Why Do We Honor That Which Is Immoral?

[Natasha]

Why Do We Honor That Which Is Immoral?

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_154515.asp
7/8/09

On June 1, 2009 our President authorized his support to the United
Nations for a Gay Rights Declaration. He said, "I, Barack Obama,
President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority
vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do
hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back
discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists."

So here is the truth part. Where have we gone as a nation when we
support and declare an entire month in honor of that which is immoral.

[therese]

In history, more people have been killed in the name of god thanin any other name. During the crusades, christians slaughtered muslims and jews in the name of god, and today there are small groups of muslims who want to slaughter christians in the name of allah (god). All this makes me glad I'm an atheist, but the contents of that link even more so.

Even though I'm an atheist, I still think I have some knowledge about the bible and it's contents. It's texts were written, what, 1700 years ago? After having been handed down by mouth for houndreds of years? So whatever Jesus once said about anything, it's fair to say it's distorted by time.

I've forgotten what my point was, but it doesn't matter anyway. It's impossible to argue with christians anyway. They blatantly refuse to see the logic of the other persons words, and prefer to follow the beliefs of people who are nothing but sand now. Times change for ->-bleeped-<-s sake! It's not the medevil times anymore.

In closing, I can't seem to understand why anyone would want to worship a narcissistic, sadistical deity, who believes that in order to reach his heaven, one can't live a normal, happy life. Narcissistic, because he wants people to honour him above anything else, and sadistic because, well everything. Blast, I hate trying to be provocative in the middle of the night, it's difficult

My point is, whatever some religious person or group think about how someone else live their lives, they should keep it to themselves. IT DOES NOT CONCERN THEM!

[Mister]

In history, more people have been killed in the name of god thanin any other name.

I will kill you, I swear to Bill!

doesn't have the same ring to it.

[Lisbeth]

In history, more people have been killed in the name of god thanin any other name. During the crusades, christians slaughtered muslims and jews in the name of god, and today there are small groups of muslims who want to slaughter christians in the name of allah (god).

That sounds pretty immoral to me.

[Tammy Hope]

In history, more people have been killed in the name of god thanin any other name.

Well duh.

Men have believed in some deity for their entire existence - tens of thousands of years.

I don't think any other possible person one would invoke for the purpose of killing can match that length of time. for instance, if one kills in the name of Ceaser - even if he means all the Ceaser's combined - that's a few hundred years.

So that statement, while oft repeated, is pretty much a null program.

During the crusades, christians slaughtered muslims and jews in the name of god,

And Muslims likewise. Although anyone who thinks the Crusades were REALLY about Christianity and not politics hasn't looked very close.

and today there are small groups of muslims who want to slaughter christians in the name of allah (god). All this makes me glad I'm an atheist, but the contents of that link even more so.

Even though I'm an atheist, I still think I have some knowledge about the bible and it's contents. It's texts were written, what, 1700 years ago?

Some as much as 3,000 years, some as little as roughly 1900 years

After having been handed down by mouth for hundreds of years? So whatever Jesus once said about anything, it's fair to say it's distorted by time.

Actually, no. there is a massive amount of BS and poor scholarship afoot out there, propagated by the ignorant via the internet, to this effect but it's entirely untrue.

There is SOLID evidence that much of the NT, likely all of it, was written within the first generation of Christ's death (within 70 years of Calvary) and there is MASSIVE textual evidence that what we have is very close to what was actually written.

(research sometime and see how much textual evidence we have for the original content of, for instance, The Odyssey and how contemporary it is to the original for comparison)

I've forgotten what my point was, but it doesn't matter anyway. It's impossible to argue with christians anyway. They blatantly refuse to see the logic of the other persons words,

As opposed to all the pleasant and open-minded and tolerant atheists we have running the countryside?

Being hard to argue with, or stubborn, or self-righteous, or illogical are not traits confined to Christians or any other religion - they are traits of the human condition and found in all belief systems. Including Atheism.

and prefer to follow the beliefs of people who are nothing but sand now. Times change for ->-bleeped-<-s sake! It's not the medevil times anymore.

Not a totally invalid argument - just because the New Testament is a reliable reflection of Jesus' teachings (and it is) doesn't by any means prove he was right.

But then, even in this you are generalizing blatantly and, IMO, illogically. Not all Christians refuse to change with the times. There are a wide variety of Christian practices and for many many Christians, your charge about "midevil times" would seem utterly laughable in it's inaccuracy.

It seems to me there's a lot of the same sort of harshness in your prejudgments and prejudices against Christianity as you would expect to find among Fundamentalist towards transgenders.

which just goes to illustrate the point that such things are not confined to Christians.

In closing, I can't seem to understand why anyone would want to worship a narcissistic, sadistical deity, who believes that in order to reach his heaven, one can't live a normal, happy life. Narcissistic, because he wants people to honour him above anything else, and sadistic because, well everything. Blast, I hate trying to be provocative in the middle of the night, it's difficult

It would be more provocative if it wasn't a tired repetition of the same generic rants that have been tossed out by unbelievers for hundreds of years, and tossed out in massive volume since the internet gave everyone a soapbox.

I could offer you some thoughts to consider on your points...but I tire of this discussion. In my years online, I find VERY fe athiest who have an open mind to considering the possible logic behind the things that the Bible says about God (and for the record, I'm NOT a literalist by a long shot...but I do have enough sense to apply some logical reasoning tothe claims that are made instead of just a knee-jerk rant).

My point is, whatever some religious person or group think about how someone else live their lives, they should keep it to themselves. IT DOES NOT CONCERN THEM!

Well yeah. THAT was a solid point and would have worked MUCH better without the needless ranting.

Post Merge: July 10, 2009, 11:41:41 PM
What's the point, anyway, in getting bent out of shape over a letter to the editor? All kinds of nutty things get written in such letters. No one ever does anything but amen what affirms there previous beliefs and dismiss those which don't.

Seems a waste of time to notice them.

[finewine]

There is SOLID evidence that much of the NT, likely all of it, was written within the first generation of Christ's death (within 70 years of Calvary) and there is MASSIVE textual evidence that what we have is very close to what was actually written.

Well yes and no, not wishing to digress into an academic debate on this point but the date of origin and mutation of meaning through time & translation (and a little deliberate manipulation later in history) make this far from clear cut.  Of course, it depends where you do the research   Proponents and opponents each have a tendency to consult christian and atheist resources, which are both spun in favour of their respective agendas.

As opposed to all the pleasant and open-minded and tolerant atheists we have running the countryside?

Being hard to argue with, or stubborn, or self-righteous, or illogical are not traits confined to Christians or any other religion - they are traits of the human condition and found in all belief systems. Including Atheism.

I have to agree.  It's a constant dismay to me that it's so hard to engage in rational conversation, especially on emotive topics and especially on the 'net where the uglier aspects of human personality get let of the leash.  As an atheist myself, it frustrates me when I see other atheists display these traits...the whole point of atheism is simply an absence of belief in a deity based on one's own rational, logical analysis.  Nothing pollutes the perception of atheism more than when atheists exhibit all the dogmatic, irrational and logically flawed behaviours they shrilly decry.

Unless I know the person I'm debating with well so that I can be confident that we can have a mutually respectful and rational discussion, I tend to avoid religious debates - and most definitely here on the 'net.  I couldn't care less what religious beliefs other people have, as long as they keep it to themselves and don't impose it on me (directly via evangelism/coercion or indirectly through undermining the secularism of the state).

[tekla]

the whole point of atheism is simply an absence of belief in a deity based on one's own rational, logical analysis.  Nothing pollutes the perception of atheism more than when atheists exhibit all the dogmatic, irrational and logically flawed behaviours they shrilly decry.

Really, that's more the definition of an agnostic, one who does not claim to know.  Atheism, like any other 'ism' is a belief unto itself.

[finewine]

the whole point of atheism is simply an absence of belief in a deity based on one's own rational, logical analysis.  [...]

Really, that's more the definition of an agnostic, one who does not claim to know.  Atheism, like any other 'ism' is a belief unto itself.

Meh, sort of An agnostic is one who doesn't commit to the existence or non-existence of god; whether that is because they just don't know or as some form of Pascal's Wager.  Atheism does commit to the non-existence of god - although yes, I admit you're quite correct to say that is a "belief in the non-existence of god".

I don't have a problem with the term "belief" because nothing is a 100% certainty.  If the old bugger appears before me and bitch-slaps me upside the head, I'll change my tune

[therese]

I've just remembered what my point was yeasterday. My point was that (imo) when it comes to religion, there is no point arguing. Most people will almost always refuse to see the other persons logic, and I must admit that I'm one of those myself. My point was, that if anyone says anything that goes against another persons beliefs, they'll get an earfull, just as I just had. No matter what the topic, there will always be people who disagree violently, as can be seen in the replies in the link.

Yesterday, I was provocative on purpuse, just to see what kind of reaction I'd get. I expected to be put in my place and I was. What I can never understand though, is why people never just think "This is a person who believes in something different than me. So what? Let them live in their delusion. I belive in this and that, so I'm better off". As long as nobody gets hurt, why not let people believe what they want to belive? And that goes both ways, no matter how many gods one belive in.

[Cindy]

Hi therese.

I agree with you. That's why I no longer post in religous debates; unless they are insulting, which I think is immoral. I'm also always a little suprised about how such a 'self proclaimed' marginal group such as ourselves are so ready to not accept other peoples opinions. OK I will not accept hate groups and their ilk, but surely we of all people need to see that diversity in belief is human and to accept that in the hope that people will accept me, and you, and you.

Otherwise we always end up with the: that load of F**k Wits are wrong. My load of F**k wits are right.

Doesn't go anywhere for me. Northern Ireland. Israel and Palastine. Cyprus. Greece and Turkey, just a few places where logical argument prevail.

Cindy

[Tammy Hope]

Yesterday, I was provocative on purpuse, just to see what kind of reaction I'd get. I expected to be put in my place and I was. What I can never understand though, is why people never just think "This is a person who believes in something different than me. So what? Let them live in their delusion. I belive in this and that, so I'm better off". As long as nobody gets hurt, why not let people believe what they want to belive? And that goes both ways, no matter how many gods one belive in.

On THIS I absolutely agree with you. My point, when I jump into something like this, is that one gets the facts which are provable right. what you want to BELIEVE based on those facts is none of my business.

But it always irks me when someone states something as fact that is categorically not true. Because very often another person will take that deceleration and run with it and base their whole position unwittingly on a falsehood. (and actually I'm trying to break myself of even that because I don't feel very ladylike when i get into debates - which is a lame stereotype I know but I can't help it)

But what you believe in the realm of unprovable ideas is absolutely something I want to stay out of.

[finewine]

The problem is that facts aren't as objectively self-evident as we'd like, so folks end up arguing over whose "facts" are actually facts.  Especially when the "facts" are interpreted to fit a conclusion, rather than starting out completely unprejudiced and drawing a conclusion from the facts.

The following is meant more to illustrate the point rather than take sides in the context of this discussion, so no offence is intended (believe me, far too many atheists are just as guilty of this type of behaviour)...

[Tammy Hope]

The problem is that facts aren't as objectively self-evident as we'd like, so folks end up arguing over whose "facts" are actually facts.

Certainly not all of them.

But there's also certainly some sloppy thinking all around when these subjects come up.

On other boards I've been known to tell the person I agreed with that they were making a weak argument and the person I disagreed with was eating their lunch. I've come around to where I care more about how well one makes their argument than about whether or not they are right simply because I get ticked at weak and shallow argumentation.

Still, i really should leave these threads (religion and politics) alone because they tempt me to be more....adamant...than I'm comfortable with.

[finewine]

Laura dear, I completely understand!  Unless I can't resist (due to some stale old canard being regurgitated) I usually just pull out the virtual popcorn and spectate while the plebians wrestle in the mud for my amusement. After all, who on earth really thinks a debate like that would ever be resolved on some random forum or board?

Most of the time, these arguments morph and continue because of the simple psychology that people cannot back down in "public"...xkcd sums it up nicely...

[Tammy Hope]

THAT one goes into mt "steal and shamelessly reuse" file!