Is Atheism An Excuse To Embrace Immoral Behaviour?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Justin
 
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 07:43 am
@Bones-O,
Thank you for your story Bones. It's nice to read how people come into the beliefs and conclusions they have. It was all great up until this:

Bones-O! wrote:
Religion may give comfort to individuals, but it is only destructive to society and the world because its representatives, like Pythagorean, are just rabid hatemongers who can't get along with anyone else, who need to make monsters and demons of everyone else until... what? Another war? Is that all religion is capable of?


I really don't believe that is what Pyth meant nor do is he a hate monger.

As far as the thread, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere with all this.
 
xris
 
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 09:05 am
@Justin,
A thread was closed for me giving an opinion the other day, this thread is filled with the most distasteful attitudes ive ever seen and no amount of reasoning seems to have the slightest effect.If you can prove your case against those you despise it gives credence but to spout unfounded drivel is inexcusable.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 09:54 am
@Khethil,
Khethil wrote:
Yes, this has become quite the jumbled mess. Not a single inflaming claim on the OP has been clarified to carry any weight; not surprising. What is, is that it was said at all. To generalize and condemn is short-sighted. Doing this allows much ill. How many times have we seen a tribe, race or ethnicity stereotyped so? Does anyone think this is a good thing? Can anything good come from it?

One simply can't lump economic, political and religious correlates and apply them to collections of individuals; and this is the glaringly-adolescent flaw of the OP. Its beyond my comprehension that we forget, so quickly, what lumping classifications of peoples together can do.
Completely agree.

Khetil wrote:
Self-definition of terminology is pointless and destructive. I've never really quite understood the propensity to take a common term; useful and well-defined and try to make it mean something else. Maybe it speaks to emotional overtones or bigotries, or just some measure of illiteracy. Still, there's no reason to do it. We have specific terms and general ones and an endless command of combinations. Why not employ them?

No, this thread is sophomoric, poorly stated, bigoted and warped. I'm embarrassed that it had any interest other than to illustrate just how far humanity has yet to go to respect individuality and reason.
Prejudicial and stereotypical attitudes almost invariably make generalizations about the targets. I think it's subconscious on the part of the OP, but it's telling that he chose a loaded word for his target. It says something about his attitude more generally.

And this is true more generally. We see this again and again here, where religious people in general are targeted because of the pecadillos of a few; where Muslims in general are targeted because of extreme attitudes among some; where the scientific community in general is targeted because of haughtiness by some; where women or atheists or Africans or liberals or conservatives or Jews or whatever become the topic of a conversation that carelessly lumps everyone under that label together.

And no amount of qualfiication is going to erase suspicion of bigotry if you're willing to use broad terminology in an idiosyncratic way. The Nazis had a definition of Jew; so did the Spanish Inquisition. Al Qaeda has a definition of American. The slaveholding south had a definition of black. Being discriminatory requires that you discriminate!

The labels we choose matter, and many a good conversation has been lost here because of a careless choice of words.
 
manored
 
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 10:07 am
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
And rightly so. If philosophical discourse is contingent upon the consistency of language, then it's a logical sham to go redefining words on your own. It allows you to make up the rules as you go along. That's not how logic works.
Then you, knowing what he meant, should have questioned his use of the term in that manner, rather than misinterpretating it on purpose. Off course, you can do whatever you want, but I believe its nice to avoid unneeded conflict.
 
xris
 
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 10:21 am
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Completely agree.

Prejudicial and stereotypical attitudes almost invariably make generalizations about the targets. I think it's subconscious on the part of the OP, but it's telling that he chose a loaded word for his target. It says something about his attitude more generally.

And this is true more generally. We see this again and again here, where religious people in general are targeted because of the pecadillos of a few; where Muslims in general are targeted because of extreme attitudes among some; where the scientific community in general is targeted because of haughtiness by some; where women or atheists or Africans or liberals or conservatives or Jews or whatever become the topic of a conversation that carelessly lumps everyone under that label together.

And no amount of qualfiication is going to erase suspicion of bigotry if you're willing to use broad terminology in an idiosyncratic way. The Nazis had a definition of Jew; so did the Spanish Inquisition. Al Qaeda has a definition of American. The slaveholding south had a definition of black. Being discriminatory requires that you discriminate!

The labels we choose matter, and many a good conversation has been lost here because of a careless choice of words.
I can only assume the obvious on this post but as ive never lumped any group of peoples together. I have criticised the core belief and the few individuals who have abused that belief, so i dont feel the need to beg forgiveness.As for making up the rules as we go along , i can only say i know the feeling only too well.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 10:27 am
@manored,
manored wrote:
Then you, knowing what he meant, should have questioned his use of the term in that manner, rather than misinterpretating it on purpose.
I didn't misinterpret it on purpose. I didn't realize he had redefined it until later on when I had a chance to read in more detail.

But that's exactly the problem -- you put yourself right out on a plank for misinterpretation if you exercise liberties with loaded words.

xris wrote:
I can only assume the obvious on this post but as ive never lumped any group of peoples together. I have criticised the core belief and the few individuals who have abused that belief, so i dont feel the need to beg forgiveness.As for making up the rules as we go along , i can only say i know the feeling only too well.
Speaking generally:

1) If you're going to criticize the core beliefs of a major faith or major group, be it Islam or be it atheism, you need to be exceptionally careful in your use of language. Since religious beliefs are not founded on logic, it seems to be pointless to undertake a logical critique of scripture. And since traditions develop in ways that only partially call upon scripture, but also call on unwritten or apocryphal mores and interpretations, you run the risk of bleeding a scriptural critique onto the practicioners of a much more nuanced and complicated tradition.

2) If you're not referring to the WHOLE group, then you need to be abundantly careful to make it obvious to whom exactly you DO refer.

If you are NOT careful about these points, then you should not be surprised if people regard your attitude differently than you do. If you'd like I will privately provide plenty of examples, but I don't want to make this particular thread degenerate any more than it already has.

We may clarify all of this in the forum rules and expectations shortly. And while philosophical debate demands a certain amount of free speech, it also demands respectfulness, reflection, and when appropriate self-censorship. And wholesale unabridged free speech can actually be destructive to intelligent, respectful discourse, so it is NOT the only operating principle here.
 
xris
 
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 01:18 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
I didn't misinterpret it on purpose. I didn't realize he had redefined it until later on when I had a chance to read in more detail.

But that's exactly the problem -- you put yourself right out on a plank for misinterpretation if you exercise liberties with loaded words.

Speaking generally:

1) If you're going to criticize the core beliefs of a major faith or major group, be it Islam or be it atheism, you need to be exceptionally careful in your use of language. Since religious beliefs are not founded on logic, it seems to be pointless to undertake a logical critique of scripture. And since traditions develop in ways that only partially call upon scripture, but also call on unwritten or apocryphal mores and interpretations, you run the risk of bleeding a scriptural critique onto the practicioners of a much more nuanced and complicated tradition.

2) If you're not referring to the WHOLE group, then you need to be abundantly careful to make it obvious to whom exactly you DO refer.

If you are NOT careful about these points, then you should not be surprised if people regard your attitude differently than you do. If you'd like I will privately provide plenty of examples, but I don't want to make this particular thread degenerate any more than it already has.

We may clarify all of this in the forum rules and expectations shortly. And while philosophical debate demands a certain amount of free speech, it also demands respectfulness, reflection, and when appropriate self-censorship. And wholesale unabridged free speech can actually be destructive to intelligent, respectful discourse, so it is NOT the only operating principle here.
I see Ive been allowed to answer my critic..Free speech should me moderated with understanding but not at the expense of the truth..We have the ability here to explore those thoughts or expressions we abhor or admire. If we pick and choose those we think apt for interrogation and ban those we wont or cant answer, the problem is not cured but brushed aside.My opinions with Islam is not personal to those muslims that find themselves by birth committed to its laws, contradictions and down right inbuilt prejudices but the written words of the Koran.I can not be dishonest because its politically incorrect to criticise a particular faith. For those who know me its not restricted to the Muslim faith but any that command unreasonable effects on others.Question me by all means but dont think stopping me from making my point will overcome the problem.This is directed at he who thinks power is served not earned..
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 01:43 pm
@Pythagorean,
Plato argued that power and justice are synonymous -- it's not a matter of earning or serving it. To be just is to be a custodian of people first and agendas second. And our job as forum staff is to make sure that potentially inflammatory topics are approached sensitively, fairly, and in ways that reflect well on us as a community.
 
xris
 
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 01:58 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Plato argued that power and justice are synonymous -- it's not a matter of earning or serving it. To be just is to be a custodian of people first and agendas second. And our job as forum staff is to make sure that potentially inflammatory topics are approached sensitively, fairly, and in ways that reflect well on us as a community.
You have laws of conduct and a duty to observe that the truth be explored not to ban or hide away uncomfortable truths.This thread in question directs its criticism to Atheists in particular and gives sweeping statements about their opinions and motives .I can stand being questioned on my lack of belief but not on the lies that have been written about atheists in general.I asked you on more than one occasion to point out the lies or the criticism that was unfounded and the only item you produced was my dislike of the Iranian government..Would you care to make a thread about the Iranian government and give your opinions on them? I am still angry and you have failed to produce the evidence that i was being unjust or insensitive to Muslim feelings..I think you are scared of the influence of Islam not the truth..
 
Justin
 
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 02:36 pm
@Pythagorean,
This is not the thread to discuss another thread it. The thread in question is being addressed. These posts are going to be moved from here.
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 04:50 pm
@Justin,
Accusations of hatred and bigotry, whether direct or indirect, are designed to silence what is perceived by the accuser as "the opposition". Such accusations are designed to avoid substantive, constructive arguments or criticisms. They are an appeal to authority to silence a voice which causes them discomfort in hopes that the authority shares their political bias. It is, as such, a pretension to a higher morality. However, by its very nature it lacks the actual reasons why anyone should embrace one side over another.

The attack upon the language or the terms used within an argument is likewise an avoidance of substantive discussion and criticism in an attempt to actually control speech. This politicization of human language is thus similiar to the appeal made to the police or controller of the media.

It should be clear by any mean witness that, within the current climate of opinion, the subject of atheism is closely tied to political matters. In this climate it appears nearly impossible to engage in objective dialogue. The subject matter of the dialogue will inevitably revert to issues of free speech in the name of "bigotry" and "hatred" (as if the accusation of bigotry and hatred were not itself immune from maliciousness and hatred on the part of the accusers). The price paid by this Political Correctness is obviously human freedom and consequently human dignity. What we are witnessing is nothing less than the embracement of despotism by the culture at large.

--

 
Bones-O
 
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 06:17 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean wrote:

Accusations of hatred and bigotry, whether direct or indirect, are designed to silence what is perceived by the accuser as "the opposition".

And accusations of immorality and depravity are not?

Pythagorean wrote:

Such accusations are designed to avoid substantive, constructive arguments or criticisms.

You've had substantive, constructive arguments and criticisms, then you ignored them and launched into more accusations of immorality and depravity. You've failed, despite repeated requests, to justify your measure of morality. You've failed to resolve how you can justify generalisations to 'atheism' complaints you ultimately seem to only have of two atheists. You've failed to justify your 1-to-1 correlation of atheism to Democratic Socialism, or of atheism to morality, or of immorality to Democratic Socialism. You've refused to acknowledge that your ideas of how atheists 'arrive' at atheism are necessitated by your religion. You've had opportunity after opportunity to help people figure out where you're coming from, but your points have entirely consisted of little thought-through associations between three things you just really can't stand.

Pythagorean wrote:

They are an appeal to authority to silence a voice which causes them discomfort in hopes that the authority shares their political bias.

On the contrary. Until any moderator interjection, you're free to call who you like immoral and depraved. And I'm free to call that hatespeech.

Pythagorean wrote:

It is, as such, a pretension to a higher morality. However, by its very nature it lacks the actual reasons why anyone should embrace one side over another.

How about lack of reasonable hypothesis?

Pythagorean wrote:

The attack upon the language or the terms used within an argument is likewise an avoidance of substantive discussion and criticism in an attempt to actually control speech.

Didn't you just complain about language like 'bigotry' and 'hatred'? Is this dual standards?

Pythagorean wrote:

This politicization of human language is thus similiar to the appeal made to the police or controller of the media.

Or the moderator of a forum. However that would have silenced the conversation. In the spirit of argument, I made no complaints except directly to you and presumably no-one else did either.

Pythagorean wrote:

It should be clear by any mean witness that, within the current climate of opinion, the subject of atheism is closely tied to political matters.

You have to justify this.

Pythagorean wrote:

In this climate it appears nearly impossible to engage in objective dialogue.


'Immoral' and 'depraved' are not objective ideas and they were the point of departure.
Pythagorean wrote:

The subject matter of the dialogue will inevitably revert to issues of free speech in the name of "bigotry" and "hatred" (as if the accusation of bigotry and hatred were not itself immune from maliciousness and hatred on the part of the accusers).


I don't hate you. I just don't like being called depraved. If I hated you we would have no dialogue.

Pythagorean wrote:

The price paid by this Political Correctness is obviously human freedom and consequently human dignity. What we are witnessing is nothing less than the embracement of despotism by the culture at large.

Quite the opposite. No-one has censored you. There are ways to do that and no-one has done it. What you're asking for is free reign to say what you like, however offensive, and for no-one to object to this, i.e. you have free speech that may include offense but anyone of a different opinion must avoid saying anything you don't like. Like I said, dual standards.
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 08:02 pm
@Bones-O,
Bones-O! wrote:
And accusations of immorality and depravity are not?


You are being unfair. My argument was that immorality and depravity are afoot in the culture. And the question was: is political atheism an excuse to embrace immoral behaviour? Instead of allowing debate you called it hate, so I withdraw the question.


Quote:
You've had substantive, constructive arguments and criticisms, then you ignored them and launched into more accusations of immorality and depravity. You've failed, despite repeated requests, to justify your measure of morality. You've failed to resolve how you can justify generalisations to 'atheism' complaints you ultimately seem to only have of two atheists. You've failed to justify your 1-to-1 correlation of atheism to Democratic Socialism, or of atheism to morality, or of immorality to Democratic Socialism. You've refused to acknowledge that your ideas of how atheists 'arrive' at atheism are necessitated by your religion. You've had opportunity after opportunity to help people figure out where you're coming from, but your points have entirely consisted of little thought-through associations between three things you just really can't stand.


I disagree with most of what I can understand of what you're saying. My main point was not very complicated. I have stated it fairly clearly, all too clearly, I am afraid.

Quote:
On the contrary. Until any moderator interjection, you're free to call who you like immoral and depraved. And I'm free to call that hatespeech.


There is pressure that you are not aware of. I am essentially being censored on the basis that my original argument is "hate speech".


Quote:
How about lack of reasonable hypothesis?


I believe my hypothesis is reasonable. You are not exactly an objective judge in this matter.


Quote:
Didn't you just complain about language like 'bigotry' and 'hatred'? Is this dual standards?


I don't follow you here. It appears that you are confused somehow.


Quote:
Or the moderator of a forum. However that would have silenced the conversation. In the spirit of argument, I made no complaints except directly to you and presumably no-one else did either.


As I said, I am unable to make further positive argument because it is already being deemed as hate speech by the moderators.


Quote:
You have to justify this.


I have done so previously; and fairly clearly at that.


Quote:
'Immoral' and 'depraved' are not objective ideas and they were the point of departure.


Yes, I believe I have already identified the historical trends in this regard. And have been already successfully demonized for doing so.

Quote:
I don't hate you. I just don't like being called depraved. If I hated you we would have no dialogue.


I never called you depraved. This is not a fair characterization of what I said.


[quote]Quite the opposite. No-one has censored you. There are ways to do that and no-one has done it. What you're asking for is free reign to say what you like, however offensive, and for no-one to object to this, i.e. you have free speech that may include offense but anyone of a different opinion must avoid saying anything you don't like. Like I said, dual standards.[/quote]


Don't quite understand what you're saying here. As I said I am effectively silenced. (But my forced withdrawal of the question I am forced to conclude, is itself proof of the validity of its charges.)
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 10:49 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;46038 wrote:
Accusations of hatred and bigotry, whether direct or indirect, are designed to silence what is perceived by the accuser as "the opposition".
Really... so are you saying that no one merits such an accusation? My heart doesn't exactly weep when someone incurs that accusation after displaying hatred or bigotry.

Pythagorean wrote:
Such accusations are designed to avoid substantive, constructive arguments or criticisms.
So are pejorative generalizations about entire groups.

Pythagorean wrote:
However, by its very nature it lacks the actual reasons why anyone should embrace one side over another.
How about common decency?

Pythagorean wrote:
The attack upon the language or the terms used within an argument is likewise an avoidance of substantive discussion
Nonsense. If I chose to call all Germans bloodthirsty killers, but I was defining Germans as the perpetrators of the Nazi war crimes, then it would be perfectly legitimate to take on my terminology. Similarly, if you choose an idiosyncratic definition of the word atheist solely in order to attack it, then we're going to have a hard time getting past your terminology to actually find anything substantive to discuss.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 11:31 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean wrote:
Accusations of hatred and bigotry, whether direct or indirect, are designed to silence what is perceived by the accuser as "the opposition".


So, here you attribute what you believe to be motives to the actions of others. How might you have come to this insight? Or is, perhaps, this an appeal-to-sympathy?

Pythagorean wrote:
Such accusations are designed to avoid substantive, constructive arguments or criticisms.


...and you also know that such accusations actually have a specific, directed design. There is a term used to describe that condition that arises when others believe everyone's designs are against them, I just dont' remember what it is.

Pythagorean wrote:
They are an appeal to authority to silence a voice which causes them discomfort in hopes that the authority shares their political bias.


So your axe-to-grind is Politics, or so it sounds. So lemme get this right, anyone who's expressed dissatisfaction with your imflammatory ideas is actually hoping some authority shares their political bias?!

Pythagorean wrote:
It should be clear by any mean witness that, within the current climate of opinion, the subject of atheism is closely tied to political matters.


And I think that it is in this basic assumption - yet another assumption you've made - where you erred. Atheism is not closely tied to political matters.

Pythagorean wrote:
In this climate it appears nearly impossible to engage in objective dialogue. The subject matter of the dialogue will inevitably revert to issues of free speech in the name of "bigotry" and "hatred" (as if the accusation of bigotry and hatred were not itself immune from maliciousness and hatred on the part of the accusers). The price paid by this Political Correctness is obviously human freedom and consequently human dignity. What we are witnessing is nothing less than the embracement of despotism by the culture at large.



What's really interesting about this is that the disatisfaction you express here might actually have a basis; There might have been a perfectly-innocuous issue to kick around. But, as others (and I) have repeatedly told you, your broad categorizations towards an entire class of humans towards such negative attributes as expressed in the opening post completely short-circuited any good point you might have had.

These are thoughts you expressed in your opening post. Your post said that atheists (anyone who doesn't believe in one or more god(s))...
  • Are like this because they want an excuse for their bad behaviors
  • Wants to remove responsibility from the individual level
  • Is so because they want to be free from 'normal' societal constraints
  • Are so because they seek immunity from bad and immoral behavior


  • And the finale': Atheism is about immoral behavior, not theology

It's all there, feel free to go back and confirm (link here)

This isn't rational, it's inciteful. It isn't 'discourse', it's slamming. I suppose it could be true for some demented soul out there, but shall we blaze a trail down the long list of religious, ethnic and racial slams lists - just like this - that have been made? I understand that atheism isn't attractive to many, but I'm wondering why this kind of debasement is being allowed.

The fact that the opening post wasn't outright banned is disturbing, the fact that people actually believe this crap is alarming, and the fact that this thread is being allowed to continue is distressing. No form of such blatant negative stereotyping should be allowed to continue as visible in a respectable forum, like ours here, that condemns such prejudicial judgments of people.

Thanks
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 07:21 am
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean wrote:

Don't quite understand what you're saying here. As I said I am effectively silenced. (But my forced withdrawal of the question I am forced to conclude, is itself proof of the validity of its charges.)

Like I said, no-one has forced you to do anything. What we're doing is censuring, not censoring. If you can't take this, especially given the nature of your argument and its lack of cohesion, you only have yourself to blame.

The truth is, you don't have an argument, you simply have some peeves. Again you refuse to take the opportunity for yet another request for explanation of your supposed correlations and justifications for your claims. If you've realised you have to back down, you could be a man about it and admit you cannot do this things. As it is, no-one's going to believe from reading this thread that you were in any way censored, however they'll probably infer you bowed out with your tail between your legs claiming victimisation as a last recourse to save face.

It just occurred to me: if atheism is chosen for its allowance of immorality and depravity, why would atheists get upset about being called immoral or depraved? Surely they'd agree, since that's the very reason they chose atheism.

Also, if atheism were chosen as opposed to, say, Christianity, simply to 'allow' immorality, wouldn't the atheist still believe they were going to hell? In order to allow themselves to be immoral, they would have to have come to the conclusion that hell does not exist, and that would require some theological investigation, n'est pas? So your whole argument is contradictory.
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 07:33 am
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Really... so are you saying that no one merits such an accusation? My heart doesn't exactly weep when someone incurs that accusation after displaying hatred or bigotry.


The point is that they are meaningless.

The racist's sin is not judging a group unfairly, it is judging the individual unfairly.
 
manored
 
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 10:25 am
@Bones-O,
Bones-O! wrote:
It just occurred to me: if atheism is chosen for its allowance of immorality and depravity, why would atheists get upset about being called immoral or depraved? Surely they'd agree, since that's the very reason they chose atheism.

Also, if atheism were chosen as opposed to, say, Christianity, simply to 'allow' immorality, wouldn't the atheist still believe they were going to hell? In order to allow themselves to be immoral, they would have to have come to the conclusion that hell does not exist, and that would require some theological investigation, n'est pas? So your whole argument is contradictory.
People usually prefer to lie to protect their image rather than saying the truth, as far as I know.

Humans are not totally rational, people allow thenselves to believe in something with greater ease if they want to believe on it.

I think this thread is getting screwed up because people are letting thenselves be driven too much by emotion. For example:

Khethil wrote:
The fact that the opening post wasn't outright banned is disturbing, the fact that people actually believe this crap is alarming, and the fact that this thread is being allowed to continue is distressing. No form of such blatant negative stereotyping should be allowed to continue as visible in a respectable forum, like ours here, that condemns such prejudicial judgments of people.
I, for one, do not see any problems in his first post, is an interesting point of view independently of the fact that I do not see it as entirely correct. Sure he is ranting a lot there, but he is human, and humans need to rant ever so often, some more than others. I cant understand why people allow thenselves to be irritated so much by the point of view of others: Those are his thoughts wich he is exposing for us, why should you fell offended by then? Even if you consider ourself part of the group he is criticizing, why? If words can hurt you, then its because they are tapping in some part of you you dont know. Off course, since everone is human there will be moments we will fell offended and rant back despite the unnecessity, but this thread has already gonne beyond that.
 
William
 
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 10:44 am
@Pythagorean,
Damn, I hope I don't get into a rant. You guys pray or me, Ok. The fact of the matter atheism is an umbrella. The foundation that supports that umbrella is a proclaimed disbelief of any notion of God and that morality associated with that "God". Period. Many of those who do "proclaim" their atheism must do all in their power to justify it. Unfortunately, most of what we know of that is moral, comes from tenets of faith, though in some cases non-sensical, at least there is the effort. So to deny God, one has to deny that morality that goes with it. The problem is where do you go to find an alternative? You will not find a theist questioning any sense of morality, though those moral codes may differ among religions as I will agree some moral codes are indeed over the top but are benign unless infringed upon. In this day of global, unrestricted communication, that is hard not to do.

What is also true, depravity is the total absence of morality and is totally a product of ego. Ego not only applies to individuals, it also applies to nations and most assuredly the good old USA since the 1960's when any moral ethic that might have existed went sailing out the window as it prepared the way to legalize abortions. The most immoral act ever committed my mankind, IMO.

That effort was spearheaded by atheism and feminism both, IMO amoral communities dedicated to self interests only.

It is a shame those "quiet, silent anti-theist" are grouped under the atheistic umbrella of which I believe many on this forum who profess to be atheist's are. What causes so much antagonism is these "anti-theists" take any derogatory remarks against atheism personally and they shouldn't. Just as most Catholic's do not take personally the actions of some of it's Priests. The fact of the matter is those who spearheaded the most depraved act ever committed by man were indeed atheist. It sure as hell didn't come from the theist crowd.

The depravity of nations is when more powerful nations infringe on other nations who have something they want or need such as oil, cheap manpower or natural resources and hide behind the atheistic "politically correct" construct whose continual effort to wipe out any notion of morality from existence giving it plenty of room to justify it's depraved actions as the mainstay motto is "who are you to say what is moral...?" clears the path. But aren't we lucky though to rest comfortably behind our treasured "civil liberties" no matter how alien they may be to any sense of morality the rest of the world is trying to acquire. And we wonder why our children are going nuts as they are graded on how well they can adapt to this depravity. Damn!

You are right on the money Pyth and bravo to you. :a-ok:
William
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 10:48 am
@manored,
manored wrote:
People usually prefer to lie to protect their image rather than saying the truth, as far as I know.

But their image is hardly at risk if immorality is something they embrace. In fact by the very act of embracing depravity their image cannot be protected by insisting that they are not so.

manored wrote:

Humans are not totally rational, people allow thenselves to believe in something with greater ease if they want to believe on it.

I don't think an eternity of torture is an easy thing to neglect to consider if unless you had truly discounted it.

manored wrote:

I think this thread is getting screwed up because people are letting thenselves be driven too much by emotion.

I think it started pretty emotional dude. It could only get worse.

manored wrote:

I, for one, do not see any problems in his first post, is an interesting point of view independently of the fact that I do not see it as entirely correct.

Then you presumably did not fall into the category of people who were unjustifiably referred to as immoral. Some people on this forum, myself included, do and, if you can't sympathise, you can take my word for it: it is offensive. I think everyone took it easy on him to begin with because he seemed confused in his argument. Then his subsequent posts became even more excited and it became clear he was just 'off on one' as they say.

manored wrote:

Sure he is ranting a lot there, but he is human, and humans need to rant ever so often, some more than others.

Sure. Rant at your girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband. Rant at your friends, colleagues and families. Rant at your boss, your dog, the television. A philosophy forum should not be the place.

manored wrote:

I cant understand why people allow thenselves to be irritated so much by the point of view of others: Those are his thoughts wich he is exposing for us, why should you fell offended by then?

Because his point of view was offensive to others, hence others were offended.

manored wrote:
If words can hurt you, then its because they are tapping in some part of you you dont know.

Well, we could easily put that to the test, but I could easily get banned in doing so if it got taken as anything other than a test.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/29/2020 at 03:22:29