World without Religion: Better or Worse? page 21

656 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

@MS
Reminds me of a professor that talked 2 hours about the damage of smoking, then after the class takes a cigarette.
Exactly what hypocrisy is.
If you CLAIM something (especially as OBJECTIVE), you MUST also follow your own opinion.
Else, you’re just the same hypocrite as that professor.
So I asked what was Ane’s personal opinion on the case, in the form of “would YOU do it?”…
What’s not understandable here?

Wait, I think I was reading things wrong again… I think I was confusing objective and subjective. Wow, I really am lacking focus on these threads today.

 
Flag Post

@MS
Probably not.
I had a heavy discussion on whether OBJECTIVE is a sum of all SUBJECTIVES, or not.
In this case, I’m using it in the meaning of “yes”.
Means, if you claim it, you must agree to it.
Or it’s not objective.
Cause YOU disagree with it.
<=was about Ane’s claim about eating babies.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MammothSpider:
Originally posted by somebody613:

@MS
Reminds me of a professor that talked 2 hours about the damage of smoking, then after the class takes a cigarette.
Exactly what hypocrisy is.
If you CLAIM something (especially as OBJECTIVE), you MUST also follow your own opinion.
Else, you’re just the same hypocrite as that professor.
So I asked what was Ane’s personal opinion on the case, in the form of “would YOU do it?”…
What’s not understandable here?

Wait, I think I was reading things wrong again… I think I was confusing objective and subjective. Wow, I really am lacking focus on these threads today.

After rereading it the only thing I misunderstood was Ane saying. I read that as subjective instead of objective. I still stand by what I said though. Hypocrisy wasn’t there.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

@MS
Probably not.
I had a heavy discussion on whether OBJECTIVE is a sum of all SUBJECTIVES, or not.
In this case, I’m using it in the meaning of “yes”.
Means, if you claim it, you must agree to it.
Or it’s not objective.
Cause YOU disagree with it.
<=was about Ane’s claim about eating babies.

So if I understood what Ane was saying right. He/she was saying that they wouldn’t do it, but that doesn’t mean you can say it’s wrong. If I misunderstood, that’s unfortunate.

 
Flag Post

@MS
Eeee…
Again, I was claiming (to DB) that there are no modern morals that would qualify as truly atheistic – and be GOOD in our eyes.
For some weird reason, Ane said that some tribes eat babies (to make it short).
On this I countered by asking, would DB also consider them fitting, cause he claims that society alone can give you GOOD morals.
On this, Ane just mocked me, instead on answering directly the question.
This is when I asked, what would Ane do personally.
Then comes Ane’s claim “nothing is inherently good in morals” aka no objective morals.
And the central question we still argue about “what’s objectively wrong in eating stillborns”.
On this, I repeated my question “what about YOU”.
DR piped in with his “I don’t claim there are atheistic morals, I claim that morals are independent of religion”.
I, again, reminded, that today we have only the result of the 2000+ years of religion’s influence.
I again asked Ane the same question.
Ane again turned it onto me, asking that I name, what’s objectively wrong with it.
Basically, ever since it boiled down to:
I ask Ane’s personal opinion, explaining that if it’s a “NO”, then this in itself is my proof of it being NOT objectively GOOD, which is the direct antithesis of “yes” objectively GOOD.
Etc.
Whatever, sorry for this load of bs…
I decided, I drop this case, Ane can stay with his/her opinion – and have a nice breakfast. :DDD

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

@MS
Eeee…
Again, I was claiming (to DB) that there are no modern morals that would qualify as truly atheistic – and be GOOD in our eyes.
For some weird reason, Ane said that some tribes eat babies (to make it short).
On this I countered by asking, would DB also consider them fitting, cause he claims that society alone can give you GOOD morals.
On this, Ane just mocked me, instead on answering directly the question.
This is when I asked, what would Ane do personally.
Then comes Ane’s claim “nothing is inherently good in morals” aka no objective morals.
And the central question we still argue about “what’s objectively wrong in eating stillborns”.
On this, I repeated my question “what about YOU”.
DR piped in with his “I don’t claim there are atheistic morals, I claim that morals are independent of religion”.
I, again, reminded, that today we have only the result of the 2000+ years of religion’s influence.
I again asked Ane the same question.
Ane again turned it onto me, asking that I name, what’s objectively wrong with it.
Basically, ever since it boiled down to:
I ask Ane’s personal opinion, explaining that if it’s a “NO”, then this in itself is my proof of it being NOT objectively GOOD, which is the direct antithesis of “yes” objectively GOOD.
Etc.
Whatever, sorry for this load of bs…
I decided, I drop this case, Ane can stay with his/her opinion – and have a nice breakfast. :DDD

The only part I feel like moving forward is that religion(all of them) have a huge influence on our morals.

 
Flag Post

@MS
Which is (surprisingly?) the core claim of mine. :D

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

@MS
Which is (surprisingly?) the core claim of mine. :D

I want to say that view is shared by all religious people and some non-religious people. :P

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

@MS
Reminds me of a professor that talked 2 hours about the damage of smoking, then after the class takes a cigarette.
Exactly what hypocrisy is.
If you CLAIM something (especially as OBJECTIVE), you MUST also follow your own opinion.
Else, you’re just the same hypocrite as that professor.
So I asked what was Ane’s personal opinion on the case, in the form of “would YOU do it?”…
What’s not understandable here?

Smoking is objectively harmful. Just because the professor does it, depite knowing that it harms him doesn’t make him a hypocrite. It makes him a smoker. He would be a hypocrite if he encouraged others to smoke.

And Aneslayer did never say that eating your stillborn is necessarily good. She said that in her opinion there is nothing objectively wrong with it. If you want to show that it is objectively wrong you should probably try to find an argument why it is so, instead of repeating the same ad hominem over and over again.

 
Flag Post

@EPR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
It seems that we BOTH used it wrong.
Anyways, whatever you CALL it, my point was that you can’t claim something as objective, if you yourself deny/decline it by your OPINION, not ACTIONS.
Thus, I was asking Ane’s OPINION on eating babies (WOULD, not DID she{you sure, it’s SHE?} do it).
“Nothing objectively wrong in my opinion”=“I subjectively consider it right”.
Thus my personal question, WOULD YOU?
I wasn’t proving, that it’s objectively wrong.
I was pointing out, that Ane made subjective into objective, the typical mistake on this forum.

 
Flag Post


Alright, where did anyone ever say that eating babies is the way to go? Seriously, I’m starting to think that you’re willingly trying to make people look bad by distorting what they said. First Ane said that eating stillborns isn’t necessarily bad, which you distorted into Eating stillborns is good. (which is not what she said), which is not at all accurate, now you’re saying babies instead.

Just because she wouldn’t eat a stillborn does not make her a hypocrite.

I support gay marriage. I think there is nothing bad about it. Just because I wouldn’t marry a man wouldn’t make me a hypocrite.
I would be a hypocrite if I supported gay marriage and published articles in which I call gay marriage an abomination.

And no, I’m actually not sure if it’s SHE. I just associate a female poster with that name for some reason.

And she didn’t make objective into subjective.
Personally she sees nothing wrong in it. subjective
There is nothing obviously wrong about it. No one gets harmed. objective
If you know what is objectively wrong about eating stillborns, do post it. But maybe we should make it more accurate, since “wrong” is a very fuzzy term. Maybe you meant something different than Ane. I thought something like harm was the issue.

 
Flag Post

@EPR
Hmmm, could it be due to Anne being a girl name, though it’s but a contraction of the nick (by me btw)?
As of “babies” – I’m too tired of all this.
I made my point clear at least three times.
If none of you got it, I’ll just drop it.
You can cheer yourself up – but it won’t make you inherently right anyways.
Anyone is free to err. :D
(Including myself, but that’s MY problem already. :D)

Edit.
I meant “morally disgusting”.
Thus my “personal reaction question” to Ane – what about HER reaction.
But let’s drop it.

@Ane
SO! He or She?!?

 
Flag Post

What does morally disgusting even mean?

 
Flag Post

REPULSIVE. :D

 
Flag Post

How?

 
Flag Post

@EPR
Would you eat one?
Seriously.
If not, why ask something you know yourself.

 
Flag Post

There are many things I wouldn’t eat. However, that doesn’t mean that eating it is bad.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:

There are many things I wouldn’t eat. However, that doesn’t mean that eating it is bad.

See: fermented bull testicles.

 
Flag Post

Given that (according to my point which you simply ignore) what we see TODAY, is a PRODUCT of 2000+ years of religious influence, all your talks mean nothing.

Prove that society wouldn’t be better off without religion. You can’t. You just assume religion was a positive influence, while it could just as well have been a negative one. If we both can’t prove it, then we have to assume it was a neutral influence. In other words, no, society today is not a product of religion.

Your “hint: they were” is VERY meaningless and purely emotional, you have NO PROOF for it AT ALL.

Uh, yes, I do. Morals include what you personally think of an issue. You don’t need religion to think something of an issue. If you’re using a different concept of “morals”, but the same term, please notify me.

Same as with evolution, you ASSUME things, that CAN’T be CHECKED

No, that’s just you being uneducated in both science and evolution and telling me that it’s merely a religious belief. You’re so fed-up with the thought that evolution should be a religious belief and so happy every time you tell me that, that you forget it is an actual theory with evidence behind it. Search it up. Educate yourself on it.

But I forgot, that proving such points to anti-theists is futile, I’m talking to a wall that is predefined as deaf.

Once again, I’m a theist.

 
Flag Post

As of “babies” – I’m too tired of all this.

… babies… just why do you bring that into this? Can’t differentiate your babies from your stillborns?

I made my point clear at least three times.
If none of you got it, I’ll just drop it.

There were 3 people saying the same things to you… and you still did not get it. I have patience for those having learning handicap…

I meant “morally disgusting”.

Like a teenager’s phony reaction on their opinion about sex… which goes like “Eeeewwww…”
I see you could not answer such questions, which question your claim on your credentials on your religion…

Thus my “personal reaction question” to Ane – what about HER reaction.

I did not react. I respond as a neutral user.

But let’s drop it.

I have patience… seems like you lost steam…

@Ane
SO! He or She?!?

Just pick up the balls between your legs…

 
Flag Post

Religion is not the problem, it’s the followers, the hypocrites who twist the teachings to better fit their own values and use religion as an excuse for doing horrible things. If it wasn’t religion, it would be something else. Hitler didn’t really use religion as an excuse for what he did, he was using the general opinion about Jews at the time. He was rejected from art school and lived in slums with Jews and Slavic people.I think he tried to use Catholicism to excuse his behaviour at some point and I know the Catholic Church were happily agreeing with him. I think it’s hypocritical how some “Christians” look at Jewish people as less than human, but then claim to be followers of Jesus, who was a Jew.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

@Ane
Whatever.
You can’t even directly answer a question as simple as “he/she” – so what’s there to even talk to you. :DDD

Now that is hypocritical…
My gender has nothing to do with the discussion… unless you have an agenda…
I shall not respond any further…

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Easy answer. It would be much, much, MUCH better. Just think about grown-up adults not fighting over imaginary people in the sky and which religion is “right.” And no crusades or politicians trying to bring God into politics which would just be horrendous and further complicate things. Sure, religion offers great morals and values, but the way people interpret them and not even follow them such as “love thy enemy” even though most ‘christians’ in the U.S. were ecstatic that Osama Bin Laden was killed just bugs me that they don’t truly follow Christianity and they call themselves christian. Religion just complicates everything and is often misused. I like the quote by Edward Gibbon that states Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.