Is Atheism An Excuse To Embrace Immoral Behaviour?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

manored
 
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 08:59 am
@Pythagorean,
I prefer to trust a few than to trust many liars.

I did not speak about supporting people independently of their ideas, but of not being offended by those ideas.

I did not, either, said that Pyths way of expressing ideas was better than yours.

I am not trying to win an argument also.

If you are going to keep inventing and assuming things to somehow keep ahead of a competition that nobody else is aware of, then further conversation is meaningless.
 
Icon
 
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 11:45 am
@manored,
Ok you two, don't make me put you in time out. You are both entitled to an opinion, even if you're wrong :sly-dog:.

But no, seriously.. I seem to be lost here. Can someone tell me how the the direction of this thread is going anywhere but directly into a brick wall at 200 mph?

Some of the views expressed in this thread do not meet with my personal approval but they have not broken any rules. This is why I posted a retort thread. Let's try to keep this on track and not digress into a competition. Philosophy is about conversation... not winning.

When was the last time that a philosophy conversation came to a factual/truthful conclusion?
 
Sidus
 
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:18 pm
@Icon,
Wow! The first post that started all this was extremely polite. I don't get it. Why would any subject be off-limits on a Philosophy Forum?
Can't people discuss controversial subjects on this forum? Is this Political Correctness run amok? Calling Pyth's post "hate speech" is so incredible as to be beyond belief.

So, I guess criticism of Atheist is now forbidden, have they become the new protected class? Soon it will be easier to say what speech is allowed, as forbidden speech will take pages to list. Look to Britain, we are headed down the same path.

All of Pyth's post were polite, intelligent, and respectful yet he was accused of hate speech and called vile names. Atheist are so offended by the suggestion that some just simply don't care if there is a God or no God, that some use their claim of atheism simply as a means toward their political agenda? Which part of this truth is "hate speech?" Who gets to decide what is hate speech? If I feel offended by something can I declare it "hate speech?"
I'm offended that 53 million American voted for Obama, I am offended by their speaking of him like he is a messiah. Can I declare their speech as hate speech? If not, why not?

Calling speech "hate-speech" is an attempt to silence the speaker. It is not a disagreement with the speaker, it is saying the speaker is not allowed to say that which was said.

Political Correctness is just the triumph of sensitivity over truth.



"Political correctness is the natural continuum from the party line. What we are seeing once again is a self-appointed group of vigilantes imposing their views on others. It is a heritage of communism, but they don't seem to see this.' --- Doris Lessing

Censor words and you censor thought, period.
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 01:23 pm
@manored,
manored wrote:
I prefer to trust a few than to trust many liars.

I don't know what this is in reference too, sorry.

manored wrote:

I did not speak about supporting people independently of their ideas, but of not being offended by those ideas.

Such as racism, homophobia, sexism... antisemitism, anti-theism..?

manored wrote:

I did not, either, said that Pyths way of expressing ideas was better than yours.

I didn't say you did. As I explained to Pyth himself: I wasn't censoring; I was just calling a spade a spade. How can, by your philosophy, that raise any objections from you?

manored wrote:

I am not trying to win an argument also.

I know.

manored wrote:

If you are going to keep inventing and assuming things to somehow keep ahead of a competition that nobody else is aware of, then further conversation is meaningless.

Hey, hey, hey... Easy tiger! You seem to be... I don't know... getting emotional about something I said. If I misunderstood something, my apologies, sincerely. I think the conversation was pretty meaningless from post 1. Smile This is just passing the time. Which right now I'm out of so... later!
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 06:20 pm
@Sidus,
Sidus wrote:
Wow! The first post that started all this was extremely polite. I don't get it. Why would any subject be off-limits on a Philosophy Forum?
Can't people discuss controversial subjects on this forum? Is this Political Correctness run amok? Calling Pyth's post "hate speech" is so incredible as to be beyond belief.

That made me laugh so hard, I lost bladder control a little bit. Look, I dunno whether you're sincere in your incredulity or what, but most if not all of what you say has been raised by manored already so read my responses to him and if you have an issue with those reponses, lemme know and we'll see where we stand. I'm not going to repeat myself for no reason. If you want me to actually justify my phrasing, give me a shout and I'll do it quite happily, though I think it's mostly been covered already.

[quote=Sidus]
I'm offended that 53 million American voted for Obama, I am offended by their speaking of him like he is a messiah. Can I declare their speech as hate speech? If not, why not?
[/quote]
Uh... whose speech? What speech? Is casting a ballot now speech? I don't understand. 53 million people didn't call you depraved. Obama didn't call you depraved. If they did and you asked me 'Should I feel offended', I'd say 'Sure, let it be known'.

[quote=Sidus]
Political Correctness is just the triumph of sensitivity over truth.
[/quote]
I don't think you have any worries in that department. Am I censoring you by saying that?

[quote=Sidus]

[/quote]
Cool. Back it up. Show me you mean it.
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 06:26 pm
@Icon,
Icon wrote:
Ok you two, don't make me put you in time out. You are both entitled to an opinion, even if you're wrong :sly-dog:.

But no, seriously.. I seem to be lost here. Can someone tell me how the the direction of this thread is going anywhere but directly into a brick wall at 200 mph?

Some of the views expressed in this thread do not meet with my personal approval but they have not broken any rules. This is why I posted a retort thread. Let's try to keep this on track and not digress into a competition. Philosophy is about conversation... not winning.

When was the last time that a philosophy conversation came to a factual/truthful conclusion?


Ha ha! Point taken. I dunno, man, the thread starter was persecuted and left and I think the whole mystery dies with him, so to speak, since only he knows what he was really on about. I think this thread was meant to incendiary, but ended up a weird diversion. No-one is the wiser. No-one quite knows the nature of the one-to-one relationships between atheism, immorality and what Pyth refers to as 'Democratic Socialism' (I'm guessing you have to be a fairly right-leaning kinda guy to apply that term to the Bush administration). No-one really knows why the Iraq war, started by two Christians, is proof of atheist Democratic-Socialist immorality. Nobody knows except Pyth, and I don't think he's coming back.

But if no-one closes this thread, it will linger for a while longer I predict. I can predict this since I'm largely responsible for it. Please... tell me to stop!!!
 
Ruthless Logic
 
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 06:42 pm
@Bones-O,
Icon wrote:
When was the last time that a philosophy conversation came to a factual/truthful conclusion?


My last post!

MOD EDIT - Fixed quote
 
manored
 
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 08:04 am
@Bones-O,
Bones-O! wrote:
I don't know what this is in reference too, sorry.
If someone offends you you get to know how they think about you, its better than if they lie.

Bones-O! wrote:

Such as racism, homophobia, sexism... antisemitism, anti-theism..?
How else we will know and understand the people we disagree with?

Bones-O! wrote:

I didn't say you did. As I explained to Pyth himself: I wasn't censoring; I was just calling a spade a spade. How can, by your philosophy, that raise any objections from you?
You said I champion his freedom of speech while protesting at yours, what I never did. Not being offended also doesnt means you cant disagree.


I know.

Bones-O! wrote:

Hey, hey, hey... Easy tiger! You seem to be... I don't know... getting emotional about something I said. If I misunderstood something, my apologies, sincerely. I think the conversation was pretty meaningless from post 1. Smile This is just passing the time. Which right now I'm out of so... later!
Oh that is just me asking you to stop claiming people said things they didnt and claiming you didnt said things you did. I suck at sounding. Though I dont want to enter a discussion regarding who said or didnt said what, what it is to say, what it is to interpret, etc.
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 10:29 am
@manored,
manored wrote:

How else we will know and understand the people we disagree with?

Well, your philosophy holds up pretty consistently then, fair play to you. I disagree, as I think will 95% on this forum, but that's another topic.

manored wrote:

You said I champion his freedom of speech while protesting at yours, what I never did. Not being offended also doesnt means you cant disagree.

Ah, perhaps I mispoke. What I meant was this: Given your philosophy which supports any expression, no matter how prejudiced, no matter how unjustified, why did you bring up this point in the first place? You seem to think that everyone's expressions on this thread, and all others, and in all other walks of life, are equally allowable. So why protest specifically that Pyth's are? This is the crux of the matter I've been trying to get to.

manored wrote:

Oh that is just me asking you to stop claiming people said things they didnt and claiming you didnt said things you did. I suck at sounding. Though I dont want to enter a discussion regarding who said or didnt said what, what it is to say, what it is to interpret, etc.

Like I said, if I misunderstood or misrepresented anyone, sincerest apologies. If you won't accept those apologies, then there's nothing more I can do. I'm not sure what you are specifically referring to here so I can't comment further.
 
manored
 
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2009 09:47 am
@Pythagorean,
It doesnt supports any expression, it suggests that no expression is offensive. The idea behind no expression being offensive is NOT that you must agree with everthing or not disagree with anything, but that disagreeing with someone based solely on your own emotions and concepts of morality is useless and destructive, and as soon as it is detected that the discussers disagree in such a fundamental level its better to cease the discussion as it will not progress beyong a "ping pong", such as what happened to this one.

Apologies are not necessary, its just that you keep doing it as the thread goes on, what makes it really hard to keep a conversation. I have missed too in not explaining the idea in greater detail as I did now, sometimes I espect people to understand too many things with little Smile
 
Justin
 
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2009 01:10 pm
@Pythagorean,
This thread has traveled from the original post to... well, I'm not sure, a discussion on discussing.

After reading and re-reading the first thread and most all of the others, this has gone off topic and the OP has not responded in quite some time.

Originally stated:

Pythagorean wrote:
...that their atheism is political because its purpose is to give them immunity for what could be universally recognized as bad or immoral behaviour. Atheism is about immoral behaviour NOT about the possibility of theology.


This statement in the opening thread of this dicussion is accusatory and leaves no room for open discussion. This is where the thread begins to diminish. The original topic is a valid discussion but it's obvious there was some emotion attached to the original response.

What we're going to do is close this thread because it's too far gone into side discussions and rather than uniting us in conversation it's providing a place for separation. That's no the intent of philosophical discourse and certainly not the intent of the forum. While nobody is considered wrong in their opinions, it's obvious to see sides and if it goes much further we may as well play tug-of-war. Atheists on one side and Theists on the other.... or is it really, Pro-Life on one side and Pro-Choice on another? - No need to answer but you can see where this is going.

Maybe we could start a new thread for discussion on the thread title. The thread title is:

[CENTER]Is Atheism An Excuse To Embrace Immoral Behaviour? [/CENTER]

Well, is it? There was a new thread created to counter balance this one that is discussing:

[CENTER]Is Theism An Excuse To Embrace Judgmental Behavior?

On that same note, we could actually have worded yet another thread stating:

[CENTER]Is Theism An Excuse To Embrace Immoral Behaviour?

The argument could be seen both ways. People are immoral and people use any excuse they can to justify their actions whether it be Theism or Atheism.

This thread started out very judgmental with little room for nothing but flamatory remarks from both sides of the fence. Flaming is not allowed on this forum.

The entire idea behind this forum is to allow ourselves to think, ponder, and discuss ideas and philosophies in a way that we can all benefit from them. If a Theist and an Atheist cannot communicate with each other without being judgmental then we're all wrong.

This thread has run it's course. Let's start over and take a deep breath and think about the things were saying to each other and think about how we are lumping each other into piles divided by whatever we choose to divide each other with. So long as we continue to divide each other, none of us really gain from it.

Thanks for understanding.

[/CENTER]

[/CENTER]
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 03/28/2020 at 06:13:13