If these people actually believe what their claimed religion dictates, then no wonder your country is fucked!
We did notice that Congress was reading the Constitution line by line on the floor.And perhaps it will instil in them some curiosity about the other writings of the framers, such as those on corporatism and their thoughts on religion.They're not actually reading the whole thing, they are skipping some non-binding amendments.I thought they were trying to cut the fat out of government? How much does this grandstanding/timewaster cost?
Is the part where someone yells"Except Obama, except Obama, help us Jesus!" during the presidential eligibility part on youtube?
JC,>>I thought they were trying to cut the fat out of government? How much does this grandstanding/timewaster cost? Valid point! Touché my friend, touché.
Is the part where someone yells"Except Obama, except Obama, help us Jesus!" during the presidential eligibility part on youtube?Here you are. It's not so interesting.
No wonder that religious bigotry keeps atheists from getting elected to congress...
please tell Chad Williams to refute my video and stop being a coward.
Do you mean to imply that the regrettable lack of representation for a significant subset of American citizens is somehow desirable?
Henracious,>>Do you mean to imply that the regrettable lack of representation for a significant subset of American citizens is somehow desirable?If that "subset" eats babies then yes!! Remember morality is objective. Subjective morality, as the atheists are suggesting and promoting, is no way to run a proper and successful society.
Dan,If that "subset" eats babies then yes!! Remember morality is objective. Subjective morality, as the atheists are suggesting and promoting, is no way to run a proper and successful society.Objective morality is inherently arbitrary, and is thus always as much in question as subjective morality. For example, there is the implicit belief in most apologetic Christians that their god's actions are inherently moral. Where does this belief come from? Yet another arbitrary statement of morality, claiming that it is the highest and most powerful being in the universe, and thus its will is unquestionably moral.Yet, this too is a subjective morality. This system concludes that it's morally acceptable for your god to kill hundreds of thousands of people, but that if you were to kill hundreds of thousands of people, you would be considered amoral. This does not follow morality, for if the one enforcing the law is not also bound to the law, how can we say that the moral system is successful, or even internally consistent?Your initial comment is a joke in poor taste. I might mention that I am not the one who is specifically authorized to kill children in the name of my deity. Nor am I the one whose intellectual legacy concluded in a long and storied history of genocide and mass murder. Perhaps these false allegations you put forward amuse you, but the irony is not lost on any of us.
We cannot let the Atheists into U.S. Congress! That is NOT what the founding fathers wanted!Look at the text, they wanted a country founded by CHRISTIAN GOD, and perpetuated as such, NOT ATHEIST.Just ignore what the actual words say in the constitution, it's just like the Bible, you have to just interpret what they meant, not what they said!
Henracious,>>Objective morality is inherently arbitrary, and is thus always as much in question as subjective morality.Only to someone with the worldview of Nihilism. Another reason not to vote them in. Nihilism is what is arbitrary.>>For example, there is the implicit belief in most apologetic Christians that their god's actions are inherently moral.God's action are moral because they are God's nature. Things are 'moral' because it reflects His nature.Is it your claim that God is not moral? Before you answer, to what moral standard are you gauging that against?>>This system concludes that it's morally acceptable for your god to kill hundreds of thousands of people, but that if you were to kill hundreds of thousands of people, you would be considered amoral.If hundred of thousands of men, lets even call them RCC Priests, molest children. Then say they murder those children in a horrible way. Would be in the right to try them in a court and sentence them to death? My point is that capital punishment is justified. It would not be amoral to sentence criminals of heinous crimes to death. God is the ultimate Judge. If He chooses to remove someone from this realm, it does not automatically make is wrong. If God sees a horrible life for a child on this planet. God then takes the child to Heaven with Him, then it was GOOD, not bad. You merely are viewing things from one plane or realm. This temporal one. Its why you are subjective in your thoughts. Its also what makes your reasoning viciously circular.>>Nor am I the one whose intellectual legacy concluded in a long and storied history of genocide and mass murder.Was it genocide or capital punishment? How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?
There no atheists in Congress because your country has this baseless idea that an atheist politician have no morals and ethics since he doesn't belive in god. In US a politician can be violent bully, a drunk, a junkie, a wife beater, a homophobe, a racist, a man who can't spend a day without having sex with the trainees and he still gets elected...but an atheist politician, no way he can be in the congress. He is married man or woman - a nice moral person, with more ethics that Bush will ever have and the american people don't trust him because he doesn't believe in some god...come on!!
Atheists should not be in Congress because of their baseless, inconsistent, and absurd worldview.How can an atheist account for anything that is good or bad, right or wrong, when all they appeal to is the subjective?
[i]>>Atheists should not be in Congress because of their baseless, inconsistent, and absurd worldview.How can an atheist account for anything that is good or bad, right or wrong, when all they appeal to is the subjective?[/i]How can a Christian account for anything that is good or bad, right or wrong, when all they appeal to is an invisible bearded man in the sky?[i]>>Is it your claim that God is not moral? Before you answer, to what moral standard are you gauging that against?[/i]1 - Thou Shalt Not KillYour god's words, not mine.[i]>>Only to someone with the worldview of Nihilism. Another reason not to vote them in. Nihilism is what is arbitrary.[/i]Sorry, I don't subscribe to nihilism, because even nihilism makes an appeal to meaning.Existentialism, however, is another story.[i]>>If hundred of thousands of men, lets even call them RCC Priests, molest children. Then say they murder those children in a horrible way. Would be in the right to try them in a court and sentence them to death? My point is that capital punishment is justified.[/i]See, Dan? When you [i]really, really[/i] try at something, you can make a semi-coherent argument.Before my answer, though, I would like to note that the mere fact that you are making an exception for a certain class of citizen reveals the arbitrariness of your morality. Why don't we punish those who have committed no crime?I am not saying morality does not exist. As stated before, I am not a nihilist. I am making a claim that objectivity is illusory. I find myself in the position that those responsible should receive a fair trial, which is due to all people, regardless of class, and that the punishment should not be death, but rehabilitation.However, RCC priests raping and murdering children are still products of our society, so the punishment of death only serves to ignore the larger task - to reform society. That is a whole other topic, though - maybe we will find ourselves talking about it someday soon.[i]>>It would not be amoral to sentence criminals of heinous crimes to death. God is the ultimate Judge. If He chooses to remove someone from this realm, it does not automatically make is wrong.[/i]It also does not automatically make it [i]right[/i]. Your god's judgment is wasteful, vengeful, impassioned. If your god kills and tortures instead of reforming, then we cannot say s/he has punished well. We can only say that s/he has punished.
[i]>>If God sees a horrible life for a child on this planet. God then takes the child to Heaven with Him, then it was GOOD, not bad. You merely are viewing things from one plane or realm. This temporal one. Its why you are subjective in your thoughts. Its also what makes your reasoning viciously circular.[/i]I think you presume overmuch on my reasoning. I have my own morals, but they are based on my sympathy for humankind, not brutally enforced by a celestial dictator. I do not pretend they are objective. For example, I do not see killing a man as objectively the same as killing a man to protect your own life. However, the key is to insert context. It is to consider and weigh the consequences of an action.I would argue that very little weight is placed on your god to prove the justness of her/his rule. As such, the question of legitimacy is largely alien to Christianity. Should I doubt the ability for a Christian to judge, even though I respect their decisiveness?One should not assume one group of people is only bad or only good. All is in flux. Christians and atheists both have things to work on.I oppose your glorification of the ostracism of atheists from Congress. Not because I think that atheists are somehow more suited to the task of legislation, but because of the term "Representative Government" that everyone seems to be tossing around these days. The demographics of congress should reflect the demographics of the nation they represent, not the demographics of those already in power (read: white, protestant, heterosexual, owning-class males.)
Henracious,to what moral standard are you gauging that against?>>1 - Thou Shalt Not KillFantastic! So the 6th Commandment is your reference to your morality.>>Your god's words, not mine.Exactly! Thanks for admitting that you appeal to my worldview for your moral authority. This is a great and healthy day indeed.>> Why don't we punish those who have committed no crime?That would be unjust then. The difference here is, who is the judge? If we are, then we look great. A crack head says "at least I don't do heroin..." and feels he is 'better' then that addict.Ray had a good analogy that simply said, "A little girl was once watching a sheep eat grass and thought how white it looked against the green background. But when it began to snow she thought, "That sheep now looks dirty against the white snow!" It was the same sheep, but with a different background. When we compare ourselves to man's standard we look pretty clean, but when we compare ourselves to the pure snow-white righteousness of God's standard—His Law, we can see ourselves in truth, that we are unclean in His sight. That Law is the holy standard by which humanity will be judged on Judgment Day."Make no mistake about it, you are a criminal guilty of breaking God's Law. The punishment is death.>>I am not saying morality does not exist.Right. And you MUST appeal to my worldview to account for morality. Otherwise, arbitrary and subjective.>> and that the punishment should not be death, but rehabilitation.Life itself is the rehabilitation opportunity here. You have an option to rehabilitate right now. See here for more on that. The problem is that you did not choose that option. You are still unrepentant and defy the Law. You are a habitual criminal.Are you saying that you are ready to be rehabilitated?>>If your god kills and tortures instead of reforming, then we cannot say s/he has punished well. We can only say that s/he has punished.Is taking the punishment for you, upon Himself, not enough?
Henracious,>>The demographics of congress should reflect the demographics of the nation they represent, not the demographics of those already in power (read: white, protestant, heterosexual, owning-class males.)Well we have more then 53 million babies killed thus far and a secular school system that churns out atheists. Its pretty representative of this nation's morals and demographic. Especially a subjectively moral atheistic worldview. What more do you want?
Dan +†+ There's something we finally agree. Good/bad and right/wrong are subjective. That is called morality.What is right for you might be wrong in my opinion and is wrong in your opinion might be right in mine.For example: you are against abortion because - for you - is morally wrong. Me - on the other hand - I'm not against abortion and it's a subject that has nothing to do with morality and yes with the woman being able to chose what she wants to do with her body.You are a human being with you personal experiences, culture, beliefs, conscience, ideology, ethics - and all of that, among other things - contribute with your notion of right and wrong/good and bad. Since experiences, culture, beliefs, conscience, ideology, ethics, etc, are different from one person to another - and to one society to another - of course they will have different notions of right/wrong; bad/good from you. You can't expect everyone to have the same moral standards you have.I'll give you another example: A few months ago I saw a video of a muslim woman being whipped 52 times in the middle of the street, in front of a lot of people because she was caught wearing a pair of jeans. For them she was wrong because she disobeyed the Sharia law and she deserved to be punished. For them it's right and justifiable to whip a woman in the middle of the street. Why? Because that's how they were raised, it's what they were led to believe.Now, since I have a diferent culture, a different ideology and different sense of morality, a different ethics, I think beating a woman just because she was wearing a pair of jeans is bad and wrong. And I'm an atheist.(PS: no one deserves to be beaten, no matter what the reasons are)I'm not better or worse than everybody else because I'm an atheist and I have different worldview from you; the same way you're not better or worse than everybody else because you are a christian and you have a different worldview from me.We are all humans and that's above of any religion, ideology, creed, faith, political parties and a chair on the Congress.
Michelle,>>Good/bad and right/wrong are subjective. That is called morality.IS that why Atheists are one step away from eating babies?Lets drive this home a bit then. You have NO problem if someone rapes your mother, brother, or sister then because morally they believe that is fine. You are unable to argue against it because morality, according to you, is merely subjective. Rape away! You are filth.>>(PS: no one deserves to be beaten, no matter what the reasons are)::sigh::Before we address that glaring contradiction to what you just said, you have made some assumptions of your point that you will have to defend before the claim is even valid. Like Razi Zacharias said that I highlight in one of my posts, you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for. That is your presupposition of the claim, is it not? Otherwise, the claim self destructs.>>I'm not better or worse than everybody else because I'm an atheist and I have different worldview from you; the same way you're not better or worse than everybody else because you are a christian and you have a different worldview from me.Only one of us delights in their evil and cherishes and nurtures it, unflinchingly. The other understands how evil we are and admits to it and repents of that behavior and wants to change. I will let you decide which is you.“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” (1 Corinthians 1: 18-20)
Dan +†+ Now it’s overreacting. I’m not an immoral person. I said we have different notions of right/wrong and here you come saying things about atheist eating babies (that’s the same thing US politicians thought about the communists and that point of view came to Brazil during the military regime) and about me agreeing with rape? I have a friend who was raped, how dare you to say I not against rape? Of course I am. I don’t wish that on anybody. Now, someone being able to eat babies and rape people and think that’s right it means this person have a wrong sense of ethics. This person knows is wrong, but he or she just doesn’t care. The perfect example of this: pedophile priests. For me, it’s very wrong molesting kids. If priests are religious and believe/fear god and pray everyday, they should have an amazing sense of morality and ethics, don’t you think? There’s nothing to with being an atheist, a christian, a jew, a muslin, a secular humanist, an agnostic, etc… Now, you base your morality on the bible. There are passages in the bible that incites rape, incest, stoning of disobedient children, slavery and killing of those who are not god’s believers. That’s moral and ethical to you? If it is – and in case you have a kid – you can take this kid to his/her grandparents in the limits of your town so he/she can be stoned to death when he/she doesn’t obey you. And you won’t be wrong, after all it’s in bible, the most moral book in the world, right? >>Only one of us delights in their evil and cherishes and nurtures it, unflinchingly. The other understands how evil we are and admits to it and repents of that behavior and wants to change. I will let you decide which is you. What I said is we have different notions of right/wrong and good/evil. I didn’t say anything about evil alone. A human being is both good and evil. We are capable of doing bad things and good things. We are not perfect. Sometimes we repent and change (not all of us need a god/priest to do that) other times we don’t. That’s the human nature. Please, don’t tell me you never did anything bad/wrong in your life?
Michelle,>>Now, someone being able to eat babies and rape people and think that’s right it means this person have a wrong sense of ethics.Wrong to who? Your worldview subscribes to subjective morality. If you are suggesting a universal morality then you are subscribing, or borrowing, from my worldview to do so.This is the point. You CANNOT complain about other's morality if its merely subjective. Is there such a thing as absolute morality? If not, you have no argument.
Dan +†+See? You just made my point. Morality is always subjective, so there's no such thing as absolute morality. It changes from one person to another, to an epoch to another, to a social group to another and to one society to another.First example: in seventeenth century was permited underaged girls to marry with men who were old enough to be their fathers and this still happens nowadays in India and in some muslim countries and in US in some mormon communities. In my country it's illegal and imoral to marry underaged girls with older men because is considered sexual abuse.Second example: In Ancient Egypt brothers and sisters married to one another so the reign would remain in the family. That was considered correct back then. Nowadays it's illegal and imoral because is considered incest.Now, just because someone thinks is right to rape people it doesn't mean I don't have the right to complain. I have the right to disagree and to complain about it. It's called freedom of thought and freedom of speech.Third example: the president of your country is caught embezzling money that was destined to education and health system and when he was caught he said he was right because when the president does it, it's not illegal (Richard Nixon said that in the interview with David Frost justifying his acts on the Watergate).Of course you will not agree with him, after all that's stealing and it's morally - and ethically - wrong. But based on you said to me here, neither you or the rest of the population won't have the right to go on the streets to protest and to complain about it, demanding his impeachment and arrest because someone else (in this case, the president) said the embezzle of money was right.
Michelle,>>Of course you will not agree with him, after all that's stealing and it's morally - and ethically - wrong.Are you crazy or retarded?Its my argument that morality is absolute and objective. Your worldview states that its merely subjective.How can you say that something is morally wrong within your worldview? You cannot say something is "wrong", like rape, because others believe its fine. Certainly sea lions. Its natural for evolution and apparently atheists, like you.>>But based on you said to me here, neither you or the rest of the population won't have the right to go on the streets to protest and to complain about it, demanding his impeachment and arrest because someone else (in this case, the president) said the embezzle of money was right.Do you understand what you have done here? What you have done is what is called a quote mine. You just took what I said out of context.If I were to say "Hitler said, All Jews should die!" then you would go screaming to the townspeople that Dan said "All Jews should die!"Which would be the truth I did say that "all Jews should die" but just in the context of what Hitler once said. Do you see how damaging that is if things are to be taken out of context?I am sure you would admit, if you are honest, that what you just said is in fact a lie!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dan +†+I didn't take what you said out of context. Here's what you said in comment before the last one you posted: "This is the point. You CANNOT complain about other's morality if its merely subjective. Is there such a thing as absolute morality? If not, you have no argument."An example: you walking down the street and a man appears out of the nowhere, points a gun at you and tell you to give all your money. Robbery is wrong - on your point of view (depending on the situation, in mine too) - but it's right from the point of view of the robber, after all he wants money to buy his drugs. Since it's subjective, you can't complain to the robber or even go to a police station to ask for help, right? Since it's subjective you have to shut up and go back home without a cent in your pocket. The robber thinks is justifiable to steal money from people because in the present situation he's in...if an year from your robbery this robber stops using drugs, he won't see the necessity to rob people in the streets anymore because his situation changed)Now there's no such a thing as absolute morality. Why? There would only be an absolute morality if everybody in the whole world - despite the time they lived; their culture, their personal experiences; the kind of society they live; the social group they belong to; the ideology they follow or religious belief they have - had the same notion of right/wrong. But it doesn't happen that way(only in your head).Morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. Describing morality is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by an individual or some group of people.You showed me a video of sea lions. Sea lions? Really? Yes, sure sea lions and humans beings are equals; they have the same habits and instincts. (in case you don't know I'm being sarcastic).Sweety, sea lions and human beings are different species; we don't have the same habits and instincts sea lions have. So it's kind of stupid/naive of your part to compare sea lions with human beings. Sea lions don't have sense of morality and don't have notion of right and wrong. So, showing me a video of sea lions attacking each other to show why some HUMAN BEINGS think rape is right it's very lame.Something about the sea lions: sea lions are very territorial; they attack anyone who invades their territory, including other sea lions. When this happens, they have a match and the loser pack leaves and the leader of the loser pack is pratically left to die. The other case is male sea lions have the habit at arriving in some territory first and establish there; the females arrive the males compete against other sea lions to acquire a harem.A sea lion (in that case a female) can and will attack if another female comes close of her pups and even attack other pups who tries to get their milk; that's the case of the video you sent me; it's a female sea lion attacking a baby sea lion. This video is out of context (and then you tell me I take things out of context...ok then.)Now I'm going to ask you some questions and I really want you to answer me (without turning to the bible or any other religious book and without giving the predictable answers "god decides what is moral or not/because it's in the bible"):1 - If there's an absolute and objective morality, so what is it? What are the rules of this absolute morality? Who decides what is moral and what is not?
Michelle>>Sea lions don't have sense of morality and don't have notion of right and wrong.So we are now morally separate then other animals? Better not speak too loud, your evolutionary friends will hear you.But humans do! So, again, how do you ACCOUNT for that? If "there's no such a thing as absolute morality". How is is possible that humans have it, if morality is merely subjective like those sea lions? Unless its your claim that raping babies for fun is still moral. Is that your claim?>>1 - If there's an absolute and objective morality, so what is it? What are the rules of this absolute morality? Who decides what is moral and what is not?God gives us the absolute morality. He is the absolute authority in that its wrong to lie, not because He says so, but because He doesn't lie. We are made in that image. Even in the OT God held, not only the Israelites, but the entire world to that standard. I am sure Sodom decided not to listen to that standard but they ultimately paid the price for not doing so. Its based on God's nature and that is why you know, with certainty, that lying is wrong and raping, or eating, babies is wrong. Christianity offers a cohesive worldview whereby we do have an objective standard so when somebody tortures you; rapes you; murders you; we can say, No, that is wrong. It's not just personal preference, it's objectively wrong. You have no such avenue. If someone rejects Christianity they will end up, if they're honest and consistent, at the bottom with radical skepticism. All bets are off and all up for grabs. Completely arbitrary moral system; it's going to be pick and choose.
Dan +†+In terms of having a sense of morality, human beings are separate from other animals. They don't have a high functioning brain as we have, honey. Animals such sea lions, fishes, whales, tigers, birds, pandas, kangaroos, etc, follow their instinct because is the only thing they have. The only rules they follow is the natural ones, not the moral or ethical rules, because they don't have the notion of it. Sea lions don't have any morality; they don't know the meaning of it. When they see some pack invading their territory, they don't stop to think if it's morally right or wrong to attack the invaders; they just do it.But - in my opinion - we are not better than the animals because we have a sense of morality. When a human being attacks, kills, rape, kidnap or do something bad to another human being is not because of instinct (in the case of attacking someone in self defense is an exception, after all every living being have the instinct of survival. But before you think wrong and distort what I said, there's no such thing as rape someone for self defense, ok?) is because he has some personality disorder (like psycopathy) or because he hates this person, or because he wants to show power and dominance over someone, the reasons are many. And that makes the act of violence worse, because we have the notion that attacking someone just for the sake of it it's wrong, but some of us do it anyway without considering the consequences that will come not only for the attacker but also for the attacked. That makes us worse than the sea lions and any other animal.Did you understand what I said about the sea lion video? It's a female sea lion beating a baby sea lion (not raping) because this baby sea lion invade her space. As I said, sea lions are territorial and they don't like to see their territory invaded.Now, what that site has to do with the proof of god? The existence of god is not an absolute truth. There's no such thing as absolute truth. I saw that site before and it's full of bullshit from the beggining to the end. A website claiming to have the proof of the existence of god is not evidence. I can make a site where it says the universe and the world came from a floating goat that pissed all over the dark sky giving birth to the stars and the planets, galaxies and life on earth and give a lot of "evidence" about it. Does it mean that's (absolute) truth? There are a lot of sites saying fairies, goblings, leprechauns and other elementals really exist - so according to your logic - they must be real, right?I'll repeat the warning I gave you about the questions I made to you: WITHOUT TURNING TO THE BIBLE OR ANY OTHER RELIGIOUS BOOK AND WITHOUT GIVING PREDICTABLE ANSWERS "GOD DECIDES WHAT IS MORAL OR NOT/BECAUSE IT'S IN THE BIBLE.)Now, I'll ask you again and I'll add another question: 1 - If there's an absolute and objective morality, so what is it - according to you? What are the rules of this absolute morality? Who decides what is moral and what is not? If there's an absolute truth, what is it - according to you?But now - considering your answer - if god gives us the absolute morality and we are made in that image, no wonder human beings are so immoral sometimes. After all, god incites and condones rape, incest, slavery, murder, homophobia, hate, jealousy, selfishness, ingratitude, the list goes on... So the next time a catholic priest is caught on the act molesting a poor altar boy (ruining this boy's life forever) he can say god is on his side because god is in favour of sexual abuse.
Dan +†+Hey Danny boy (or girl - I don't know what's your gender identity) another thing: religion doesn't define character or morality, ok? ;)
Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>