The summer 2011 totally legitimate and like official atheist thread, endorsed too

[mjmacky]

I made it a Drawing Room thread, this implies that I'll be entirely serious in both the factual statements I present and the opinions I harbor. I, however, won't rid my personality, which is that of an ass. This first post will also be surprisingly short (to my standards).

To the theists: Faith in divine beings or the supernatural doesn't necessarily make your logic on ALL things flawed, but is certainly a warning sign that you are capable of major fallacy. Given that you believe in an entity or some that were presented to you by chance from your surroundings, and that there is absolutely no proof of its/their existence, acknowledge that you have made some major concessions that suspend both reality and logic to maintain your beliefs. Therefore, it's ridiculous when you expect to be taken seriously in a logical debate.

To the atheists: I don't have much to say to you, for not believing in magic, spirits and deities doesn't provide a very unifying characteristic. On the one commonality that does exist, I will say, aren't theists silly?

What inspired this thread?
I think I love this girl:

[OlegL]

Dude, didn't we already discuss it in the other thread? We need the concept of God because according to the great philosopher Kant, if there is no God, then we are allowed to do things that are immoral; we are allowed not to listen to our conscience if there is no God. Therefore, we need God because we need to fear someone. We need God if we don't want relative morality, but want absolute morality.
Edit: oh, and by the way, the girl in the video is really cute.

[mjmacky]

We need the concept of God because according to the great philosopher Kant, if there is no God, then we are allowed to do things that are immoral

Weaker minds need the concept of god to follow what is moral. We already understand what is good/bad in terms of reality as it effects the society. Adherence to it doesn't NEED negative/positive reinforcement. The ethics/morality described in religious texts are static and limited in their form, thus lose relevance over time. There are tons of things in the bible that may have been moral within their context of linear time, but are ridiculous now. Morality is a lot more complex than that.

Here's another video that illustrates my point very interestingly, but doesn't feature a cute intelligent girl with a sexy accent (therefore less likely to grab viewers, though the viewage stats don't agree):

[cloggy45]

[QUOTE=mjmacky;3587466]

Weaker minds need the concept of god to follow what is moral.

I don't think it has anything to do with anyone being weaker or stronger, and saying so makes you sound like a douche, and that is coming from a fellow atheist.

[mjmacky]

[QUOTE=cloggy45;3587475]

I don't think it has anything to do with anyone being weaker or stronger, and saying so makes you sound like a douche, and that is coming from a fellow atheist.

Sure it can, if you need the crutch to do the right thing, you're a weaker person. I will give you this though, it doesn't mean that in all cases, e.g. you hate society and have desires to work against it. However, that's outside of the context of the particular point I was making. Also, I'm blunt, honest and have higher expectations of people. Using douche to describe that doesn't stick, ass/dick/cunt or some synonymous term with anatomical sexual organs might fit.

Edit: In reality I'm considered "insensitive"

[cloggy45]

[QUOTE=mjmacky;3587476]

Sure it can, if you need the crutch to do the right thing, you're a weaker person.

Are you a moral relativist? absolutist?

[OlegL]

Adherence to it doesn't NEED negative/positive reinforcement.

It needs reinforcement because human beings are weak more often than not; they can easily stray from a moral path and therefore, the likelihood that they will commit sins will increase. People who are in power are often weak also and it's possible they will also commit sins; therefore, it's not enough to know what is good for a society. Also, the Bible teaches us not to kill, not to steal, and not to do other bad things. The idea that we should not kill or steal is relevant to the modern times, so it's not true that the Bible talks about ridiculous moral concepts.

[mjmacky]

[QUOTE=cloggy45;3587480]

Are you a moral relativist? absolutist?

Relativist

[mjmacky]

Adherence to it doesn't NEED negative/positive reinforcement.

It needs reinforcement because human beings are weak more often than not; they can easily stray from a moral path and therefore, the likelihood that they will commit sins will increase. People who are in power are often weak also and it's possible they will also commit sins; therefore, it's not enough to know what is good for a society. Also, the Bible teaches us not to kill, not to steal, and not to do other bad things. The idea that we should not kill or steal is relevant to the modern times, so it's not true that the Bible talks about ridiculous moral concepts.

It's a joke to think we would need a bible to "teach" us these things. There's a lot of other garbage in there that you're ignoring. Some of the only validation that book receives is that it's sometimes compatible with what we can agree on, among those examples you have pointed out. You have it the other way around, human beings do the right thing more often than not and the fear of committing sin and being damned has little to do with it. That may sound bizarre coming from me, who has such a low opinion of humanity and wouldn't mind if every society implodes in on themselves. It's when someone is presented with the opportunity to do something that will benefit them at the expense of their neighbors, friends, family, strangers, community, etc. that they begin to struggle. It is at that point that they need the crutch, and I've seen, as well as we've all seen, that the crutch all too often doesn't withstand the weight of that deliberation. Therefore, I don't condemn the notion of religion as a crutch, but at the fact that it's such an ineffective one.

People who come to power are usually the ones that have stepped over others in ways that do not abide by moral and ethical standards, so it's not surprising that they will continue to do so once there. Oleg, you're not bringing much to the discussion. I'd only ask that you give it more sincere thought before presenting the viewpoint, as most of what I've pointed out should have been self-evident.

To all:
Do you feel the concept of filesharing is morally wrong?

[OlegL]

Well, I dunno man... I am just talking about what I learned in a philosophy class a long time ago... So, you don't think we need the concept of God?