Child Abuse Alert
by BradfordFor those of us concerned about child abuse there is this: There’ll be no tent for God at Camp Dawkins. Oh how utterly ironic that the architect of the religious label = child abuse meme is starting a camp of his own. Of course the true believers who send their little ones to this camp are hopeful on the indoctrination issue:
Crispian Jago, an IT consultant, is hoping the experience will enrich his two children.
“I’m very keen on not indoctrinating them with religion or creeds,” he said this weekend. “I would rather equip them with the tools to learn how to think, not what to think.”
But there is also this:
While afternoons at the camp will involve familiar activities such as canoeing and swimming, the youngsters’ mornings will be spent debunking supernatural phenomena such as the formation of crop circles and telepathy. Even Uri Geller’s apparent ability to bend spoons with his mind will come under scrutiny.
Debunking supernatural phenomenon heh. Most assuredly this will be done by teahing children how to think rather than what to think. 
And there is this objective appraisal:
“We are not trying to bash religion, but it encourages people to believe in a lot of things for which there is no evidence.”
No evidence. Beware when people cite an absolute value like zero as an evidentiary descriptor. Even when I disagree I tend to be more generous with my opponents but then again I'm more objective too. 
But what is the evidence that sustains the position that there is no God?
Oh well, there is this too:
While afternoons at the camp will involve familiar activities such as canoeing and swimming…
So let's hope for the best. For the sake of preventing child abuse of course.
June 28th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
How exactly is that ironic? Oh, you mean "Alanis Morissette" ironic?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 28, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Todd,
Obviously, kayaking is child-abuse.
Seriously though, I think Bradford might have meant that the man who claims indoctrination is child-abuse has (ironically) started a camp of indoctrination (what other than indoctrination is a camp for youth?).
Comment by dantedanti — June 28, 2009 @ 8:24 pm
June 28th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
You know Todd. All those classes intended to properly educate the children of atheists. Those instructors are about as objective as you are.
Comment by Bradford — June 28, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 2:15 am
Boy, I try to agree with Bradford that teaching "critical thinking" is "atheist indoctrination" and my comment get's holed! And I've said so many worse things recently.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 29, 2009 @ 2:15 am
June 29th, 2009 at 6:06 am
No Todd. I told you if you want to mock you'll get it returned or get holed. As I am not up for juvenile exchanges the hole is the appropriate place for your comment. If you can't resist the urge you won't have to concern yourself with posting at all.
Comment by Bradford — June 29, 2009 @ 6:06 am
June 29th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Todd,
I'm a little suspicious of a youth camp run by Richard Dawkins which espouses to teach "critical thinking" skills, especially considering he and his friends throw up words like "reason" and "critical thinking" when writing books that are little more than propaganda. If Dawkins latest work is any indication of his commitment to "critical thinking", I'm sure we can guess the purpose of Dawkin's camp.
Comment by dantedanti — June 29, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
dantedanti:
Indeed. Onward atheist soldier.
Comment by Bradford — June 29, 2009 @ 5:09 pm
June 29th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
The amazing part is that you have too guess the camps purpose despite how clear they are about it.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 29, 2009 @ 10:46 pm
June 30th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Todd,
If you will notice, I did not make an conclusive claims, but used the word "guess" in my assessment, as well as mentioning that I was somewhat suspicious, indicating I had not yet passed conclusive judgment.
I'm not sure how them being oh so clear about their intentions has much to do with the actual function and consequences of their camp. Please explain.
Since Dawkins now seems to be interested in nothing other than propaganda, am I not justified in raising the issue that when the man talks about "reason" over "indoctrination", he may be peddling the same propaganda he peddled in the God Delusion?
Comment by dantedanti — June 30, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
June 30th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
From the article:
The camp with the supposed focus on "critical thinking" indoctrinates children by argument from authority! And the parents pay for it!
At least if you left your kids at Neverland Ranch you would get a boat.
Comment by chunkdz — June 30, 2009 @ 1:26 pm
June 30th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Ha. That is funny. Well everybody knows that atheists are at a reproductive disadvantage and therefore less fit for survival. Also, atheist men are less attractive to women. So this whole summer camp for atheists thing is not exactly a brilliant business plan. On the other hand, if you can force kids to attend, like they did in the good 'ol days of the of the Soviet Union, well then, Dawkins may be on to something.
Comment by Jehu — June 30, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
June 30th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Richard Dawkins Jumps the Shark
Comment by Bradford — June 30, 2009 @ 7:18 pm
June 30th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Someone please say these aren't serious? The second particularly bothers me if its a true quote, because i believe Dawkins has conceded that the "what if" isn't true. Even if he hasn't, the "what if" is the most baseless statement I think I have ever heard.
Comment by dantedanti — June 30, 2009 @ 11:50 pm
July 1st, 2009 at 9:23 am
Only £10 for doing something impossible? Man, those atheists are cheap! I'd think doing the impossible should be worth at least a hundred thousand times more than that.
You lost me on why singing Beetles songs is so concerning though.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 1, 2009 @ 9:23 am
July 1st, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Todd,
As a former educator, I believe offering young mind prize money to teach them "critical thinking skills" isn't much above propaganda and indoctrination.
With the Beetles song, as Dawkins outlines it in the beginning of the God Delusion, "Imagine a world with no religion, no 9/11, no 7/7, etc, etc", we have again, no teaching, but blatant indoctrination of young minds (if Dawkins really intends to have them sing this song). This "imagine" statement is not only wildly inaccurate and false, but it is also grossly unsophisticated and misleading to the point that its simply propaganda. I fail to see how giving young minds unexamined catch phrases is anything other than indoctrination.
Sing along with me today, Todd, by the campfire
"Imagine no atheism, no Pol Pot, no Stalin. Imagine no genocide, no communism, no evil. Imagine no moral relativism and no social darwinism. Imagine no Hiroshima, no Nagasaki. Imagine a world of peace and fun"
What do you learn today class?
Comment by dantedanti — July 1, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
July 1st, 2009 at 3:10 pm
I wonder if this camp allows for discussion on the little green men or microbes from outer space that Dawkins say's has to exist? Of course there's no evidence for this, but it hasn't stoped neo darwinist from piggy backing self serving extrapulations on to legitimate science. If I was sending my kid to camp, Id feel a lot more comfortable having them around people who actually believe in the concept of good and eviel. Im sure a pedophile who claims to be a good person sometimes slips through the cracks, but thats the price we pay for living in a human society, however if I had to chose what negative came with the package, I would have to pick imorality over amorality, only because one is more closer to redemption and self correction. Dawkins is a legend in his own mind.
Comment by themayan — July 1, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
July 1st, 2009 at 7:07 pm
My third grade teacher gave out a candy bar for every perfect score. I got a perfect grade that year. I guess that must be when I was indoctrinated into critical thinking. Damn her and her atheism inducing candy bars!
So then you freely admit that churches are blatant indoctrination? Lots of singing in church. Do you find churches equally troubling? Or do you support indoctrination so long as they indoctrinate with whatever you believe? Then again, I sang a lot of hymns in my youth but escaped their indoctrinating effects. Is all use of art indoctrination, or just singing? Could they view paintings by atheists? Or perhaps anything fun is indoctrination? Does critical thinking have to be presented boringly to not offend you?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 1, 2009 @ 7:07 pm
July 1st, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Wait, did I hear that right? Did you really just claim that pedophile priests are better than those who would teach critical thinking? You'd rather have your child raped but still god fearing than to be a moral relativist? I must have misunderstood you because that position just seems inhumane to me.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 1, 2009 @ 7:11 pm
July 1st, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Critical thinking? May I suggest you research a little into this subject? I would have recommended your teacher not to provide candy bars for perfect scores. I'm sure with a little research, you'll find that the educational system in America is little more than indoctrination, even at the high school level.
You sure do put your foot in your mouth a lot. Yes, I am actually troubled by the level of propaganda and indoctrination in churches. It took me a very long time to find a church that I felt wasn't resorting to this. I have been an active voice in my community, in the hopes that the church's in the area will leave off with this practice.
May I also suggest you do a little research into the roll of art in propaganda campaigns? Of course, all art is not propaganda or indoctrination. However, as Orwell noted, there's often a fine line. I recommend taking a look at Marinetti's roll in Italy during the early part of the 1900's, its rather interesting.
Comment by dantedanti — July 1, 2009 @ 9:08 pm
July 3rd, 2009 at 5:27 am
Tod B… We all take chances when we trust our kids with other people. Unless we lock them in there room 24-7. Thats a reality we have to face. My point was, that if there was a predator in the midst of a camping staff member, I would rather have other people in the midst that would be vigilant in confronting that type of behavior from a moral perspective rather than someone who might see it from an anthropological perspective such as someone who believes good and eviel are just a state of mind. The question of whether a Darwinist or a person of faith is better or worse is not my decision to make, I only offer my prefference. The Catholic church does not represent all people of faith. Just like Stallin didnt represent all atheist.
Comment by themayan — July 3, 2009 @ 5:27 am
July 3rd, 2009 at 5:32 am
I would also like to add that you equated Darwinism with crittical thinking in a defacto manner. The guy who proposed the third law wasn't such a shabby thinker, pretty smart if you ask me.
Comment by themayan — July 3, 2009 @ 5:32 am
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:06 am
And I would rather that people be vigilant in confronting that type of behavior because internally they feel it is wrong and because they were born with empathy, rather than that they were just told by an omniscient deity that 'that type of behavior' is wrong. We all know that we are much more likely to act on something we ourselves feel than on stuff somebody tells us we are supposed to act on.
Comment by hrun — July 3, 2009 @ 7:06 am
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:41 am
How exactly did I do that? I have not even mentioned "Darwinism" so I'm not sure how I managed to talk about it without mentioning it. In fact you now seem to be the one assuming an equation between Darwinism and critical thinking.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 3, 2009 @ 10:41 am
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Thanks to his clarification of his morality in another thread, Todd has convinced me to cast off my pathetically deluded theism and become a properly scientific atheist.
It was horribly limiting and inhibitive to be a theist, expecially something as hypocritical as a Christian. To be a good Christian, I had to refrain (or weakly attempt to refrain) from a wide assortment of thoughts and behaviors. To be good atheist, all I need to do is disbelieve in invisible entities with magic (or magic-like) powers. Unless of course such entities are proposed by scientists who are atheists like myself.
Because (as I quote from Todd) I think my vantage point is the best vantage point excepting my own future vantage points which are even better, I can change my morality minute by minute to suit my feelings, and never be wrong in anything I do or say.
Now I am as free as these children will hopefully be. It's too bad I didn't do this earlier in my life. It's so liberating!
Todd Berkebile wrote:
It seems inhumane to you, Todd my atheist brother, because you still cling to the tatters of the superstitious nonsense called Christianity. Your mind has been poisoned by it.
You, hrun, and I know that all human behavior is merely evolved animal behavior. The recent acceptance of homosexuality against the wishes of the pathological fundies who instituted laws against it is a prime example of science triumphing over religion.
Given this, Todd, you should know that sexual orientation is not voluntary. These priests cannot choose to their quench their sexual desire for children any more than a homosexual can quench his or her desire for sex with partners of the same gender.
They are only following their programming, Todd, which is the basis for their (indeed, everyone's) morality. Therefore, you are backwards, bigoted, and stupid for thinking pedophiles are doing anything wrong.
Discard those shredded rags of moronic slave morality, Todd my atheist brother. You don't need them anymore, and they're keeping you from growing intellectually.
Comment by angryoldfatman — July 3, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:03 pm
hrun wrote:
Exactly, hrun.
I really don't know why we, as a society, bother with laws and judicial systems. They are huge wastes of time and money. Good people are born that way; they inherited empathy and altruism. Bad people, likewise, are born that way; they can't feel the way we do, so they will do things we deem evil.
Some people think they can use drugs to fix these genetic defectives, but that's obviously an exercise in futility – you can't overcome something that's embedded in every cell in your body. That also is a huge waste in time and money.
A good solution is to stop the defectives from reproducing and creating bigger populations of defectives. Historically, though, this really has never worked. They always find a way to escape sterilization somehow. So the best solution – some would say the final one, because it would once and for all time end the problem – is to eliminate these defectives completely from existence, just like natural selection does except with much more efficiency.
Comment by angryoldfatman — July 3, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:17 pm
To be a good human I have to refrain from a wide assortment of thoughts and behaviors. Morality happens when our built-in sense of empathy interacts with our complex social environment. To be a good Christian all you need to do is ask forgiveness for your sins, being a good human goes further to not sinning in the first place.
Haha, wow that one is rich. Homosexuality is an example of science triumphing over religion? Your brain works in a way that is simply incompatible with mine, I cannot fathom the conclusions you reach. I would argue that gay rights is a triumph of morality over religion, but science has nothing to do with it.
First, I have no idea whether sexual orientation is voluntary or not. Its not a question I've studied because frankly it doesn't matter whether people are born gay or choose to be gay, either way the choice harms no one so they should be free to make it. Unlike homosexuality, rape does cause harm. If priests are truly incapable of not harming others then they are dangerous and need to be removed from society.
Again you fail to understand. Even if priests think it is correct to rape children that is not the view held by the social environment in which they live. Societies set moral standards by combining and averaging the individual views of their members. And it is societies, not individuals, who enforce these moral standards.
Further, and I have mentioned this before, I do not think our evolutionary impulses or biological programming defines morality. Evolution is not a moral process and something is not moral simply because it evolved. I'm aware of no one who thinks otherwise. Moral evolution involves the horizontal transfer of memes, not the hereditary transfer of genes. Evolution favors whatever works, luckily it just happens that morality works. As a result we have evolved systems like empathy which we use to determine what is moral. But empathy is not "moral" simply because it evolved.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 3, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:21 pm
You are such a parody of yourself that I never know whether to laugh at you or weep for you. I will assume you are advocating social Darwinism because you think you are being ironic, but since religious types are the most likely type to genuinely advocate social Darwinism it's hard to tell. Poe's law and all that.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 3, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
July 4th, 2009 at 2:03 am
Hrun I understand the point your trying to make but my question is how do we even quantify right and wrong from a naturalistic perspective? Would we use the Popes definition of right and wrong or Attila's definition of right and wrong. The Romans, Etruscan,Greek's developed great civilizations and saw this type of behaviour as normal and even some contemporary societies see nothing wrong with prepubescent play things. Who decides? and what realistic foundation could that decision be made with out some type of belief in morality?The Naturalistic anthropological perspective speaks of altruism as more of a developed collective behaviour that resulted in insuring self preservation, nothing more nothing less. All other reasoning is spiritual or philosophical in nature. However I am glad that you have this type of sensibility and will not question it on a personal level. If I were you I would be asking myself why I have these sensibilities and the rational behind it in the light of naturalism. If we are nothing more than animated cosmic debris then then right and wrong sound more like a state of mind than anything else.
Comment by themayan — July 4, 2009 @ 2:03 am
July 4th, 2009 at 2:21 am
Tod your interpretations of my threads are very interesting but seem a little self serving. You have demonstrated a classic example of adding more to the text than was actually stated, which actually distorts the context of the statements made. If this is your idea of critical thinking or reasoning then you and I share a different definition of critical thinking.
Comment by themayan — July 4, 2009 @ 2:21 am
July 4th, 2009 at 7:54 am
Not that again. Why is it always that question? It's simple: virtually everybody agrees that raping children is wrong. And for the ones who don't agree we have laws.
How about the counter question: How do we tell when a deity-prescribed action is right or wrong?
Agreed. And then what?
Comment by hrun — July 4, 2009 @ 7:54 am
July 4th, 2009 at 9:41 am
I don't agree that that virtually everybody believes that rapping a child is wrong there is ample evidence of this, and I never used the word rape although it could include that. I think your making my point for me by viewing right and wrong from a democratic perspective, again ancient Greece would have also had a democratic perspective which would have been much different than today's. Who gets to decide what the law should be? I believe Napoleon said it best when he said morality lies on the side of the biggest gun, that sounds like survival of the fittest, he must have been a head of his time. I have to tell you I would be very interested on your view on how humans evolved the instinct for altruistic behaviour… talk about walking through a mind field. How can an enlightened naturalist be tied down by these silly concepts of right and wrong, good and evil? Your other question of the deity is a metaphysical one and is based on faith. If you want a more palatable answer I would refer you to the SETI project where people have spent billions over the decades on the faith that someday in some distant galaxy ET will eventually phone home and we might be lucky enough to monitor his or her call. Or maybe Darwins faith in the future discovery of transitionals or Jack Szostacs faith in vesicles formed by fatty acids as the the cellular catalyst for the hypothetical protocell.
Comment by themayan — July 4, 2009 @ 9:41 am
July 4th, 2009 at 11:23 am
themayan, I will simply post this little story to illustrate that having a deity decide morality is no help to anybody. I posted the same in response to angryoldfatman in a discussion that was going down the same tired road:
Johnny: I want to keep slaves.
themayan: But keeping slaves is wrong, my morality passed down from my deity says so.
Johnny: Ahh, you're nuts, I will keep slaves anyway.
themayan: Well, at least we have laws that prevent you from having slaves.
OR
Johnny: I want to keep slaves.
hrun: But keeping slaves is wrong, my naturalistic sense of morality tells me.
Johnny: Ahh, you're nuts, I will keep slaves anyway.
hrun: Well, at least we have laws that prevent you from having slaves.
Comment by hrun — July 4, 2009 @ 11:23 am
July 4th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Naturalistic Morality? Most people regard Thomas Jefferson as a moral character in history. He is honored by many in this country and even some others, yet his natural sense of morality did not keep him from enslaving and sexually copulating a 14 year old little girl by the name of Sally Hemming. According to the theory were really nothing more than glorified primates, and animals don't have court systems they dont have detectives and lawyer's, judges, this is what separates's us from other living creatures. The concept of morality in the naturalistic sense utilizes the same perimeter's of logic as any faith based Ideology. And how do we determine whats right when the law is not relevant or outside the enforcement zone. What takes priority, our so called naturalistic sense of right and wrong or our biological desire to sexually copulate, which is essential for self preservation. Does your sense of morality put up a stop sign at 18, or 17 or 16, 15? or younger. Hrun lets stop bullshitting ourselves. Ive never said that atheist didn't have a sense of morality I only question the rational for it in light of naturalism, again if I were you I would seriously question the origin and rational of these sensibilities, end of story.
Comment by themayan — July 4, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
July 4th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
That's what it boils down do. You think all morality is passed down by a deity. Not everyone agrees on what that morality is. And certainly many people commit immoral acts.
I think that morality is a construct inherent to humans. Not everyone agrees on what that morality is. And certainly many people commit immoral acts.
We both have to rely on laws to enforce morals. And the law, of course, does not fully match our view of morality.
You tell me, where is the difference?
Comment by hrun — July 4, 2009 @ 5:16 pm
July 4th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Hrun.. Well I have to disagree with you. I dont believe morality can be legislated. I have never heard of a person in modern times being charged and jailed for being immoral. That is why the legal system regards certain laws as statutory and non statutory. If by your own admission not every one agrees with what morality is, then how do we define it when were beyond the long arm of the law, does morality cease to exist on the high seas? or on a non populated deserted island. This is the mine field that I spoke of. Your notion of self inherent morality can not stand on naturalistic principles so you resorted to legalism.
Comment by themayan — July 4, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
July 4th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
I never meant that morality can or should be legislated. I simply said that the best we can hope for is that the laws match our morals (e.g. I think that rape should be illegal, and fortunately for me it is).
No. I did not resort to legalism.
Please, themayan, humor me and take a look at my little story:
Johnny: I want to keep slaves.
themayan: But keeping slaves is wrong, my morality passed down from my deity says so.
Johnny: Ahh, you're nuts, I will keep slaves anyway.
themayan: Well, at least we have laws that prevent you from having slaves.
OR
Johnny: I want to keep slaves.
hrun: But keeping slaves is wrong, my naturalistic sense of morality tells me.
Johnny: Ahh, you're nuts, I will keep slaves anyway.
hrun: Well, at least we have laws that prevent you from having slaves.
How are you or I in a different position when trying to convince Johnny not to keep slaves? What do you do? How does our different source of morality put as in a different position?
Comment by hrun — July 4, 2009 @ 5:49 pm
July 4th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
I hope angryoldfatman is playing the devils advocate, but if he's not, then as much as I disagree with his ideals I have to applaud his honesty. An atheist who actually has a pair, wow. Professor Provine from Stanford echoes the same sentiment and makes no apologies for it. Todd could learn a lot from you oldfatman, at least in terms of honesty.
Comment by themayan — July 4, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
July 4th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Enlighten me, where have I said anything dishonest? You seem to think anyone who disagrees with you must be lying. You aren't the sharpest apple in the bunch.
So only a theists trying to mock atheism strikes you as "being honest?" In other words, once again you have confused your delusional fantasies with reality.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 4, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
July 4th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
@ themayan
Paragraphs!!!
(Unless you'd rather I continued to scroll past your comments.)
Comment by Alan Fox — July 4, 2009 @ 6:21 pm
July 4th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Hrun… I read your analogy about Johnny, and as far as differentials, that's a question you have to ask yourself. I cant answer that for you. My whole point was, what is the rational for these moral constructs as you call them from a naturalistic perspective that can be defined without having to resort to religious or philosophical reasoning. In science we always have to consider cause and effect, that was my point. Naturalism is not capable of addressing these constructs empirically. Discussions are fine but lets not beat a dead horse.
Comment by themayan — July 4, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
July 4th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Are you serious? You seem to be implying in this whole thread that a morality passed down by a deity is great, while 'naturalistic' morality has all these problems.
And now you can't even illustrate why this is the case?
What does it matter what the rational is? What does it matter what the source is? Two people will not fully agree on either of those points. Or would you like to assert that if I get two Christians together in a room their moralities would be identical? Of course not.
Sure… beat a dead horse. You make assertions and then you tell me essentially answer my own questions.
If you don't like my example, let's take yours:
I bring my morality with me when I am on high seas or on an island. What do you do? And how will be in a different situation if we encounter somebody with a different morality? And don't give me this non-sense that I should ask myself. You claimed that your source of morality puts you in a different place. I challenge the truth of your assertion– prove me wrong.
Comment by hrun — July 4, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
July 4th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Point taken Tod my apologies, but it was a nicer way of saying what I really thought, and since you have decided to be candid about it. I was talking about having a pair of Balls.
Comment by themayan — July 4, 2009 @ 6:36 pm
July 4th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Hrun..You have made my point for me. Which is, there's no way to empirically prove morality, this is outside the realms of naturalism & physics. We can only offer philosophical reasoning. I'm not sure why an intelligent person like you would have such a problem in understanding this dynamic. I never claimed to be any more or less substantial than anyone, I dont have that authority.
Comment by themayan — July 4, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
July 4th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
So then why do you keep on talking about naturalistic morals leading to mine fields, and such? Why do you talk about naturalistic morals becoming problematic when you are outside the reach of the law?
If this is really your point, then you would have simply said that these are GENERAL problems of morality. But for some reason you always felt the need to make this distinction.
In any case, I am glad we agree. Morality can not be proven. Morality is not universal. Morality, no matter what your source can not be legislated. And whether you base your morals on the prescription of some deity or if the source of your morality is natural, we are all in the same boat.
Now, I am certain that you'll have a hard time convincing fellow theists that having a deity as a source puts you in the same position as when the source of morality are simple natural processes.
Comment by hrun — July 4, 2009 @ 6:58 pm
July 4th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
You might as well replace the the phrase natural process with the word abracadabra, for the naturalist morality like origins is best left out of sight, and therefore out of mind. However your philosophical interpretations are interesting to say the least.
Comment by themayan — July 4, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
July 4th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Yet again you avoid the question.
So why don't you just say it outright? You believe there is no such thing as morality based on anything other than a deity. And you believe that all atheists who claim they do not base their morality on the prescription of a deity are simply deluded.
Now, you, of course, have the problem that it is unknowable what deity is the correct one. And, you can't get two people following the same religion to agree on all moral questions.
Comment by hrun — July 4, 2009 @ 9:10 pm
July 4th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
And you have no idea how comical this sounds to me and the resident atheists.
Comment by hrun — July 4, 2009 @ 9:22 pm
July 4th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Hrun..I wasn't quite sure what point you were trying to make until the last thread. The answer is yes, I do believe in benevolence and malevolence as being a part of mans nature, I think where we differ, is the belief in the architect of nature and whether the formation of the natural world including the physique was a guided or a random process. Maybe were both guilty of making this to complicated.
Comment by themayan — July 4, 2009 @ 11:11 pm
July 4th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
I have to say that your views on morality being inherent in man is in my opinion an esoteric concept, and not one that I would expect from an atheist or bright but like I said before, you learn something new everyday. Its my nieces birthday today, so right now I'm going to go have my cake and eat it. That seems to be very popular these days.
Comment by themayan — July 4, 2009 @ 11:30 pm
July 5th, 2009 at 12:06 am
Please excuse mistakes like physique
Comment by themayan — July 5, 2009 @ 12:06 am
July 5th, 2009 at 1:26 am
I don't think so. At least not me. You, maybe?
So, was I right: Do you believe there is no such thing as morality based on anything other than a deity? And do you believe that all atheists who claim they do not base their morality on the prescription of a deity are simply deluded?
And do you agree that even with morality prescribed by a deity does not get around the issue that no two people can actually agree on what is and is not moral?
Comment by hrun — July 5, 2009 @ 1:26 am
July 5th, 2009 at 1:29 am
Heh. I guess you really have not ever tried to understand atheists morals.
Most atheists believe that morality is something that evolved to allow groups of animals to live together peacefully. So I would guess that most atheists would think that morality is inherent to every human.
Comment by hrun — July 5, 2009 @ 1:29 am
July 5th, 2009 at 1:47 am
I believe Ive already answered your question about my feelings on benevolence and malevolence being part of mans nature and a creator or Deity's responsibility for that. I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer. The new goal post you have brought up about no two people agreeing on whats moral, makes no sense in light of your past statements, that everyone can agree on whats moral, which is what you said a few threads back, your all over the place on this one. I dont wish to insult any one by calling them delusional. I'm not a medical expert. I would use the term inconsistent, in terms of naturalism, and in your case your own standard of logic.
Comment by themayan — July 5, 2009 @ 1:47 am
July 5th, 2009 at 2:37 am
Which is it morality evolved, or it is inherent? and now animals have the ability to exercise morality? So you believe something undefinable evolved, and the desire to kill and rape? Is that also an inherent construct for peaceful cohabitation.
Comment by themayan — July 5, 2009 @ 2:37 am
July 5th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Of course it is both. It evolved with us we became human and now it is inherent. And sure, have you every looked at research on chimps?
Comment by hrun — July 5, 2009 @ 9:05 am
July 5th, 2009 at 9:09 am
I said it before and I'll say it again: YOU talked about the idea of morals having naturalistic origins leads to 'minefields' when two people have differing morals or when they are outside out the reach of the law. That was YOUR argument (here). YOU brought it up.
I am using these examples simply to show you that NO MATTER WHAT the origins of your morals (deity, evolution, something else, …) you run into the same problem. If you agree, fine.
If not, then finally explain to me why having a deity as source of your morals supposedly gets you out of this conundrum.
Comment by hrun — July 5, 2009 @ 9:09 am
July 5th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Hrun Your doing what Tod does very well, which is to distort the context and creating your own false narrative. I never said a naturalistic view of morals leads to minefields. Sometimes critical thinking involves critical listening. I implied that using a fast and loose definition of morals such as statements like, everyone can agree, to no two can agree, then go from democratic consensus to a legal moral compass aspect, then to inherent values, then to evolved constructs which imply that animals have the capacity to express morality, and now to evolution and also an inherent dynamic, is like walking through a mine field of tortured logic or a tangled web we weave. These are your published threads not mine. If you think that evolved constructs and the notion of inherent behaviour is compatible, then I strongly urge you to look up the word inherent which is intrinsic by nature. You attempted to speak for most atheist by saying, and I'm paraphrasing… most atheist believe in an evolutionary contruct, and also morality being inherent in man, If the origin justifies the belief then using your own logic we could say religion is an evolutionary construct and my justification for belief is its origin, but I'm sure that's completely different right? Like my cousin Vinny I would love to hear your answer. Ive responded to all of your questions and goal changes and you avoid mine. PS dont forget to look up the word inherent.
Comment by themayan — July 5, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
July 5th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
I'm sorry but did you ever consider that it might be your communication style? Perhaps if you used grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, and paragraphs it would be easier for us to understand what you are trying to say. I am honestly not trying to distort anything you have written. When I try to paraphrase what you have said you claim I am distorting your views but then you offer no further clarifications. You claim I am being dishonest then you can't say how. You claim I lack the balls to speak the truth but offer no example of where I have failed to do that. You can throw blame at everyone else all you want, but if you want to be understood you've going to have to make a better effort. Consider the following example of an unintelligible sentence:
I honestly have no clue what you are trying to say there. You claim, "Ive responded to all of your questions and goal changes and you avoid mine," but if you have responded to the points raised then I was unable to parse that out of the words you wrote on the page. And when efforts are made to address your points you label them all as "distortion." Perhaps English is not your native tongue in which case I can empathize with the added difficulty you face, but please help us to understand you rather than simply accusing us of distortion and lies.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 5, 2009 @ 6:54 pm
July 5th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Tod Thank you for the critique on my writing skills or lack of them, which I shamefully admit is a weak point, I have to admit to being more interested in substance over presentation, but the fact that you have responded to my critique of you, leads me to believe that you understand my poor grammar just fine. I think in spite of my poor writing skills my one redeeming quality if I can ring my own bell is that I dont create false narratives and intentionally distort other peoples statements. That is what I meant about balls. You may not like my answers or logic but one thing I dont avoid is grabbing the bull by the horns… as for writting, paragraphs shmaragraphs!
Comment by themayan — July 5, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
July 5th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
earlier
So you were here talking about morality in general (including theistic based morality) or just about naturalistic morals? Inquiring minds would like to know.
Ah, if that is what you 'implied' then maybe next time you should say it (and not just imply).
So, if that is the problem, then what do you think is the solutoin. You still have failed to answer if you agree that NO MATTER WHAT THE SOURCE OF THE MORALs the problems remain the same.
No, why would that be different? I think belief in religions certainly comes natural to humans. Try to understand this, I am not criticizing your source of morals. If you believe that a deity is responsible for your morals, that's fine with me. My point is, that this does not make one iota of a difference when it comes to the problems that morality poses. You know, those mine fields you were speaking of. Do you agree? If not, then how can the source of morals make a difference?
You know what, I did when you apparently did not understand what meanings the word inherent actually has. But I will go ahead and cite the definition here.
Inherent: involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit : intrinsic
So of course the self inherent morality can stand on naturalistic principles. Morality evolved together with man. It is an essential character of man and it belongs by nature to man. How much more fitting can the word inherent be? Did you actually look up the meaning? I think it is a bit ballsy to challenge somebody on the meaning of the word without making doubly sure that the word was indeed used with the wrong meaning or in the wrong context.
Comment by hrun — July 5, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
July 6th, 2009 at 12:34 am
I believe were all subject to immoral behavior including me and my own I'm sorry if you got the wrong impression. I will repeat myself again. I believe a creator has allowed for the duality of good and evil in man, or what you refer to as moral and blank. I say blank because you never answered the question of the evolutionary constructs of rape and murder so I'm not sure what your opinion is on immorality. These are my metaphysical beliefs. The unfairness of this is, faith doesn't require empirical proof while naturalism requires causation. In this sense morality can vary from person to person and while the same can be said for Christians, there are basic tenets that all Christians believe, and in most faiths in general with the exception of some oddballs, and that is, the ten commandments or equivalent, especially in regards to killing, raping, stealing, etc. in which hopefully abstinence is reinforced by the belief in an after life and the accountability of bad behaviour. Unfortunately naturalistic morality hasn't achieved the same level of attention in terms of dogmas or doctrine and maybe because there are a lot of atheist who believe that morality is just a state of mind. Who knows the reason? I'm not questioning your definition of inherent, but I haven't seen one that uses the word habit, can you site your source for me?
Comment by themayan — July 6, 2009 @ 12:34 am
July 6th, 2009 at 4:55 am
Exactly the point. There's a more fundamental evaluation going on here. Not all Christians accept all of the ten commandments. Some are considered more fundamental.
Why? What are all those good Christians using to judge which Commandments are important, such as "killing, raping, stealing, etc.", and which are not, such as honoring your parents when they don't deserve it or not working on the the sabbath? Could it be that we judge the Bible based on something other than our religious beliefs? Could it be that the Bible cited killing, raping, and stealing because we would agree about them, rather than it being that we agree about them because the Bible tells us to?
Comment by don provan — July 6, 2009 @ 4:55 am
July 6th, 2009 at 8:33 am
Bull. I say we are moral beings cause evolution made us so. You say we are moral beings cause god made us so. Same difference. Either both or neither require empirical proof with causation.
Exactly as I said sometime earlier. I'd rather trust humans that have an inherent sense of morality to do the right thing than trust humans that fear punishment in an afterlife.
I think it is fitting to conclude this discussion now, since this is exactly the point that sucked me in it in the first place.
Comment by hrun — July 6, 2009 @ 8:33 am
July 6th, 2009 at 8:35 am
themayan, I think we will have to bring this discussion to a close. I have a busy week in front of me and this is clearly a time sink. I will summarize things the way I see them and then give you the last word. I will read it (but hopefully) not respond.
What we have seen is that
A) no matter what the source of your morals, you will find a large variety of morals even if two people believe they share the same source (deity, evolution, …)
B) no matter what the source of your morals, you will find aberrations (priests that molest children, atheists that go on killing sprees, …)
C) no matter what the source of your morals, one is generally unable to change somebody elses morals by appealing to ones on source of morals ("god told me it's wrong to keep slaves" or "my inner sense of morality tells me it's wrong to keep slaves" is equally unconvincing for somebody who thinks it is not wrong to keep slaves
D) even though we all agree that humans are moral beings, as of yet, we have no proof exactly how we became moral beings (for some, god made us so is more convincing, for others, we evolved to be moral beings is more convincing)
Taken together, this means that no matter what the source of morality, appealing to morals is a poor way of ensuring proper functioning of society. Thus, we have become a nation of laws in which many near-universal moral principles are enforced (no killing, stealing, raping, …)– again, this is as true for secular nations as it is for current and past theocratic nations.
Comment by hrun — July 6, 2009 @ 8:35 am
July 6th, 2009 at 9:00 am
Hrun your views are unique compared to many other athiest. Do you think maybe you could respond to some of the questions asked, I tried my best to anwer yours. You never responded to my former questions so I will ask you this one, do you think my belief in God is rational?
Comment by themayan — July 6, 2009 @ 9:00 am
July 6th, 2009 at 9:09 am
How do you figure? I don't think that my views are particularly unique. Maybe you just simply do not understand atheists as well as you thought you did.
themayan, list the questions and I will try my best to answer them.
No, I do not think so. And you (from all your writing) do not think so either. You belief in god is based on faith, not on reason.
I used Merriam-Webster, but the definition of inherent remains more or less the same no matter what the source.
Comment by hrun — July 6, 2009 @ 9:09 am
July 6th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
My belief in God according to you is a construct of evolution. Your belief in morality is a construct of evolution. According to this hypothesis there has to be causation and reason for faith which is the same standard that you used for morality. And maybe someday you will attempt to answer the question of the evolutionary construct of rape and murder but I wont hold my breath. adios y buena fortuna.
Comment by themayan — July 6, 2009 @ 11:45 pm
July 6th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
I did not claim that my morality is based on reason. There have been many that have tried to justify morality (even universal morality) solely on reason. I have not studied Kant enough to make a judgment on whether they succeded.
You simply jumped to the conclusion that just because there has to be causation that it also has to be rational. Why would that be?
What is there to answer? It's wrong. Done.
There. Took me about five minutes to answer. Even if you would have held your breath, you'd probably still be alive.
Comment by hrun — July 6, 2009 @ 11:51 pm
July 7th, 2009 at 12:21 am
How does unguided evolution know that something is wrong. Hrun I know that you can do better than that. Let me help you, what I would have said was that rape came about by the selective pressure of the physiological desire to copulate and reproduce. You could use that one in the future if you want, I wont tell anybody. If you cant figure out the question of murder aspect, Ill work on that one for you also. I dont mean to be an ahole but your breaking my heart. It really is difficult to stay on train of thought with you. On the last two threads you stated somethings that I didn't quite get. You said that my belief in God was based on faith not reason, and on the next thread you said that you never said that morality had reason, yet you believe in it. I'm not sure how to interpret that.
Comment by themayan — July 7, 2009 @ 12:21 am
July 7th, 2009 at 12:37 am
Whoever said that 'unguided evolution' knows something is wrong. I know its wrong. Remember when I said that it is inherent to humans? Remember when I said that I bring my morality along on the high seas or the deserted island?
I don't need to do better. You just need to read and make a reasonable attempt at understanding. Shake off those preconceived notions about morality of atheists and learn something new.
You can do it!
Well, that's fine. And then I would tell you that it's morally wrong. (Remember that little story about keeping slaves. I told you it was important and instructive. Go back and read it again. Ponder it long and hard. Will I be able to convince Johnny not to keep slaves by arguing about morality? No. Will Johnny share my very same morality, even if derived from the same source? No. Will you have any better luck? No)
Use it to do what exactly?
Again, work on what? Would you like to justify for yourself that murder is not morally wrong? Be my guest. I told you what I think about murder, rape, keeping slaves, …
You know what? I really does sound to me like you indeed are trying to be an ahole. Trying very hard, actually.
It's because you are not paying enough attention.
Yes. I did say that your belief in God was based on faith and not on reason. That surely is correct. And I also never said that my morality was based in reason. And I do not believe in morality. I experience it. I am a moral being. I don't need to reason about morals. I have them. Just like I don't reason about the love I feel for a relative.
And yes, I realize that this is difficult for you. But that is solely because you are unable to shake the shackles of your preconceived notions. Read what I write. And don't just skim what I write and fill in the rest with what you think I should and should not believe.
Comment by hrun — July 7, 2009 @ 12:37 am
July 7th, 2009 at 1:21 am
I didnt make anything up, and I believe Ive quoted you accurately and used your own standards, you say that your are a moral being and I have never questioned that. I'm only pointing out that you believe that morality is an evolutionary construct with no reason. Of course earlier you said that evolution was the reason why we experience morality but your much to complex for my simple mind to figure that one out. If you feel comfortable experiencing something for which there is no reason I can fully understand that, and you wont be criticized by me for your views. I'm different, I believe in faith and reason, and since we all can agree that just like the different views and interpretations of morality there are different views and interpretations of reason, about 6 billions worth. Ive never doubted your sincerity so I'm not sure why your so hostile to a different point of view. I also have not tried to psychoanalyze you or criticize your critically thinking process. Sarcasm yes I'm guilty of that, but very tamed compared to other threads.
Comment by themayan — July 7, 2009 @ 1:21 am
July 7th, 2009 at 5:17 am
Are you familiar with the understanding, those who originally coined the term faith, had about the concept? It does not look like it based on your contrast of the words faith and reason. Based on your subjective reaction to the words, what is it that is unreasonable about an exercise of faith?
I'm not even going to bother asking whether you understand the word morality. You've obviously decided this is a very subjective matter. But for the sake of the rest of us here are some standard definitions of the term morality:
Here is a variation with parallels to the prior definition:
Morality lies within the philosophical realm but that does not mean that morality is an emotion, that morality is purely experential in nature or that a rational explanation of a particular morality (individual in your case) can be divorced from a basis in reason. It takes advanced cognitive facilities to understand and utilize a concept like morality. To coherently explain why one's behavior is moral or immoral requires citing standards and correlating them to particular behavior. You can still feel love for a relative and behave in a very immoral way toward that relative based on an the moral system used as the guiding compass for the behavior in question.
Comment by Bradford — July 7, 2009 @ 5:17 am
July 7th, 2009 at 6:45 am
Look up the difference between something having an underlying reason and something being rational. Go back to the quote where I said that your beliefs are "not based on reason". I did not say that they don't have an underlying reason (or cause).
And if you BELIEVE that you quoted me accurately, then actually quote me. Don't just paraphrase.
Okay. I give up. I am not hostile to your point of view as far as what your source of beliefs are. I am hostile to the point of view that having a all-knowing deity as a source of your morals changes any of the problems associated with morals– i.e. your assertion about the mine field.
Read my post from yesterday again where I summarize what I think the important points of the discussion are. Then read it again. Mull it over and read it again. Then try again to judge how hostile I am to your point of view.
Since you really don't even try any more to read accurately and to understand I will reiterate my point from yesterday: I don't have time for this.
Comment by hrun — July 7, 2009 @ 6:45 am
July 7th, 2009 at 6:54 am
That is exactly how I understand morals.
Do you think my views on slavery, rape and murder and many other questions are not in accord with the standards of right or good conduct?
Comment by hrun — July 7, 2009 @ 6:54 am
July 7th, 2009 at 8:10 am
I dont know why you would tell me that my faith has no reason when you admit the experience of morality that you say is inherent in your being also has no reason, only cause. I thought the same standard applied to the evolutionary construct of faith? Unless your insinuating that your sense of reason is superior to mine. According to your standard of logic evolution causes an unreasonable inherent experience. Ive never heard any evolutionist advocate this before. I'm glad I didnt hold my breath because you never answered the question of murder and rape. I never asked you if it was wrong, I asked you what was the evolutionary construct, meaning causation. You say morality evolved so that groups of animal could live together peacefully which seems like a good enough reason to me. If that's true then somewhere along the line morality lost its reason. I think I'm going to have to light up a big fatty for that one. This is your model I didnt make this up. Do you think your hostility is reasonable, because after talking to you I'm not sure anymore.
Comment by themayan — July 7, 2009 @ 8:10 am
July 7th, 2009 at 8:32 am
Maybe so. Even though I have found it virtually impossible to 'change' somebodies morals after a certain formative period in their lives. For example, people can reason with me, talk to me, cite scripture and do whatever they want, but they will not be able to convince me that, let's say, homosexuality is morally wrong.
Likewise, I could be thrown into a society of child rapists… and even though they might be able to rationalize their conduct, tell me how it is part of their society, … and they will not be able to convince me that it is not morally wrong.
I say it is not based in reason, because I can't always come up with an explanation of: X is wrong. This follows logically from my tenets a, b and c. Sometimes the best answer I have is this is morally wrong or right because to me it feels morally wrong or right.
As I said, Kant might have had some different views on the issue. He might be right. And certainly his golden rule works pretty well to explain a number of things. But in the end, if you probe long enough, you will find 'reason' braking down and 'emotion' becoming the underlying principle. You may disagree… feel free to do so.
Maybe I can take a licensed and standardized test to find out if I have those 'advanced cognitive facilities'. If it turns out that I do not, then maybe I will call whatever that thing is that I am talking about schmorals. Surely, I can use a concept like schmorals.
And you can even know that something is morally wrong and still do it. Again, this is not unique to atheists or theists. What's your point? Actually, there is no need to clarify. Time constraints will dictate that I leave it at that.
Comment by hrun — July 7, 2009 @ 8:32 am
July 7th, 2009 at 8:43 am
Is this really that hard to understand? I was not trying to contrast your and my source of morals based on their rationality.
Ugh. This is about as frustrating as talking to Eliza.
Yes, unreasonable as in 'not based on reason'. There are many things that humans and animals do that are not based on reason. This does not mean they don't have a cause.
Try and understand that there is a difference between something being rational (based on reason) and having a reason (having a cause).
Wow, you read what I write. You can sometimes comprehend what I write, but in the end, you still can't figure out the answer to the question? I gave the answer. I'll highlight it for you.
You completely lost me here.
Yes, I think it is reasonable. Take as case and point your inability to find the definition of inherent and making me waste my time explaining this word to you while you could have just as easily typed the word into google and looked up the first definition that popped up.
Themayan, let's just bring this to an end, shall we? I will summarize again– since you have not disagreed with any of my statements I made yesterday:
Comment by hrun — July 7, 2009 @ 8:43 am
July 7th, 2009 at 8:44 am
I always free free to disagree. If you can construct a logical explanation based on derivations from a self-evident assumption or two you have a self-consistent morality system. That does not mean all will agree with it but neither does it signify that bedrock assumptions flow from feelings.
Comment by Bradford — July 7, 2009 @ 8:44 am
July 7th, 2009 at 9:47 am
You dont have to thread any more nobody's forcing you. Your the one who wanted to beat a dead horse, be careful what you wish for. As far as trying to understand something being rational based on reason, and a reason having cause, I do understand it and if you go back and read the thread you will see that I acknowledged it and addressed it, and did so following your logic. Evolution caused morality for the purpose of peaceful cohabitation. So we eventually get to a point were morality is developing in the minds of animals for a purpose, but there's no reason, You equate reason with rationality as I do, but when I asked you if you thought my faith was irrational you said no. So so my faith is rational but unreasonable?? Hrun Ill leave you alone. I'm starting to feel empathy for you, but before I go, since you took it upon yourself to psychoanalyze me on multiple threads and give me advice about loosening the shackles that bind me. Let me offer my own. In all my years including countless debates Ive had with people from all over the world, I have never heard of a theory that contained such tortured logic. Ive never met a person who played as many semantic word games as you have. I have never met anyone who has proposed the kind of self defeating theory that you have tried to pass as rational, and im not even sure how many personel intepretations you have for the word rational. If there is any consolation for this harsh critique. It would be that I dont think atheism or naturalism has anything to do with it. I think its your own personnel psychology.
Comment by themayan — July 7, 2009 @ 9:47 am
July 7th, 2009 at 11:55 am
themayan, here is another perfect illustration of the problem that I have discussing with you:
You write here: "[...] but when I asked you if you thought my faith was irrational you said no. "
Now let's go back to the actual exchange. You wrote: "[...] do you think my belief in God is rational?"
I answered: "No, I do not think so. And you (from all your writing) do not think so either. You belief in god is based on faith, not on reason."
So where again did I say 'no' to your faith being rational (or if the double negative is confusing to you: where did I imply that your faith is rational)?
Comment by hrun — July 7, 2009 @ 11:55 am
July 7th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
I asked you if you thought my faith was irrational and you said no. Unless you want to play another game of semantics and double meanings that only seem to make any sense in your own mind. Then I have to believe my inherent faith with out reason, is just as rational as your inherent morality without reason. Its not the double negative that's confusing me, its your double speak and circular reasoning thats confusing, I never said that you called my faith irrational I dont know were you got that from, you said without reason. If I cant even figure out what your trying to say with simple words, I dont even want to attempt to ask what you mean by double negatives. Let me try it this way, do you think my faith is rational? and why do you believe my faith is void of reason, are you a psychic? do you have the ability to see deep in my soul and Know what my reasons are, or is this just conjecture? there's no need to use double negatives what ever that means to you. These are very simple questions with no double meanings and they dont require double negatives, please make yourself clear and consistent. please no semantics.
Comment by themayan — July 7, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
July 7th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
O my, that is not the question you asked me. You are very confused about this. Let me quote it again. This time I will highlight the relevant words.
themayan says: "[...] do you think my belief in God is rational?"
hrun says: "No, I do not think so."
I do not know how this could be made any clearer. Somebody, anybody, help me out here.
Comment by hrun — July 7, 2009 @ 12:45 pm
July 7th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
You believe my inherent faith with out reason is irrational, but your inherent belief in morality with out reason is rational, I'm not sure how you can speak for my reasons in believing in God but OK maybe I'm speaking to Silvia Brown. I cant prove that you dont have mind reading powers, and you decide what is rational and reasonable is that pretty much it. Your right and I'm wrong, are we in agreement. Hey evolution decided to give you a superior mind lets face it.
Comment by themayan — July 7, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
July 7th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Okay, this is the last time I am going to do this.
I mean, seriously, three times you claim that I said something, even though I clearly didn't. And then when it finally sinks in (it should dawn on you that you have been debating not me but the answers you expected me to give), you just completely ignore your own mistake and move on.
I will now demonstrate that this was not your only mistake, but that you simply continue to argue with a person who only exists in your mind, but not on this thread.
You write:
Here is what I actually wrote:
Comment by hrun — July 7, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
July 7th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
I wasnt quoting you, I was making a statement. I proposed that your belief was rational….. but your claiming your experience of morality is not rational, and unreasonable OK. And you know that I have no reasons to have faith, am I still missing it. I haven't quite got a grasp on this double negative concept yet but I'm trying. If me telling you your inherent belief is rational, and you correct me and say thats not what you said, what am I supposed to think. dont you believe your rational. I cant critique you, and I cant compliment you.
Comment by themayan — July 7, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
July 7th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Okay, you got me replying to you again. Here is what you actually said:
and
You were clearly not simply making a statement. In the first case you were making a wrong assertion about what I said and in the second case you made a wrong assertion about what I believe. Even though in both cases my answers were pretty clear. If you think they were not, I refer you back to the passages where I quoted and highlighted our exchanges.
It is getting pretty tedious to continuously call you on your false claims.
Comment by hrun — July 7, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
July 7th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
OK
Comment by themayan — July 7, 2009 @ 4:39 pm