Burgold Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 pretty plain he put the rapist,murdering scum as a atheist .Bur. which is worse the one that does it denying God or because God told him to?.....both suck Maybe, but in his story they sure are mocking him for his atheism while committing atrocities. Makes me think that the point of their actions were religious in nature. In any case, it's fiction and your second sentence is one I agree with. It's the most important thought. As someone who believes myself, my understanding of God doesn't coexist with ordered decapitations, rape or murder. I don't think that exists in most people's understanding of morality whether philosophically or religiously inspired.... with the exception of certain fanatics on the religious end and sociopaths on the cult side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Maybe, but in his story they sure are mocking him for his atheism while committing atrocities. Makes me think that the point of their actions were religious in nature. . Obviously, they were Muslim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Obviously, they were Muslim. Were you in the congregation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocket442Olds Posted March 25, 2015 Author Share Posted March 25, 2015 You argued that his argument was basically coming from the belief in objective morality. That's what I understood. If that's incorrect, feel free to clarify why you keep mentioning it. Yes, his interpretation of morality is based on an objective christian God. That doesn't however mean that everyone who also ges their interpretations from the same God/books would have the same viewpoints. You clearly demonstrate this in your first reply which I quoted below I believe in an objective morality that was given to us by God. That doesn't make me want crazy people to break into anyone's home and torture their family nor do I think it makes atheists unmoored beasts with no sense of moral code or kindness. You seem to have progressed very quickly from Robertson is insane to blaming religion as a whole. You're being obtuse on purpose it seems. I'll make it simple: Quote me where you find me saying all christians believe exactly what Robertson believes. I said 50% or more would agree that there is an objective morality, based on christian ideals. That doesn't mean that all others are as extreme as him. You clearly stated that above when you mention it doesn't make you want crazy atheists to go insane on one another. Same goes for me where I can be a moral relativist and not be as extreme as Pol Pot. I am not suggesting everyone who is a christian believes exactly what he does, but that there is a good number who support his statements. If not, he wouldn't be as popular, nor speaking at events like this. I'll wait for you to quote me to show where I suggest all objective morality-based christian teachings assume everyone has the same exact views as he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gortiz Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 The notion that some people like this bearded clown believe that without the threat of God punishing you that you can't make the right choices and be a decent human being is insulting. ~Bang this is what Robertson is trying say right here, nothign more nothing less. Anybody trying to extract anything more is making a mountain out of a molehill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Chang Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 I think Phil may have forgotten about those pesky things called "laws." He seems to believe an atheist might as well go around murdering people because what are the consequences? You don't have to worry about being judged! Nevermind that you will literally be judged and sentenced by humans if you rape and kill people, not just subject to a hypothetical future accounting of good deeds and bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 this is what Robertson is trying say right here, nothign more nothing less. Anybody trying to extract anything more is making a mountain out of a molehill. in his defense I've known many religious folk that would only do right under threat . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesMadisonSkins Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 About a year ago, I took my first Southwest flight .... This reminds me of a story I encountered at work. This guy walks into my office after doing some maintenance work and strikes up a conversation. I'm nice, so I kind of play along for a bit. Well before I know it, an hour has gone by and this guy has told me his life-story, all of his religious habits, practices, off-the-grid style living, his new online girlfriend out of state who he's going to move up here and start a commune, blah blah. The whole time he's chastizing anyone that's not like him ... I'm also fairly certain he was incredibly racist (I'm white, but it's amazing what some people will assume and say in front of you about others). Basically this guy was a nut job. Totally losing it. But the craziest thing is he can sit there and talk uninterrupted for an hour without once thinking "this guy might not have the same opinions" ... I've been in numerous situations like that. It's like religious zealots just ASSUME everyone around them thinks like them, and they have no problem spewing their insanity. I am also amazed at the amazing speed at which these folks jump right in. You go from "how are you today?" to an hour later, hearing every little thing about them and their religious beliefs and how the world is ending and Obama is the anti-christ and he's so happy he can live on his farm off the grid and all he needs is his damn bees and beehives and his chickens and cow when the world ends he'll be set and you haven't said a damn thing that entire time and have glossed-over eyes and yet they continue on and on like you give 2 ****s and agree with everything they're saying ... /rant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 If you get down into his argument, it is basically the Morality argument. I'd be willing to guess conservatively that 50%+ of christians would say without God they don't think there would be a morality. In more specific sense, that there is an Objective Morality that was given to us by God. Either way, a lot of his hatred and bigotry is based on his religion, we can debate that all day if you'd like and I can give you examples. While he may not BELIEVE exactly as you do, his religion is one of the major reasons he is saying a lot of what he says. if you'd rather I quote some priests and pastors, or theologians on the subject I can to prove he isn't alone, not by a long shot. the problem comes from the whole attitude of finding an asshole, any asshole (pastor or not), that happens to be in zzz group, and then trying to define zzz group by the asshole's spewings. its dishonest, but mostly its just lazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocket442Olds Posted March 25, 2015 Author Share Posted March 25, 2015 the problem comes from the whole attitude of finding an asshole, any asshole (pastor or not), that happens to be in zzz group, and then trying to define zzz group by the asshole's spewings. its dishonest, but mostly its just lazy. That isn't what I'm attempting to do, though. In the original post, I said it is no wonder religious numbers are going down. That isn't to say everyone who believes the bible is the word of god is going to act as he does. I've said that 3 or 4 times now. However, to simply wash your hands of religion playing any part of his thought-process is disingenuous. His idea that society and humanity will collapse without a god watching over us to stop us from raping and pillaging is one held by not just him, but many other christians, and other people of varying religions as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Every Christian that doesn't get online, write a letter to the editor and personally go on a crusade against Robertson is tacitly approving of what he says. Just like 99% of Muslims don't do enough to combat terrorism. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocket442Olds Posted March 25, 2015 Author Share Posted March 25, 2015 Every Christian that doesn't get online, write a letter to the editor and personally go on a crusade against Robertson is tacitly approving of what he says. Just like 99% of Muslims don't do enough to combat terrorism. Right? Not right, but I'm going going to type it out again. Read above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Not right, but I'm going going to type it out again. Read above. I figured the Muslim line would let you know I had your back. I was poking at the hypocrisy of some on the Christian right that seem to do the same thing to Muslims as they're are accusing you of doing to them. I might have been more clear. Carry on Edit: My point would be that there are wack jobs of all creeds, colors and religions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Before Vatican II, the Catholic Church espoused a belief that everyone not Catholic was doomed to hell. Other Christian denominations have taught similarly like the predestination of Calvinism. We are not so far removed from a time when the majority of Christians were taught followers of other religions were destined for hell, and many have used that belief to casually devalue the humanity of others not sharing their exact beliefs. I think there is something very human in our desire to be the beacon drawing out the best in others. I think there is also a very human reaction to being told our beliefs are bunk. The questioning of the part we see as defining us tends to end badly with complete lack of understanding on all sides. Whether it is the crusade, the inquisition or this guy trying to define morality as existing only because his God says it does, the general rule is an inability to conceive of a reality outside of our own existence. " A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive." Albert Einstein, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Atheists complain that people believe in something that does not exist... but I thank the nonexistent God for preventing Phil from playing out his rape murder fantasy. I wish God did as good of a job preventing other atrocities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 people are focusing on the rape/decapitation part of the story. that's just a disgusting mechanism he chose to use. the actual meat of the comments, as bang has said, is that if you do not believe in god you cannot have any true sense of morals. and while christians will get upset at the idea that their thinking will be aligned with phil's in regards to rape and decapitation, what Rocket442Olds (and others) are saying is that your likeness to Phil has to do with the idea that without believing in some God(gods) you lack the ability to behave morally. based on quite a few conversations i've had with quite a few different people, i agree. religious people seem to think they're special in this regard, that this is something they have over others. some even take it the extra length to imply some sort of proof, or if nothing else the necessity to believe, that god exist because without him, oh my we'd all be immoral savages. i'm not an atheist, but morals are not exclusive to the religious. reading the bible and believing in god is not a prerequisite for understanding how to behave civilly and not be a **** that steals/murders/otherwise harms (physically, mentally, financially, etc) others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Yes, his interpretation of morality is based on an objective christian God. That doesn't however mean that everyone who also ges their interpretations from the same God/books would have the same viewpoints. You clearly demonstrate this in your first reply which I quoted below Great, I wanted that point clarified and you've done that. Thank you. You're being obtuse on purpose it seems. I'll make it simple: Quote me where you find me saying all christians believe exactly what Robertson believes. I said 50% or more would agree that there is an objective morality, based on christian ideals. That doesn't mean that all others are as extreme as him. You clearly stated that above when you mention it doesn't make you want crazy atheists to go insane on one another. Same goes for me where I can be a moral relativist and not be as extreme as Pol Pot. I am not suggesting everyone who is a christian believes exactly what he does, but that there is a good number who support his statements. If not, he wouldn't be as popular, nor speaking at events like this. I'll wait for you to quote me to show where I suggest all objective morality-based christian teachings assume everyone has the same exact views as he does. In this post you responded to Mcsluggo questioning the validity of representing all Christians with the words of a single "maroon" by arguing that half or more Christians believed in Objectively Morality and that "Either way, a lot of his hatred and bigotry is based on his religion". You continued with offering to quote "some priests and pastors, or theologians" as a means of proving he wasn't alone. Do you know what you didn't say in that reply? That he wasn't representative of Christianity as a whole, which was the question you in McSluggo's post. You were unclear and left yourself open to interpretation. If you think my interpretation was obtuse, perhaps you are right. Again, thanks for clarifying that point directly this time around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Has the duck show been canceled yet? Everyone in my Podunk Baltimore area town loves it. I think it's stupid. The local Walmart is chocked full of merchandise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Has the duck show been canceled yet? Everyone in my Podunk Baltimore area town loves it. I think it's stupid. The local Walmart is chocked full of merchandise. It's still on. Wife and I used to love the show. Now, we're pretty indifferent. Feels like it's jumped the shark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 For what it's worth, I don't think anybody ever does anything or fails to do anything because they believe or disbelieve in Objective Morals. People may use philosophy to justify whatever morality they have... and they may be tempted to use philosophy to explain how their views are superior to others. Or they may opt for the murder rape parable to do that - always a crowd favorite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 I have never understood the argument from some in the pro-religion crowd that without religion, there can't be right or wrong. I am atheist, and have very strong beliefs about right and wrong. I don't think that morality needs external validation. To me, the idea that morality can only come from a book and can't be inherent to being human is infantalizing and insulting. Then where does it come from? If the majority disagrees with what you strongly believe is wrong and reaches cultural consensus that it is now right, would you say it is then right? Why or why not? What qualifies you or any other person to make such a judgment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beygo Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 I don’t think the Hebrews would have made it to the foot of Mt Sinai if they didn’t already know it was wrong to commit murder or steal, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Then where does it come from? If the majority disagrees with what you strongly believe is wrong and reaches cultural consensus that it is now right, would you say it is then right? Why or why not? What qualifies you or any other person to make such a judgment? Let's turn that around. For a long time, people thought that slavery was perfectly acceptable and moral. Then, relatively recently, people decided that no, it isn't. Now, as I see it, there are three possible explanations for what was once moral, becoming immoral. 1) It became immoral because people decided it was. People looked at the issue, applied some rules of logic, a dose of empathy, came to a conclusion, and implemented it. 2) God changed his mind, and told people to change their minds, too. (But he has a slow email server, so it took 100 years for the memo to get distributed to everybody.) 3) Slavery is still moral, cause God endorsed it for thousands of years, and the humans who've decided that it's immoral simply have delusions of being qualified to decide issues of morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Guess I won't be buying anymore of their....oh wait. That's right, I've never bought any of their cheap ****! QUAAACKKKK!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocket442Olds Posted March 26, 2015 Author Share Posted March 26, 2015 Then where does it come from? If the majority disagrees with what you strongly believe is wrong and reaches cultural consensus that it is now right, would you say it is then right? Why or why not? What qualifies you or any other person to make such a judgment? Where did it come from if it is objective is just as important of a question for everyone to consider. EDIT: Larry beat me to it. To expand, Rape is throughout the old testament. Another one of those objective moral issues. So we have on one side, God who is inerrant, and on the other side Moral Absolutes which would also be inerrant. Hmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.