judge not moving 10 commandments statue from u.s.a. gov. property

Doubter · Sep 4, 2003

"It points out the hypocrisy of certain religions."
axeman
_______________________________________

A broad brushstroke wouldn't you say? In nearly every religion there are people who can be right with God, you can't condemn everyone in a religion unless you condemn every religion.

Doubter · Sep 4, 2003

In fact, it's such a well known fallacy, it has it's own name.
"Poisoning the well".
axeman
____________________________________

Pride, at least accordign to the definitions I gave from webster, is the poisoner of the well.

Doubter · Sep 4, 2003

Is not the whole stained-glass window post a poisoning of the well and unsolicited I might add.

axeman · Sep 4, 2003

Are your ignoring the word CERTAIN on purpose, or what?
How can you say this is a broad stroke?

I also never claimed that we should condemn all catholics
because some priests butt fucked some little kids

But we can condemn the church for the cover up.

peace

axeman

Quote from Doubter:

"It points out the hypocrisy of certain religions."
axeman
_______________________________________

A broad brushstroke wouldn't you say? In nearly every religion there are people who can be right with God, you can't condemn everyone in a religion unless you condemn every religion.

axeman · Sep 4, 2003

No it is not, because my debate opponent is NOT the catholic church.

Furthermore, I never claimed that catholic churches stance should
be dismissed BECAUSE they have child raping priests among them.

THAT would be poisoning the well.

You on the other hand, are attacking ME and my motives
in an attempt to discredit my position, INSTEAD of directly
attacking my position.

That *IS* poisoning the well, and therefore fallacious.

peace

axeman

Quote from Doubter:

Is not the whole stained-glass window post a poisoning of the well and unsolicited I might add.

Doubter · Sep 5, 2003

Are your ignoring the word CERTAIN on purpose, or what?
How can you say this is a broad stroke?

I also never claimed that we should condemn all catholics
because some priests butt fucked some little kids

But we can condemn the church for the cover up.
axeman
________________________________________

This is clearer. Condemning "certain religions" would sound like condemning them and everyone in them which now you are backing away from. Even clearer where "church" would mean hierarcy or leadership being seperate from individual parishioners. At least a narrower brush stroke. Good, maybe there are some moral parameters even in atheists.

Doubter · Sep 5, 2003

You on the other hand, are attacking ME and my motives
in an attempt to discredit my position, INSTEAD of directly
attacking my position.

That *IS* poisoning the well, and therefore fallacious.
axeman
_____________________________________

You may call it poisoning the well but I call it shooting an arrow at the big pride target in atheism and if you are standing near the target and blend in with it, don't complain if you get hit.

stu · Sep 5, 2003

"People had established moral values before 'gods' were invented. The invention of a God is nothing more than a convenience for having these values handed over to a 'greater power'."

Quote from marketsurfer
this statement, among others made, is not accurate. people have always sought a higher power. to think otherwise is foolish.

I did not utter the words let alone even suggest people have not "always sought a higher power"....
so Let's see surfer, which part of this statement is inaccurate??? is it this one...
"People had established moral values before 'gods' were invented"

As there are moral standards set down before the invention of the Jesus God, before the Allah god etc came on the scene, how is that statement therefore not accurate?

I said... people invented God{s} as nothing more than a convenience for having these values handed over to a 'greater power'." By doing so it attempts to give some 'greater meaning' to the values, yet the values remain the same.

If anything my statement confirms that people in general (society) sought hierarchical structures to organize, control and hand over power to. My overall point is... the God Head one is superfluous.

May I suggest surfer, it is more informative to ascertain what is really being said, than rush to a wild interpretation of it.

stu · Sep 5, 2003

Im going to pull a fast one on you.....provide certain prrof that people had moral values long before 'gods were invented"???
Ever hear of soddom???? Noah??????
Lord of the Flies????

well ok...I don't mind... no cyber wedgies though !....

Before which 'gods' were invented TM ? The Jesus God and before that.. Jesus's daddy God and before that - Ceasar as God and before that - the Greek Gods and before that - the Sun Gods and the many living Gods of Egyptian times and before that - the God of Water and before that - the God of what the f*** is happening here God ..etc etc...

You seem to like your novels. There is a little more to the invention of Gods than a 2000 year old story with Noah and "soddom" playing bit part characters. Lord of the Flies ? , sorry I don't see the connection. The assumption I got from the novel was that overall, humanity chooses to adopt and keep society in tact to avoid barbarism and anarchy. The evidence that it still does is obviously apparent today 4000 years after a substantial method of law and standards for morality was recorded..... I therefore more comfortably rely on the presumption that humanity naturally defers to civilisation at least for the reason of basic necessity.

...Or is it that you are saying ANY God will do... so long as there is a concept of God there is a concept of right?

And what about a concept of right IS a concept of right. Doesn't that make any sense to you?

PROVE TO ME THE LYING, CHEATING, STEALING are wrong without using God or statutes

I must admit I am rather surprised that you are still stuck on this. But now I see your team is the JETS (jeez TM the JETS !!) that explains a lot of things

Right and wrong have to be given values. You have been offered strong and numerous reasons how and why morality is arrived at without the need for a God (if a God, which God - which values?). In fact it appears adding a God confuses the issue. Please show me how wrong or right is actually God or statutebefore wrong or right is defined.

You said you don't go with the old testament, so where did right and wrong come from if it needed a God but Jesus hadn't been invented yet?

If you don't need both (you say God or statutes) why do you need a God to get moral standard? Why not statute alone? If you agree only either one of them is needed you are half way there

Now it's your turn...please "Prove to me" now that lying and cheating are wrong with using God or statutes ONLY. Please show me how wrong or right is actually God or statute before wrong or right is defined.

Isn't it that morality is defined first, then handed over to Statute... then by some people to their God. ?

stu · Sep 5, 2003

alfonso

Or is it you that is unecessarily simplifying it?

Are you saying it is not possible to simplify, or is it... simplification is not possible and/or unwlecome?

The 'invention' of God is far, far more than that. You, personally, as an atheist, I really don't think you're qualified to speak on the matter.

Far, far more? I don't think so. There is nothing new here alfonso, you are talking about a personal belief in God(s). It is not that complicated. I think most people can grasp in quite simple terms what a belief in a God might be. But.. how do you KNOW I am an "atheist". How do you know I am not devil's advocate. How do you know I was not or still am devoutly religious. Where have I ever stated I am an atheist? How do you know these things if you don't check first? You didn't even bother to ask ! Why unnecessarily complicate the situation with assumption? ?

Oh, I agree with that. But that again returns to your contention that 'God' is a mere contrivance, whereas theists tend to see it as something far greater

Yes they do and they manifest it as an attempt to unnecessarily complicate the job !

The point is that, with God, the notions of 'good' and 'bad' take on a far greater meaning. They're no longer mere affirmations of emotional state, they take on an added, almost ineffable quality.

Please explain what might be so "almost ineffable" about right and wrong. Why does right and wrong NEED to be so hard to define? Aren't you adding ineffability for the sake of it!

Whether or not man understood these concepts before he discovered (invented, according to you) or gained an understanding of or insight into God is irrelevant; I never said that man didn't know morality until he came to know God.

Theism certainly does. So ok, according to your viewpoint we can confirm, there is no need for God(s) before morality can be known to man. Good

Yes, I imagine such reasoning sits beatifully with his reductionist worldview; which is a long way from being the be all and end all on the matter.

Well pray tell what is the be all and end all if it isn't just more additional complication. What's wrong (ha) with reducing things down so you may understand better as to whether you're being sold a dud idea or not? Flowering up with fancies of invisible deities is complicating things. It might feel good but that is not enough reason to,.. is it? Isn't the idea that there is one God Head reductionist!

You may get 'to right', yes. In fact, you'd certainly want to; because I haven't once stated that 'what is right' has been given to us in any uncertain terms. Only that once you do get there, what you uncover isn't simply a consensus on emotional states, it's much, much more.

How do you know it isnât just simply a âconsensus on emotional statesâ. What more is it alfonso?? Much much moreâ¦ what? ....complication?

As I said, there aren't any simple answers to these questions, but if someone is going to take the trouble to muse over them and reach (and proclaim) conclusions, then one should take care to fully understand (and not mispresent) the issues

Shouldn't you have thought of that before you labelled me atheist and decided in your view, I would not be qualified to even speak on the matter ??

I pointed out, to fully understand anything, unnecessary complication might well lead to misapprehending answers and causing a lot more complication than there need be.

You say there are no simple answers so does that mean....letâs make things more complicated because of that??!!

After all is said and done, whether things can be understood by humankind or not, may well depend to some degree , on how much unnecessary complications of any kind, especially ones we are talking about ....the extra metaphysical baggage..... is clouding issues.

Especially if it brings it's own ineffable too sacred to be uttered, unknowable, unexplainable....... explanations, as you say it does.