1
   

Love, marraige, atheism...

 
 
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 07:45 am
Exactly. This window is not a concrete thing, it is just the arrangement of my computer hardware. My thoughts are nothing but the arrangement of my body's hardware.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 08:17 am
thunder_runner32 wrote:
Quote:
Some social frameworks (which include an implied moral framework) went quite the other direction, as a matter of fact. Hedonism is hardly encouraged in the Utopias of Plato and of Marx.


There was this other book that offers utopia with that same exact idea, what was it? Oh yeah, the bible.


What exact same idea? Plato's and Marx's visions were polar opposites.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 09:26 am
thunder_runner32 wrote:
No, I had this thought on my own. I understand that we can set up laws and such so that men could live peacefully, but, just open your mind with me for a second...look at what humanistic thinking has done, millions of innocent babies killed, by the hand of doctors who claim their will be no emotional side effects. The humanistic thinking of our society is not a good thing my friend...


Get one thing straight up front--i am not your friend. You have already told us that you are a student in high school. Schools do not teach any of the propaganda which you puke up about "humanists"--you have had to learn that from your religious indoctrinators. My mind is not only open on the topic of abortion--which you are willing to dance around without naming--i lived through the era in which Roe versus Wade was decided. I remember what it was like in the days when only rich women could afford safe abortions by flying to another country, and poor women died in back alleys. It is most certainly a talking point of religious propaganda to refer to aborted fetuses as murdered babies.

Perhaps you are naïve enough to believe that your claim to have an open mind and not to have reached your conclusions based on religious propaganda will be taken at face value--but it simply isn't so. As soon as you use an expression such as "the humanistic thinking of our society" you have glaringly demonstrated the propagandistic source of what passes for thinking on your part. Christians have been responsible for millions upon millions of deaths of men, women and children for two millenia--the stench of hypocricy in your propagandistic ranting is almost overwhelming. It is ludicrous to suggest that christians have as their object the setting up of laws so that men may live peacefully. The desire of the religious fanatic is for society to be so ordered that it will be peaceful only when everyone is forced to adhere to the "moral" values of christianity, a belief set unrivalled for the slaughter committed by its adherents.

Quote:
There was this other book that offers utopia with that same exact idea, what was it? Oh yeah, the bible.


Another member has already quite pointedly disposed of this piece of crap assertion.

Quote:
What is your definition of soul?


An absurdity, that is no answer, it is simply a feeble and simple minded attempt to draw someone on a matter unrelated to the lack of a belief in a deity on the part of a good many people. These are people you are unable to understand by any other means than parrotting the progaganda you have been fed, because your mind is closed, and you cannot see anything beyond the nonsense you have been fed.

Quote:
I don't think I'm too far off track.


No you don't think so, because you don't think. You just repeat the same tired, old hate-filled christian propaganda. You continually invite others to open their minds. It is precisely because their minds are open, and they have seen religious fanaticism and its thousands of years of millions upon millions of murders that they reject the simple-minded pap you regurgitate here, and laughably refer to as open-mindedness. You are among the most deluded individuals who has ever come here to pedal your propaganda.
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 12:19 pm
Quote:
What exact same idea? Plato's and Marx's visions were polar opposites.


I meant, utopia not derived from hedonism...my bad.

Quote:
Get one thing straight up front--i am not your friend. You have already told us that you are a student in high school. Schools do not teach any of the propaganda which you puke up about "humanists"--you have had to learn that from your religious indoctrinators.


Well golly, is it possible I didn't learn it from either one, that I possibly came to the conclusion on my own? No, I only regergitate what my priest tells me.

Quote:
My mind is not only open on the topic of abortion--which you are willing to dance around without naming--i lived through the era in which Roe versus Wade was decided. I remember what it was like in the days when only rich women could afford safe abortions by flying to another country, and poor women died in back alleys. It is most certainly a talking point of religious propaganda to refer to aborted fetuses as murdered babies.


Why then, do women suffer from emotional side effects of abortions?

Quote:
Perhaps you are naïve enough to believe that your claim to have an open mind and not to have reached your conclusions based on religious propaganda will be taken at face value--but it simply isn't so. As soon as you use an expression such as "the humanistic thinking of our society" you have glaringly demonstrated the propagandistic source of what passes for thinking on your part. Christians have been responsible for millions upon millions of deaths of men, women and children for two millenia--the stench of hypocricy in your propagandistic ranting is almost overwhelming. It is ludicrous to suggest that christians have as their object the setting up of laws so that men may live peacefully. The desire of the religious fanatic is for society to be so ordered that it will be peaceful only when everyone is forced to adhere to the "moral" values of christianity, a belief set unrivalled for the slaughter committed by its adherents.


How much experience do you have inside the church? Many of the slaughters in history were not warranted, and unfortunately they used God as their reason, this is completey wrong.

Quote:
An absurdity, that is no answer, it is simply a feeble and simple minded attempt to draw someone on a matter unrelated to the lack of a belief in a deity on the part of a good many people. These are people you are unable to understand by any other means than parrotting the progaganda you have been fed, because your mind is closed, and you cannot see anything beyond the nonsense you have been fed.


There are many definitions of the soul, I wanted to know his opinion and definition.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 12:28 pm
There is of course, the standard appeal of christians when confronted with the blood-stained history of that dogma--those weren't real christians, real christians don't do things like that. If that were actually true, then one would be left with a handful of denominations from which to choose. I know of only the Society of Friends and the Unitarians as sects to which none of the blood adheres.

I don't for moment believe that you derived on your own a line about humanism which is so patently the product of reactionary christian talking points.
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 12:35 pm
Quote:
I don't for moment believe that you derived on your own a line about humanism which is so patently the product of reactionary christian talking points.


That's funny, because you don't even know me, you have prejudged everytime that I have gotten all my info from some guy in a robe.

Quote:
There is of course, the standard appeal of christians when confronted with the blood-stained history of that dogma--those weren't real christians, real christians don't do things like that. If that were actually true, then one would be left with a handful of denominations from which to choose. I know of only the Society of Friends and the Unitarians as sects to which none of the blood adheres.


Again, please don't even try to prejudge what my church does. Never has my church taken any kind of violent approach to anyone, even those who flat-out attack what we believe, people like yourself.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 12:37 pm
So you contend that you came up with terms like "humanistic thinking of our society" entirely on your own, and never heard it before anywhere? It think you're lying.

I also believe you are seriously deluded about the purity of your sect.
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 12:40 pm
I'm sure all the terms you use are completely original... Rolling Eyes

I believe you don't know anything about my church.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2005 12:42 pm
I'm not the one who contends that everything i advance in debate is an original thought of my own--you have been doing that. I don't believe it. I don't believe it when you contend your particular sect is simon pure. Get over it.
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2005 08:01 am
It's obviously not completey pure, nothing man-made is. When did I say that everything I state, is a completely original thought?
0 Replies
 
djbt
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2005 09:06 am
Thomas wrote:
As a physicist whose brain is infested with computer science concepts, I like to think of the soul as software, and of flesh, bones, and nerves as hardware. Nobody doubts I can be a consistent atheist and believe that computers run software; so I don't see why religionists such as thunder_runner have so much trouble with the concept that I can be a consistent atheist and believe that humans have souls.

Speaking from a position of ignorance, and possibly misunderstanding or over-stretching your analogue, isn't the point of software that it makes the computer operable by an outside source, i.e. a person?
Also, is software conscious?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2005 10:59 am
djbt wrote:
Speaking from a position of ignorance, and possibly misunderstanding or over-stretching your analogue, isn't the point of software that it makes the computer operable by an outside source, i.e. a person?

Not quite. The point of software is to make the computer operable. As it happens, most software is programmed by outside sources, but that's not what makes it software. You can imagine a random computer program that wasn't programmed by anyone. It would be bad software, but it would still be software, as opposed to hardware.

djbt wrote:
Also, is software conscious?

Not yet, but there's no reason in principle why it couldn't be. Organic life took billions of years before it evolved consciousness, so it doesn't mean much that computer software hasn't managed this in 50 years.
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 09:26 am
Do animals have different software than humans?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 09:49:51