eloquently than I could below.

Man, I just would have Hootie piss on their blanket.

BfDiDDy wrote:I was informed that, without god there are no values. I tried to argue that prayer and the open display of worship are not values.

I have heard apologists make this argument; usually when they do, I play devil's advocate because I am not sure the argument works all that well. Nonetheless, here's the strongest form of it I know:

It's not that without God you couldn't come up with moral rules. You can: you can say, for example as Tetrad has, an action is moral if it does good for the lowest members of society. This works out quite well, and if you think hard enough, you can get most acts that we perceive as right from that declaration.

The problem is, there was nothing to stop you from saying something else. Where does that axiom come from, what makes it right? Without God, so the argument goes, it's really nothing more than personal preference.

If Tetrad found himself in a society that believed the exact opposite--say, Extremist Social Darwinists, who believed that if you could do harm to, or kill someone, you should--that it was good for the general population to be competetive--how could he argue with these people? The answer is that he couldn't; it's his preference against theirs, and nothing more than personal taste.

So you can make morals for yourself by yourself, but that's all you really have the authority to do. To make morals that hold more generally, you need a higher entity. A government or society, being a higher entity than individuals, has the authority make laws that apply to everyone within the society. But not outside of it. Who has the authority to set moral standards that hold across time and culture? The UN is a good start, but who has the authority to say the UN is wrong? I think you can see where this is heading...

I have in the past taken issue with that. I wondered, what if moral rules are simply free-floating laws of the universe? Perhaps "thou shalt not murder" is as much a universal law as "thou shalt be attracted to other bodies with a force proportional to the product of your masses divided by the square of your distance from them." Certainly everyone seems to be able to perceive moral laws with greater or lesser clarity. Maybe they're just universal. Maybe you don't need God--maybe the universe is enough.

My thinking on that changed when I began to wonder where moral laws come from. The answer is that they're based on values, and so many are local laws. We here on the internet *value* productive discussion, so we have a *moral law* about spam.

Likewise, many laws we take for granted come from valuing things like human life and liberty, or property. We agree on the laws easily because we commonly value those things.

Where do values come from, though? Who has the right to say a human being is valuable? Certainly the universe doesn't care. But God does. So I am again convinced that solid morality rests on God.

Top Gun wrote:Just to be curious, exactly why do you feel that public religious displays are in poor taste? I know that you personally do not have religious beliefs, but is it a real problem if someone expresses them in public? True, it may make you feel uncomfortable, but I wouldn't consider it to be poor taste. To the people who have religious faith, it is the central and most important aspect of their lives, more so than anything else. Given this view, isn't it only right that they acknowledge such a large part of who they are? It may seem strange or distasteful to you, but to those of a religious persuasion, it seems as natural as breathing or eating. That may seem a bit corny, but it's the way that many people feel, possibly the majority of people.

This is honestly just a side not to my main quarrel with religion that without a deity that one has no possibility to values.

I myself would never dream of prosletyzing in a public manner, as the people whom you encountered did. I, too, have seen many examples of this, both physically and on the Internet, and I agree that such tactics are disrespectful and overbearing. I recognize the right of every person to have their own beliefs, and even if I wish that everyone would share my own beliefs, I would certainly never tell them so.

You mention individuality as an important value of humanity. If you feel this way, why do you have such issues with public displays of faith? Does a "Jesus fish" bumper sticker cause any real harm? If you don't like it, ignore it. Do you have any problem with the displays Testi mentioned, or the situation that Flabby Chick was in? In both cases, no one is trying to persuade you to believe anything. If I walk outside wearing a crucifix, I'm not trying to convert the passers-by to Christianity. I'm simply making a statement about my own beliefs and my pride in them. To me, the ability to do so is the single-most endearing factor about our country, and, offensive to you or not, these public displays must be allowed to continue.

Maybe my point was not clear cut in my last two posts, Iâ??m not arguing for or against public displays of religion, but that religious conservatives believe that because I have no defined â??faithâ?

Drakona wrote: Where do values come from, though? Who has the right to say a human being is valuable? Certainly the universe doesn't care. But God does. So I am again convinced that solid morality rests on God.

This is an extremely valid point, one that I do not share, but valid none the less. My point is that people I have encountered, including the ones from last night, alluded to the fact that I am a moral less heathen that cuts goats and drinks their blood(not really), but they did say that I was a infidel without values. And that is what I take exception to.

Diddy, like it or not: Your post is not smart, but rather pretty mindless.

It's pretty provocative, if not to say: malicious, to compare religious worship to homosexual practises.

I reckon you are socially skilled enough to understand that there is a difference between public worship and public display of sexual intercourse however not.

Contrary to what you believe, witnessing their faith and God is not a private matter for Christians (I guess the people you had met were Christians), but something they are commanded by God to do publicly. It is rather your very private matter whether you consider worship has to happen privately or not.

I guess you are also smart enough to understand that the people hinting you to God and pointing out there were no values w/o God were aiming at your motives that kept you from accepting prayer, and not to your refusal to worship with them or receive prayer in the first place.

I wasn't around, but did these people really tell you that you are a monster w/o values? I doubt that. It's just polemics of yours to express it that way (and so is calling these people religious "fanatics" - or did they wave a sword before your nose and threaten to behead you if you wouldn't get baptized at once?). I guess they rather expressed that w/o God you aren't really able to live up to His standards (values), which is absolutely true, and absolutely fatal if you don't change it (which is your private decision, heh). Btw, actually all positive values in this world come from God, believe it or not.

You should rather acknowledge that these people took you serious enough to talk about very profound matters with you than trying to ridicule them in a way that is not as smart as you believe it is.

Diedel

BFDD, I put an edit in at the bottom of my original post that addressed what you were getting at. It must have come in just before you posted . I, too, think it's absurd to treat those with no religious beliefs as morally lacking savages. In fact, there are many atheists who are much better people that some with strong religious convictions. I guess some people just can't live with those who don't think the same way they do.

If you had understood Christian teaching right, you'd know that it says that nobody can live up to Gods values, and that God alone make a person do so. That's what Christians are trying to tell you. Actually, God says that every human being w/o Jesus Christ is totally rotten. The only thing that can change that is that God puts the life and nature of Jesus Christ into a Christian. This life and nature should then grow and reshape that person. Actually, if God loves a Christian, then he loves that new nature in that person, which in the end is the presence of God (his Holy Spirit) in that person. This reshaping is a process. Don't expect Christians to be perfect - that's why they need God's grace every day, hour and moment in their lives.

Drakona wrote:Who has the right to say a human being is valuable?

I'm valuable to me. Infinitely so, no less. I can also presume that everybody is valuable to themselves in the same amount.

That seems to me like a pretty good foundation to me for a basis of morality.

Diedel wrote:Diddy, like it or not: Your post is not smart, but rather pretty mindless.

Ad homonym attacks, typical obfuscation tactics. Iâ??ve seen you use this on the DBB to mask your inability to argue the topic.

It's pretty provocative, if not to say: malicious, to compare religious worship to homosexual practises.

I reckon you are socially skilled enough to understand that there is a difference between public worship and public display of sexual intercourse however not.

You missed my point completely, so Iâ??ll quote myself to give you another chance to read what I said.

I tried to argue that prayer and the open display of worship are not values. They are actions.

I think this is as clear and concise as I can be, I view prayer and worship no more of an action than making dinner. In the same way that someone of a same-gender relationship was to show their affection towards their significant other. I personally have no affiliation towards any deity and in doing so, I feel no extra compassion for prayer.

Contrary to what you believe, witnessing their faith and God is not a private matter for Christians (I guess the people you had met were Christians), but something they are commanded by God to do publicly. It is rather your very private matter whether you consider worship has to happen privately or not.

Again, I only have a minor annoyance with public displays of religion but you failed to take my argument with any merit because you have a dislike for me. If you had taken your time to read my argument, you would have realized that my disdain is for people of pious convictions, who judge me as less humane because the lack of my perceived spiritual enlightenment.

I guess you are also smart enough to understand that the people hinting you to God and pointing out there were no values w/o God were aiming at your motives that kept you from accepting prayer, and not to your refusal to worship with them or receive prayer in the first place.

I had no motives besides picking up my dogs poop. They approached me, I did not approach them.

I wasn't around, but did these people really tell you that you are a monster w/o values? I doubt that. It's just polemics of yours to express it that way (and so is calling these people religious "fanatics" - or did they wave a sword before your nose and threaten to behead you if you wouldn't get baptized at once?). I guess they rather expressed that w/o God you aren't really able to live up to His standards (values), which is absolutely true, and absolutely fatal if you don't change it (which is your private decision, heh).

Yes, you were not there, and yes, they told me that if I was not saved by the lord jesus christ, that I had no moral conviction. Again, Iâ??ve already covered the word fanaticism in this thread, and I suggest you go back and re-read my post.

Btw, actually all positive values in this world come from God, believe it or not.

Finally, after 6 paragraphs of misapprehension you hit the nail on the head. I want to know WHY theist believe that without a deity, we would have no way to continue life in a humanitarian approach

You should rather acknowledge that these people took you serious enough to talk about very profound matters with you than trying to ridicule them in a way that is not as smart as you believe it is.

Again, Iâ??ll refer you to my point that to someone that has secular beliefs or agnostic viewpoint, prayer has of little consequence than making a pizza.

To close out diedel, if you donâ??t fully understand the topic, donâ??t make a fool of yourself and try and molest my thread. Although I admire your fortitude in following me, derailing a thread for your own personal gain is self serving. It seems that there are enough people on both sides of this fence that we can debate this without you calling people names. If you have any comments about the topic of values in reference to a single religion, letâ??s hear them, but if you came here just to pee in my wheaties, Iâ??ll be glad to start a new thread in which you can verbally assault my intelligence there.

Top Gun wrote:BFDD, I put an edit in at the bottom of my original post that addressed what you were getting at. It must have come in just before you posted . I, too, think it's absurd to treat those with no religious beliefs as morally lacking savages. In fact, there are many atheists who are much better people that some with strong religious convictions. I guess some people just can't live with those who don't think the same way they do.

I should have been clearer in my original post. The premise that without god, there are no values is absurd to me.

Drakona wrote:thou shalt be attracted to other bodies with a force proportional to the product of your masses divided by the square of your distance from them.

Doesn't modern physics show that the attraction is related to absolute velocity also?

Here is what I think the core of all of the problems with religion and disagreements about religion is. People come to a point where they ask this question: "If two different opinions about something exist, can they both be right?" Well, in a limited scope, yes. Two people can look at an ink blot and see different things in it. But, when things contradict each other, ultimately one thing is correct and another is not. Numbers are wonderful examples of this: If I say that 2+2=5 and another says 2+2=4, one of us is right, and the other of us is wrong- we both cannot be right. So, that poses the question of which of these two realms religion lies in. A Christian will tell you that it lies in the second realm. People hate being wrong, so telling them they are wrong generally just makes them mad. Being right tends to make people prideful, also tending to make others mad- those two combined make the well intended attempts that many christians make at prosoletizing into an exercise in frustration for them, and an exercise in annoyance to those they are trying to convert. The main problem is, many christians are forgetting what the Bible teaches, and through their misguided attempts to do things their own way give the christian faith a bad name.

[edit] And, someone who is telling you that about values is also missing the point- christianity isn't about values- that just goes to show that you spoke with someone that was trying to earn their way into God's graces.

Snoopy wrote:

But, when things contradict each other, ultimately one thing is correct and another is not. Numbers are wonderful examples of this: If I say that 2+2=5 and another says 2+2=4, one of us is right, and the other of us is wrong- we both cannot be right.

I actually think that there are more things that can contradict without right or wrong than otherwise. You use a concrete logic example and then extapolate to opinions, morals, attitudes. What is a moral law and obviously right to one individual or cultural group can be morally repugnant and obviously wrong to another without there being a concrete right and wrong. A Jane will not kill for any reason, a Muslim can kill with his/her god's blessing in certain circumstances. Is one right? Is one wrong? Just a difference of opinion I think.

*yawn* at "god"...

Ford Prefect wrote:I actually think that there are more things that can contradict without right or wrong than otherwise. You use a concrete logic example and then extapolate to opinions, morals, attitudes.

snoopy wrote:So, that poses the question of which of these two realms religion lies in. A Christian will tell you that it lies in the second realm.

I wasn't meaning to make any statements about where religion really lies on that spectrum- I was trying to say that the average joe christian would say that- and I continued to show how that does little more than piss people off.
I suppose I should have worded it "telling people they are wrong" and "thinking you are right"- my point is that the sense of superiority that many christians have about them rubs people the wrong way.

As to your treatment of right/wrong being a matter of opinion, I agree with Drak. It seems to me that if everything where just a matter of opinion the world would have simmered down to utter chaos by now- as I think people have a tendancy to be self-seeking (at the expense of others) in nature.

I'm not so sure that you need god to give a sense of right and wrong or that society would fail without some outside guiding force. Sheer evolution ensured that those who could not live within a functioning society would have been replaced with those to whom a functioning family/societal group dynamic was important. We are more succesful as a species when we work together and those that lack that internal drive would be on the short end of the evolutionary stick.
Are morals just a survival instinct? Why not? Look at music. Why does the majority of mankind enjoy making or listening to music? Well look at it this way. If two groups of humans are living amoung nocturnal predators and one spends most of the night banging on tree trunks and wailing while the other beds down for a good night's sleep while the fire burns down, which group will have more members at the end of the season? So we humans, on the most part, have a built in instinct for music. Same with basic moral codes, they are part of our instictive make up. Killing innocent members of society reduces the number of members of our group without giving any return. Steal your nieghbours stuff and he hates you and lets the jackals chew you up when they catch you at an unguarded moment.
You don't need a god to make morals good evolutionary sense. And 5 billion humans did not come to inhabit the earth because we are poor evolutionary risks.
Remember that the last few thousand years of civilizaton are the merest drop in the bucket in the story of the evolution of man. Our roots go much much deeper than building pyramids and suits of armor. Mankind spent tens of thousands of years as hunters and gatherers before this madly accelerating industrialization got under way.

Don't worry, there's an asteroid with our name on it.

Here's another thing: chrisians can have their music on the radio all they like. but I haven't heard any muslim, jewish, hindu, or bhuddist music on the radio. why is that?

snoopy wrote: As to your treatment of right/wrong being a matter of opinion, I agree with Drak. It seems to me that if everything where just a matter of opinion the world would have simmered down to utter chaos by now- as I think people have a tendancy to be self-seeking (at the expense of others) in nature.

See this is my problem with theist, they deduct that without the divine intervention of a deity, we would all be heathens running around with little less than a loin cloth and having mass orgies to satisfy our contemptuous sexual desires. Thatâ??s not to say that was your intentions when you wrote that snoopy, but thatâ??s the implication that most have. Most religious fundamentalists look upon me with utter discontentment and disgust. Like I go home and perform pagan rituals on chickens all while I cut myself with a razor.

Case in point, Harry Potter Movies. I loved them, however this mother at the grocery store didnâ??t agree with me. I was in line to check out, and this 5 year old asked his mom if they could go see the movie because his friend did. I bent down to talk to the little fella and tell him how cool the movie was, when he was whisked away by his mother. She quietly under her breath informed me that they were â??Christianâ?

Ferno wrote:Here's another thing: chrisians can have their music on the radio all they like. but I haven't heard any muslim, jewish, hindu, or bhuddist music on the radio. why is that?

Supply and demand.

I'm praying I win the lottery tonight. Won't you all join me?

I wanted to address drakona a little more directly

Drakona wrote:If Tetrad found himself in a society that believed the exact opposite--say, Extremist Social Darwinists, who believed that if you could do harm to, or kill someone, you should--that it was good for the general population to be competetive--how could he argue with these people? The answer is that he couldn't; it's his preference against theirs, and nothing more than personal taste.

Folowing Kantâ??s Greatest Equal Freedom Principle (which I will try and explain later)I can say that it is wrong for a nation of Muslim men to subjugate their women, even though they think it's ok, because their is a flaw is their rational thought. They fail to apply their maxim to themselves; that is to say, they fail to consider how they would feel if they were the ones subjugated. What clouds them from reaching this rational conclusion is that whatever their deity says is ok is ok, rationality be damned.

Killing other people for fun has also never been demonstrated to have been a moral good. Therefore, it is demonstratebly reasonable to state that it is absolutely immoral to kill people for fun.

An example that Iâ??ve used in this thread: According to the Bible you can be executed for cursing your parents. This is ordained by God in Exodus. Yet, I don't think even the most fundamentalist Christian would claim this to be a moral act. Why? Because the maxim doesn't hold up to a morality thought out rationally.

So you can make morals for yourself by yourself, but that's all you really have the authority to do. To make morals that hold more generally, you need a higher entity. A government or society, being a higher entity than individuals, has the authority make laws that apply to everyone within the society. But not outside of it. Who has the authority to set moral standards that hold across time and culture? The UN is a good start, but who has the authority to say the UN is wrong? I think you can see where this is heading...

Your thought implies (to me) that you think it isn't possible to have morality or ethics without appeal to a higher power? If I am incorrect, please forgive me.

Have you ever studied Kant's Greatest Equal Freedom Principle? To understand Kant it helps to discuss one example clearly. Obviously the dbb is not the place to engage a deep philosophical discussion but, hopefully, I can make a point that you'll be able to follow. The goal here is to see how to argue that someone has a right to do something (morally) without an appeal to any deity.

An example Kant gave involved a false promise, in which you imagine yourself borrowing money with no intention of paying it back. Kant argues that this is ethically wrong, and in particular it violates the lender's right to repayment. He expects us to agree that it is wrong: it is his reasoning for his conclusion that deserves careful study. Since his argument makes no appeal to the word of God, it attempts to show how we can discover what is right without needing to interpret a (potentially controversial) holy text. Since it will attempt to establish that someone else has a right to be respected, it aims to show that ethical egoism is false (which is what MANY Christians think atheists appeal to when saying morals and ethics do not need a god for authority. Many assume ethical egoism: "If it feels good do it." Kant didn't think this philosophy was true, either, and I agree with him). Here is what Kant wrote:

"The most direct and infallible way, however, to answer the question as to whether a lying promise accords with duty is to ask myself whether I would really be content if my maxim (of extricating myself from difficulty by means of a false promise) were to hold as a universal law for myself as well as others, and could I really say to myself that everyone may promise falsely when he finds himself in a difficulty from which he can find no other way to extricate himself. Then I immediately become aware that I can indeed will the lie but can not at all will a universal law to lie. For by such a law there would really be no promises at all, since in vain would my willing future actions be professed to other people who would not believe what I professed, or if they over-hastily did believe, then they would pay me back in like coin. Therefore, my maxim would necessarily destroy itself just as soon as it was made a universal law."

It's plain that Kant believed that the average person is good at telling in most cases whether an action is wrong. When we want to know whether it would be right to do what we are tempted to do, we ask, What if everyone did that?

You see, and I realize it is difficult to fully explain this on the dbb, Kant's basic premise was that everyone is governed by certain rules. These rules are discovered by rational beings because rational beings have the capacity to discover them. These rules are no more dependent upon a deity than the law of thermodynamics (in reference to your laws of attraction) that states a gas will always migrate from an area of high pressure to one of low pressure. Rules, by their very nature are general, in the sense that they apply to certain other situations as well as whatever specific situation in which they were discovered. For example, if I steal something from a store because I feel like it, I am following a rule, applicable in all situations similar to my present one. My rule is, Whenever I feel like stealing, it is ok to do so. If I find, on reflection, that I do not accept this rule, then I must admit that feeling like stealing is no good reason to do so. When we look for reasons to do something (practical reasons), we are always in effect setting precedents for doing the same sort of thing in the same sort of circumstances.

Now the moral person is one who is concerned with whether his or her action is right. A moral person is concerned about whether something is right for right's sake, and not simply because it appeases a deity. A moral person thinks about a rule he would be following if he were to perform a certain action and then he asks himself whether he is really willing to accept the precedent that he would be setting by following that rule. Then the moral person will realize that this precedent is universal, in the sense that it should apply to all people. So, if the moral person believes that giving a false promise is morally wrong, he will apply this not only to himself but expect it from others. This is called consistency.

I hope I made sense. Palzon probably could explain Kant allot better than I could.

i was sitting here reading this and thinking what a well written/thought out post it was and i am surprised and honored to see my name at the end. yet i really need to go back and read this thread start to finish before i consider posting.

really nice job though, D. at a glance i wouldn't add much if anything.

Yeah, well, we still hate RoX .!.. ..!.