I'm an aethist....

fresco wrote:

Bartikus,

Armed conflicts are extensions of tribalism which we share with the higher primates. In humans Religion gives "authority" and "rationality" to such tribalism thereby exacerbating its worst excesses.

If this is what science tells you and you do not know the origins of science......how can you know where it's taking you? Faith?

0 Replies

Bartikus,

I'm going into the ridiculous discussion of the lay concept of "proof". The evidence of tribalism in higher primates is well established.

If your beliefs include the concept of "an afterlife" then YOU can be deemed guilty by association of giving "support" to any lunatic who bases HIS violent actions in whole or in part on such a belief.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Bartikus,

I'm going into the ridiculous discussion of the lay concept of "proof". The evidence of tribalism in higher primates is well established.

If your beliefs include the concept of "an afterlife" then YOU can be deemed guilty by association of giving "support" to any lunatic who bases HIS violent actions in whole or in part on such a belief.

So, if I believe in an afterlife, I am then guilty by association along with say for example, a Muslim who flies a plane into a building and kills thousands of people because I believe in an afterlife?

0 Replies

Precisely !..... you have lost "the moral authority" to condemn the actions of fundamentalists who are merely rejecting your own ad hoc boundary of a common "religious (ir)rationality".

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Bartikus,

I'm going into the ridiculous discussion of the lay concept of "proof". The evidence of tribalism in higher primates is well established.

If your beliefs include the concept of "an afterlife" then YOU can be deemed guilty by association of giving "support" to any lunatic who bases HIS violent actions in whole or in part on such a belief.

wow.

Ok, so based on this concept of yours..... the fact that you do not believe in God would put you on the same playing field as those who also do not believe in God, but do believe in killing people.

0 Replies

No. That doesn't follow.

If I supported the death penalty then a reasonable expectation for me would be that innocent parties would occasionally be executed. My support is tantamount to my complicity in such an event. It is only by my withdrawal of support, or indeed my actions in voting against it that I can remove this complicity. If I continued my support I would saying the death of innocent victims is regretable but acceptable for "the good of the majority".

However, the problems with support for "an afterlife" are
1. that the kill rate for innocent victims has accelerated recently.

Thus "acceptability" is the central issue and is complicated by:

2.that "afterlife" devalues the impact of "death"

3. that religion can claim "we are all sinners" i.e. there are no "innocent parties".

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

No. That doesn't follow.

If I supported the death penalty then a reasonable expectation for me would be that innocent parties would occasionally be executed. My support is tantamount to my complicity in such an event. It is only by my withdrawal of support, or indeed my actions in voting against it that I can remove this complicity. If I continued my support I would saying the death of innocent victims is regretable but acceptable for "the good of the majority".

However, the problems with support for "an afterlife" are
1. that the kill rate for innocent victims has accelerated recently.

Thus "acceptability" is the central issue and is complicated by:

2.that "afterlife" devalues the impact of "death"

3. that religion can claim "we are all sinners" i.e. there are no "innocent parties".

Where did you read anything about the death penalty? Shocked

I am talking about killing somebody.... not the death penalty. You lost me after that.

0 Replies

Hey hey hey
I'm back. I think my SSATs went well thank you. Also something I'd like to clear up. When I was describing my self I meant I noticed people of my age level to be incapable of critical thinking, not adults. Anyhow, I didn't get around to reading all the replies because of laziness/dilated eyes from an eye oppointment. Ill read some comments now.

0 Replies

I see we are on the subject of heaven and hell. I personally don't belive in them. I merely see them as a fantasy reward/punishment set foward by the church. Live by our rules, go to heaven. Commit a "sin" to eternal damnation!!

0 Replies

Re: Hey hey hey

young_thinker wrote:

I'm back. I think my SSATs went well thank you. Also something I'd like to clear up. When I was describing my self I meant I noticed people of my age level to be incapable of critical thinking, not adults. Anyhow, I didn't get around to reading all the replies because of laziness/dilated eyes from an eye oppointment. Ill read some comments now.

One thing you will probably soon learn, is that critical thinking ability is not proportionate to age whatsoever.
It is proportionate to intelligence, which is pretty much a constant within an individual.
Not to say critical thinking can't be learned, just that it can't be learned by everyone
The vast majority are dullards

0 Replies

My discussion of "support for the death penalty" was an analogy for "support for an afterlfe" since both cause death.

Your argument about disbelief in God "putting me in the same camp as " atheists with various views or behaviours is totally fallacious. There is no logical or semantic connection between "atheist" and "murderer" but there IS a connection between "theist" and "afterlfe"(and "martyrdom").

0 Replies

Indeed Doctor S. I said that and was immediately shot down by Momma Angel. Also please don't preach to anyone on this thread, aethiest or religious. Anyhow, on my walk with my dog I figured this out:

The world was started either by:

A big guy in the sky in 6 days, down to every molecule and atom. On the seventh day he rested.

or

Out of nowhere there was a big bang. Then the universe began in a trillionth of a second. Then there was another big bang (inflation). An then the universe started.

They both sound pretty odd from a neutral point of view. The Big Bang theory has evidence and math behind it. Creationism does not, it's a theory with out proof.

Discuss.

PS. Bartikus, who's side are you on? I can't figure it out.

0 Replies

Quote:

Indeed Doctor S. I said that and was immediately shot down by Momma Angel.

Beliefs based in stratification are generally vilified by those whose beliefs root in egalitarianism. Nothing new there.

Quote:

Also please don't preach to anyone on this thread, aethiest or religious.

I wasn't aware I was proselytizing in any way. For the record, I am neither an 'atheist' or a religionist in the strictest sense of either term.

Quote:

The world was started either by:

A big guy in the sky in 6 days, down to every molecule and atom. On the seventh day he rested.

or

Out of nowhere there was a big bang. Then the universe began in a trillionth of a second. Then there was another big bang (inflation). An then the universe started.

You have been sucked into accepting this bifurcation.
This is a classic false dichotomy, one of the apologists favorites.

0 Replies

Doktor S I wasn't referring to you when I talked about preaching, I was talking to KickyCan. Remember, I'm only 14, so I don't know much about much. Sad

One thing I have consistently noticed on this thread is people attacking each other with questions but not answering questions. I know I do this too. Embarrassed

0 Replies

As I said, age aint ****.
Age will bring you more experience with which to temper your thoughts, but age won't enhance your thinking ability itself.
That you notice and strive to rectify the problem of 'one way communication' already puts you 3 steps ahead of the crowd.

0 Replies

I posted a new thread if anyone is interested....http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1773975#1773975

0 Replies

I will pipe up to say you might consider taking Kicky's post with a grain of salt (or not).

Sorry, kicky..

0 Replies

Thanks for not addressing the questions fresco.

This behavior you show is well established.

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Thanks for not addressing the questions fresco.

This behavior you show is well established.

?

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Bartikus,

I'm going into the ridiculous discussion of the lay concept of "proof". The evidence of tribalism in higher primates is well established.

If your beliefs include the concept of "an afterlife" then YOU can be deemed guilty by association of giving "support" to any lunatic who bases HIS violent actions in whole or in part on such a belief.

I was'nt asking for evidence regarding tribalism....

I was asking for evidence that showed religions effect on war as opposed to the non religious.

I can be deemed guilty by whom? By your words?

If your beliefs include the concept of "_________________" then YOU can be deemed guilty by association of giving "support" to any lunatic who bases HIS violent actions in whole or in part on such a belief

You have no idea the possible effects of such a statement do you?

Do you all recognize the nature of this statement?

Deeming a person who believes in the concept of Love as guilty by association.......No?

You seek to use this measure in a prejudicial way only right? That is the nature and purpose of prejudicial remarks though is'nt?

Just as long as the broad brush approach is not ever used against you!

Then you are down with it. It is well established that bigotry also leads to armed conflict....does it not?

0 Replies

I'm an aethist....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know